Platelet-Rich Plasma Reduces Failure Risk for Isolated Meniscal Repairs but Provides No Benefit for Meniscal Repairs With Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

Abstract

Background: The effect of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) on the risk of meniscal repair failure is unclear. Current evidence is limited to small studies without comparison between isolated repairs and meniscal repairs with concomitant anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. It is also unclear whether the efficacy of PRP differs between preparation systems in the setting of meniscal repair. Purpose: (1) To determine whether intraoperative PRP affects the risk of meniscal repair failure. (2) To determine whether the effect of PRP on meniscal failure risk is influenced by ACL reconstruction status or by PRP preparation system. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: The study entailed 550 patients (mean ± SD age, 28.8 ± 11.2 years) who underwent meniscal repair surgery with PRP (n = 203 total; n = 148 prepared with GPS III system, n = 55 prepared with Angel system) or without PRP (n = 347) and with (n = 399) or without (n = 151) concurrent ACL reconstruction. The patients were assessed for meniscal repair failure within 3 years. The independent effect of PRP on the risk of meniscal repair failure was determined by multivariate Cox proportional hazards modeling with adjustment for age, sex, body mass index, ACL status, tear pattern, tear vascularity, repair technique, side (medial or lateral), and number of sutures or implants used. Results: Failures within 3 years occurred in 17.0% of patients without PRP and 14.6% of patients with PRP (P = .60) (Angel PRP, 15.9%; GPS III PRP, 14.2%; P = .58). Increased patient age was protective against meniscal failure regardless of ACL or PRP status (per 5-year increase in age: adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.90; 95% CI, 0.81-1.0; P = .047). The effect of PRP on meniscal failure risk was dependent on concomitant ACL injury status. Among isolated meniscal repairs (20.3% failures at 3 years), PRP was independently associated with lower risk of failure (aHR, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.03-0.59; P = .002) with no difference between PRP preparation systems (P = .84). Among meniscal repairs with concomitant ACL reconstruction (14.1% failures at 3 years), PRP was not independently associated with risk of failure (aHR, 1.39; 95% CI, 0.81-2.36; P = .23) with no difference between PRP preparation systems (P = .78). Conclusion: Both PRP preparations used in the current study had a substantial protective effect in terms of the risk of isolated meniscal repair failure over 3 years. In the setting of concomitant ACL reconstruction, PRP does not reduce the risk of meniscal repair failure.