ObjectiveThis study aims to evaluate the clinical efficacy of collagen dressing for patients with chronic wounds.Materials and methodsRelevant randomized controlled trials were searched from the databases such as PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane library as of January 2022. For dichotomous outcomes and continuous outcomes, risk ratio and mean difference were calculated, respectively. Subgroup analysis was performed according to the type of chronic ulcer and follow-up. In addition, trial sequential analysis (TSA) was performed to further verify the results. Jadad score was used to assess the quality of trials. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) was utilized to assess the level of evidence for outcomes.ResultsIn 11 studies, a total of 961 patients of whom 485 were in the collagen group. Compared with standard of care (SOC) alone, the group that added an extra collagen dressing achieved a higher wound healing rate (Risk Ratio = 1.53; 95% CI, 1.33–1.77). The collagen group also showed a higher healing velocity than the SOC group (Mean Difference, 2.69; 95% CI, 0.87–4.51). In addition, the adverse events related to dressing between the two groups were similar (Risk Ratio = 0.67; 95% CI, 0.44–1.01).ConclusionCollagen dressing increases the wound healing rate and may be an effective and safe treatment for chronic wound management. However, more extensive research shall be conducted to substantiate these results.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=245728, identifier: CRD42021245728.

BackgroundThe clinical efficacy of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in the treatment of total joint replacement (TJR) remains inconclusive. In this paper, systematic review and meta-analysis was adopted to assess the efficacy of using PRP for the treatment of TJR.MethodsA comprehensive search of Medline, Embase, and Cochrane library databases for randomized controlled trial (RCT) articles recording data of PRP for TJR was conducted from inception to February 2022. Outcomes concerned were pain, range of motion (ROM), WOMAC score, length of hospital stay (LOS), hemoglobin (Hb) drop, total blood loss, wound healing rate, and wound infection. The methodological quality of the included RCTs was evaluated by using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2.0 (RoB 2.0). The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) was utilized to assess the level of evidence for the outcomes. Subgroup analysis was conducted according to the type of TJR.ResultsTen RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. In the TKA subgroup, the available data demonstrated that there were significant differences in the outcomes of pain and Hb drop, while it was the opposite of ROM, WOMAC score, LOS, total blood loss, wound healing rate, and wound infection. In the THA subgroup, no significant differences could be seen between two groups in the outcomes of LOS and wound infection. However, the PRP group gained a higher wound healing rate in the THA subgroup.ConclusionThe application of PRP did not reduce blood loss but improved the wound healing rate. However, more prospective and multicenter studies are warranted to confirm these results.