Search

Background: Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) as a non-surgical therapy for facial rejuvenation is increasingly adopted. This article aims to review the literature and critically appraise the available evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of PRP for facial rejuvenation., Material and Methods: An overview of systematic reviews (SRs) of PRP use for facial rejuvenation. The methodological quality of the SRs was assessed using the AMSTAR-2 checklist; quality of the evidence from the trials included in each SR was appraised following the GRADE approach., Results: Thirteen SRs published between 2015 and 2023, reporting data from 114 overlapping reports, based on 28 individual primary studies (18 uncontrolled reports), were included in this umbrella review. Eight primary studies evaluated PRP in combination with other treatments (laser therapy, fat grafting, hyaluronic acid, basic fibroblast growth factor), and 20 PRP monotherapy. Most of the included primary studies were uncontrolled, and meta-analysis for outcomes related to facial rejuvenation was conducted in only 1 of the 13 SRs, showing that patients treated with PRP as an adjunct treatment have increased satisfaction over controls without PRP (mean difference, 0.63; 95% confidence intervals (CIs) 0.25/1; p=0-001; low certainty of evidence due to risk of bias (ROB) and inconsistency). No other quantitative data were available from the SRs, although 4 SRs concluded in a descriptive way reveal that PRP combined with laser therapy increased subject satisfaction and skin elasticity, and decreased the erythema index (very low certainty of evidence due to imprecision, unsystematic clinical observations, and ROB). The occurrence of adverse events was a predefined outcome in only 2 SRs (15%). Almost all the SRs demonstrated poor compliance with the AMSTAR 2 items, and the confidence in the results of SRs was graded as low or critically low in 12 of the 13 SRs., Discussion: The available evidence is insufficient to suggest firm conclusions about the use of PRP, alone or in combination with other treatments, in promoting facial rejuvenation.

Background: A reappraisal of the conclusions of systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses validity related to Platelet-rich plasma (PRP), alone or in combination with other treatments, compared to regimens PRP-free for the treatment of acne scars., Materials and Methods: An overview of SRs. The methodological quality of the reviews was assessed using AMSTAR-2 checklist; quality of the evidence of primary studies was appraised following the GRADE approach., Results: Fifteen SRs were included in this overview. Data were from 124 overlapping reports, based on 34 individual primary studies (10 parallel arm randomized trials, 21 split-face studies, and 3 uncontrolled studies). Most of the studies evaluated combination of PRP with microneedling or with laser therapy compared to microneedling or laser therapy without PRP. Clinical improvement (reported as degree of improvement or improvement score) and patient's satisfaction rate were significantly higher in PRP recipients compared to controls. Crusting time and duration of erythema were significantly shorter in PRP recipients compared to controls. Most of the reviews considered in this overview can be considered of low methodological quality due to the fact that several critical methodological requirements of AMSTAR-2 checklist were unmet or partially met; only 6 of the 15 reviews incorporated study quality in their conclusions, and no GRADE assessment was performed for the reported outcomes in any of the SRs. With the GRADE approach, the quality of the evidence for the outcomes analysed ranged from very low to low due to risk of bias in the primary studies, inconsistency between the studies, and imprecision., Discussion: The low or very low certainty of evidence does not support clear clinical decision about the PRP use in combination with microneedling or laser therapy for the treatment of acne scars. Further well-designed studies are required to improve the evidence base for PRP combination therapy for acne scars.

Background: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we evaluated ultrasound (US)-guided injections of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) as conservative treatment of tendinopathies., Materials and Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS, OVID, and the Cochrane Library to identify randomized controlled trials (RCT) on the use of US-guided PRP for tendinopathies., Results: We found 33 RCT (2,025 subjects) that met our inclusion criteria: 8 in lateral epicondylitis, 5 in plantar fasciitis, 5 in Achilles tendinopathy, 7 in rotator cuff tendinopathy, 3 in patellar tendinopathy and 5 in carpal tunnel syndrome. PRP, given as a single injection (20 trials) or multiple injections (13 trials), was compared to US-guided injection of steroids, saline, autologous whole blood, local anesthetic, dry needling, prolotherapy, bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells, or with non-injective interventions. The outcomes more commonly reported included pain and functional measures, subgrouped as in the short-term (<3 months from the intervention), medium-term (3 to 6 months) or long-term (≥12 months). No clear between-group differences in these outcomes were observed in patients with lateral epicondylitis, plantar fasciitis, or Achilles, rotator cuff or patellar tendinopathy. In patients with carpal tunnel syndrome, visual analog scale scores for pain at 3 and 6 months and Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire severity scores at 1, 3 and 6 months were significantly lower in PRP recipients than in controls. The certainty of evidence of all these comparisons was graded as low or very low due to risk of bias, imprecision and/or inconsistency. Pain at the injection site was more common among PRP recipients than among controls receiving other US-guided injections., Discussion: In patients with tendinopathies, a trend towards pain reduction and functional improvement from baseline was observed after US-guided PRP injection, but in the majority of the comparisons, the effect size was comparable to that observed in control groups.

Background: The number of articles evaluating the efficacy of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in androgenetic alopecia (AGA) and alopecia areata (AA) has increased exponentially during the last years. This systematic review and meta-analysis is aimed at evaluating the benefit of PRP in the treatment of alopecia., Material and Methods: We searched MEDLINE (through PUBMED), Embase, and CENTRAL for relevant data. Treatment effect was described by mean difference (MD) and risk difference with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The GRADE system was used to assess the certainty of the body of evidence., Results: We found 27 controlled trials (1,117 subjects) that met our inclusion criteria: 18 trials (713 subjects) in patients with AGA, and 9 (404 subjects) in patients with AA. Eleven studies had a split head design. There was heterogeneity in types of PRP (e.g., activated and non-activated) and administration schedules. PRP was compared to saline injections (18 studies), local steroid injections (4 studies) and other comparators (5 studies). Most commonly reported outcomes were hair density and hair regrowth. It was not possible to pool all outcome data because of heterogeneity in reporting, and because reporting was often limited to a single study. Compared to saline injections, PRP injections increased hair density over a medium-term follow-up (MD, 25.6 hairs/cm 2 ; 95 % CI: 2.62-48.57), but the evidence was rated as low quality due to inconsistency and risk of bias. In individuals with AA, it is unclear whether PRP injection compared with triamcinolone injection increase the rate of subjects with hair regrowth (very-low quality of evidence due to inconsistency, imprecision, and risk of bias). There were no serious adverse events related to PRP injection or control treatments., Conclusions: There is limited evidence showing benefit of PRP for treatment of alopecia, and most of this evidence is of low quality.

Background: Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has been used in different non-transfusion indications due to its role in tissue regeneration and healing. The aim of this overview of systematic reviews (umbrella review) is to provide a summary of the existing research syntheses related to PRP use for sports-related muscle, tendon and ligament injuries., Materials and Methods: Literature searches were performed in MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library to identify systematic reviews focusing on PRP use for sports-related muscle, tendon and ligament injuries. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the checklist for systematic reviews and research syntheses developed by the Joanna Briggs Institute and the GRADE assessment., Results: Twenty-two studies met the inclusion criteria. Five studies evaluated PRP use for acute muscle injury, and 17 evaluated PRP use for tendon and ligament injury. Studies were heterogeneous in terms of the dose and number of PRP injections, and the control groups. Three of the 5 reviews evaluating acute muscle injury concluded that PRP had no effect on the outcomes considered. One review shows superior efficacy of rehabilitation exercise compared to PRP. One review shows that PRP may result in an earlier return to sport for acute grade I-II injury. Eight out of the 17 reviews evaluating PRP for tendon and ligament injuries show a statistically significant (p<0.05) difference in pain and/or function outcome measures favouring PRP compared to controls, although most of the observed differences were small. Adverse events data and quality of life outcomes were rarely analysed or reported in the included studies and were considered clinically insignificant., Discussion: In most of the included reviews, the available evidence was judged to be of low/very low quality due to risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision, thus making the level of certainty of these findings low and not adequate to support the general use of PRP in this setting.

Background: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the benefit of platelet rich plasma (PRP) in oral surgery., Materials and Methods: We performed a systematic search of the literature. The GRADE system was used to assess the certainty of the body of evidence., Results: We found 21 randomised controlled trials that met our inclusion criteria: 12 studies included patients with periodontal defects, five studies focused on healing of extraction sockets, three studies on sinus lift augmentation, and one study on periapical osseous defects. However, for the quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis), we evaluated "periodontal defects" studies only, since for other clinical contexts the number of studies were too low and the procedural heterogeneity was too high to allow pooling of data. PRP-containing regimens were compared to non-PRP-containing regimens. Primary outcomes for the evaluation of periodontal defects were probing depths, clinical attachment level, gingival recession, and radiographic bone defect. It is not usually clear whether or not the use of PRP compared to controls affects "probing depth" at long-term follow up; the between group differences were small and unlikely to be of clinical importance (i.e., very low quality of evidence). For the other outcomes analysed ("clinical attachment levels", "gingival recession", "bony defect"), we observed a very slight marginal clinical benefit of PRP compared to controls. The available evidence for these comparisons was rated as low quality as most of the studies selected showed inconsistency, imprecision, and risk of bias., Discussion: Evidence from a comparison between the use in oral surgery of PRP-containing regimens compared to other regimens not-containing PRP was of low quality. The results of the meta-analysis, limited to studies in patients with periodontal defects, document that PRP was slightly more effective compared to controls not-containing PRP.

Background: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the benefit of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in non-surgical orthopaedic procedures., Material and Methods: We searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE (through PUBMED), Embase, and SCOPUS. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies and checked reference lists to identify additional studies., Results: We found 36 randomised controlled trials (2,073 patients) that met our inclusion criteria. The included studies mostly had small numbers of participants (from 20 to 225). Twenty-eight studies included patients with lateral epicondylitis or plantar fasciitis. PRP was compared to local steroids injection (19 studies), saline injection (6 studies), autologous whole blood (4 studies), local anaesthetic injection (3 studies), dry needling injection (3 studies), and to other comparators (4 studies). Primary outcomes were pain and function scores, and adverse events. On average, it is unclear whether or not use of PRP compared to controls reduces pain scores and functional score at short- (up to 3 months) and medium- (4-6 months) term follow-up. The available evidence for all the comparisons was rated as very low quality due to inconsistency, imprecision, and risk of bias in most of the selected studies. There were no serious adverse events related to PRP injection or control treatments., Conclusions: The results of this meta-analysis, which documents the very marginal effectiveness of PRP compared to controls, does not support the use of PRP as conservative treatment in orthopaedics.