AAOS2017: PRP injection expedites return to sport following acute muscle injury

Study Type: Randomized Trial
OE Level of Evidence: N/A
Journal Level of Evidence: N/A
This ACE Report is a summary of a conference presentation or abstract. The information provided has limited the ability to provide an accurate assessment of the risk of bias or the overall quality. Please interpret the results with caution as trials may be in progress and select results may have been presented.
75 athletes with a grade II strain of the hamstrings, quadriceps, or gastrocnemius muscles were randomized to a rehabilitation program with or without the addition of a platelet-rich plasma injection. The time to return to sport, pain intensity and rate of recurrence were assessed. Results demonstrated a Please login to view the rest of this report. Please login to view the rest of this report.
Why was this study needed now?
Participation in athletic activities can place individuals at high risk of suffering a muscle strain. Often, these injuries occur in the muscles of the lower limb, such as the hamstrings, quadriceps, and gastrocnemius. While complete recovery and function are typically attained, the absence from sport during healing of the muscle can be long, and a number of athletes suffer from recurrent injury. More recently, there has been an interest in the augmentation of current treatment strategies with platelet-rich plasma injections, as many advocate that their use may allow for an expedited return to sport and a reduction in the incidence of re-injury. Nevertheless, few randomized controlled trials have been conducted on PRP use within the setting of acute muscle injury.
What was the principal research question?
Following a grade II muscle strain, how does time to return to sport compare between rehabilitation programs with and without the addition of a platelet-rich plasma injection?
Population: 75 recreational or competitive athletes with an acute, grade II muscle strain. All enrolled injuries occurred in either the hamstrings, quadriceps, or gastrocnemius muscles.
Intervention: PRP group: In addition to a rehabilitation program, athletes were administered an injection of platelet-rich plasma. (n=35 randomized; 34 analyzed) (Mean age: 22.9+/-3.5)
Comparison: Control group: Participants only completed the rehabilitation program, without any supplementary PRP therapy. (n=40 randomized; 38 analyzed) (Mean age: 21.8+/-3.2)
Outcomes: The primary outcome was time to return to sport. Secondary outcomes included pain severity and incidence of recurrent injury.
Methods: RCT
Time: Follow-up period was not defined within the conference abstract.
What were the important findings?
What should I remember most?
How will this affect the care of my patients?
The authors responsible for this critical appraisal and ACE Report indicate no potential conflicts of interest relating to the content in the original publication.
paul murphy
April 10, 2017
Orthopaedic Surgeon - United States
what PRP product was used?
Dr. Ortho Evidence
April 11, 2017
Other - Canada
Dear Dr. Murphy, Thank you for your comment. Unfortunately, the conference abstract did not provide detailed information about the type of PRP product used in this trial.