Update on the Use of Platelet-Rich Plasma Injections in the Management of Musculoskeletal Injuries: A Systematic Review of Studies From 2014 to 2021

Background: There has been expanding use of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in the management of musculoskeletal soft tissue injuries. Purpose: To determine if there are any recent studies that show any clear benefits regarding the use of PRP in the management of soft tissue injuries. Study Design: Systematic review. Methods: This review was conducted according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. The EMBASE, MEDLINE, PubMed, and Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Group Specialised Register databases were queried for randomized controlled trials comparing PRP with a non-PRP/placebo in participants >18 years of age with musculoskeletal soft tissue injuries. Exclusion criteria were non-soft tissue injuries and research published in journals with an impact factor <3.5. The main outcome measure analyzed across all injury types was the effect of PRP injections on pain and function. Results: Of the 853 studies initially screened, 32 were included in this review. There were 13 studies that investigated the effects of PRP on the management of rotator cuff injuries; 7 studies that investigated PRP in conjunction with arthroscopy found no significant difference between PRP groups and controls, while 5 of 6 studies that investigated nonsurgical management showed positive results for PRP. Eight studies investigated various tendinopathies; of these, 2 studies demonstrated positive results for PRP in Achilles and gluteal tendinopathy management. Six studies examined PRP in acute soft tissue injuries, with 2 of these reporting significant improvements in recovery time for hamstring injuries and 1 study showing positive results for ankle ligament injuries. Two studies looked at acute rupture of soft tissues and found no benefit to PRP use. Two studies investigated PRP injections for chronic plantar fasciitis, and both reported positive results in pain and function with PRP. Finally, 1 study evaluated the effects of PRP on meniscal injuries and reported significant improvement in the healing rate and a decreased need for surgical repair. Conclusion: Currently, there is no research strongly advocating the use of PRP compared with traditional management strategies (rest, ice, corticosteroid injection, rehabilitation program). No long-term physiological benefits were reported to justify the invasive and costly technique of obtaining, producing, and implementing PRP.