Injection of Leukocyte-Poor Platelet-Rich Plasma for Moderate-to-Large Rotator Cuff Tears Does Not Improve Clinical Outcomes but Reduces Retear Rates and Fatty Infiltration: A Prospective, Single-Blinded Randomized Study

Editorial Commentary: Platelet-Rich Plasma Reduces Retear Rates Following Rotator Cuff Repair but Does Not Improve Clinical Outcomes

“…The results of Zhang et al 6 seem to confirm the findings of previous studies. Villarreal-Villarreal 7 pooled 9 RCTs using meta-analysis and reported that PRP reduces retear rates but did not result in any significant differences for clinical and functional outcomes.…”

“…6 They concluded that both groups achieved significant improvements in clinical outcomes exceeding the minimal clinically important difference, with reduced retear rates of 18% in the study group compared with 38% in the control group. 6 However, the authors also issued a caveat: the sample size may have been too low, as they lost nearly 27% of patients during follow-up, to reliably allow analysis for clinical differences. 6 The quality of the study is further compromised by the randomization protocol, which assigned patients according to odd or even numbers of their medical records.…”

“…5 Rotator cuff healing was also the subject of the study by Zhang, Cai, and Wang investigating the application of leukocyte-poor plateletrich plasma following double-row rotator-cuff tears. 6 patients, injected PRP during surgery and 7 and 14 days after surgery. 6 They concluded that both groups achieved significant improvements in clinical outcomes exceeding the minimal clinically important difference, with reduced retear rates of 18% in the study group compared with 38% in the control group.…”

“…6 patients, injected PRP during surgery and 7 and 14 days after surgery. 6 They concluded that both groups achieved significant improvements in clinical outcomes exceeding the minimal clinically important difference, with reduced retear rates of 18% in the study group compared with 38% in the control group. 6 However, the authors also issued a caveat: the sample size may have been too low, as they lost nearly 27% of patients during follow-up, to reliably allow analysis for clinical differences.…”

“…6 However, the authors also issued a caveat: the sample size may have been too low, as they lost nearly 27% of patients during follow-up, to reliably allow analysis for clinical differences. 6 The quality of the study is further compromised by the randomization protocol, which assigned patients according to odd or even numbers of their medical records.…”