Achilles tendinopathy is a common overuse condition that is characterized by degenerative, cumulative tissue microtrauma. It is largely a clinical diagnosis in which the patient typically presents with localized pain that is worse with tendon-loading activities. Imaging modalities may be helpful with the diagnosis of difficult cases or in the planning of interventional procedures. Midportion (noninsertional) and insertional tendinopathy have distinct features and differences for therapeutic paradigms. Overall, Achilles tendinopathy has a good clinical prognosis with most patients improving with activity modification and rehabilitation, with a focus on progressive tendon-loading. Recalcitrant cases may require adjuvant treatment with procedures (e.g., injections, shockwave therapy) and rarely surgical intervention.

Objective Platelet‐rich plasma (PRP) has been increasingly studied as a treatment for tendinopathy. Many factors may influence outcomes after PRP, including different protocols following administration. It was hypothesized that there would be heterogeneity in post‐PRP protocols. Literature Survey A systematized review of the literature on post‐PRP protocols for tendinopathy was conducted using an electronic search of MEDLINE and Embase databases through September 2018. Methodology After duplicates were removed, English language articles involving adult patients who received PRP for tendinopathy were reviewed. Exclusion criteria included studies with fewer than 10 patients, PRP used to treat pathology other than tendinopathy, multiple protocols in one study, and surgical settings. Protocol specifics were extracted including nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs (NSAID) restrictions before and after injection, postinjection restrictions on movement and weight bearing, use of orthoses, activity modifications, and postinjection rehabilitation protocols. Given limitations in the data, a meta‐analysis was not performed. Synthesis Eighty‐four studies met inclusion criteria. Following PRP injection, weight‐bearing restrictions were mentioned rarely (12% of protocols). Orthosis use was uncommon overall (18%) but more common in Achilles tendinopathy protocols (53%). The majority of protocols instituted a period of stretching (51%) and strengthening (54%). Stretching programs generally began 2‐7 days following injection, and strengthening programs began within 2‐3 weeks. Preinjection NSAID restriction was reported rarely (20%), whereas postinjection NSAID restriction was more common (56%), with a typical restriction of greater than 2 weeks (38%). Return to play or full activity was reported in 42% of protocols, most commonly at 4‐6 weeks following injection. Conclusion Although the clinical effectiveness of PRP remains controversial, even less is known about the effect of post‐PRP protocols, which may affect the outcomes attributed to PRP itself. No studies directly compare post‐PRP protocols, and the protocols studied demonstrate substantial heterogeneity. Some consensus regarding post‐PRP protocols exists, although the rationale for these recommendations is limited.