To unlock this feature and to subscribe to our weekly evidence emails, please create a FREE orthoEvidence account.

SIGNUP

Already Have an Account?

Loading...
Visit our Evidence-Based Covid-19 Website and Stay Up to Date with the latest Research.
Ace Report Cover

Function, strength, and retear rate do not differ between PRP- and non-augmented rotator cuff repair

Download
Share
Reprints
Cite This
About
+ Favorites
Share
Reprints
Cite This
About
+ Favorites
Ace Report Cover
February 2019

Function, strength, and retear rate do not differ between PRP- and non-augmented rotator cuff repair

Vol: 8| Issue: 2| Number:117| ISSN#: 2564-2537
Study Type:Randomized Trial
OE Level Evidence:2
Journal Level of Evidence:2

Platelet-rich plasma in fibrin matrix to augment rotator cuff repair: a prospective, single-blinded, randomized study with 2-year follow-up

J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2018 Sep;27(9):1553-1563. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2018.05.003

Contributing Authors:
BJ Nelson MR Walsh JP Braman B Yonke M Obermeier A Raja M Reams

Did you know you're eligible to earn 0.5 CME credits for reading this report? Click Here

Synopsis

72 patients with a full-thickness rotator cuff tear and scheduled for arthroscopic double-row repair were randomized to have their surgery either augmented or not augmented with sutured platelet-rich plasma in a fibrin matrix (PRPFM). Patients were followed up at 6 months for retear rate on MRI, and at 6 and 24 months for outcomes related to patient reported function and shoulder strength. No sign...

CME Image

Did you know that you’re eligible to earn 0.5 CME credits for reading this report!

LEARN MORE

Join the Conversation

Please Login or Join to leave comments.

Learn about our AI Driven
High Impact Search Feature

High Impact Icon

Our AI driven High Impact metric calculates the impact an article will have by considering both the publishing journal and the content of the article itself. Built using the latest advances in natural language processing, OE High Impact predicts an article’s future number of citations better than impact factor alone.

Continue