Arthroscopic knotless tape bridging with autologous platelet-rich fibrin gel augmentation: functional and structural...

Background: Rotator cuff repairs remain a source of iterative ruptures and disappointing functional results. In this goal, autologous platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has been used to improve tendon healing. This prospective study assessed the contribution of fully autologous gel concentrates (platelet concentrates and thrombin) on healing after cuff repair.Methods: A consecutive series of 69 patients who underwent primary arthroscopic knotless tape bridging primary cuff repair of supraspinatus tear were evaluated. Two groups were created (A: n = 32, B: n = 37). Autologous PRP gel, obtained preoperatively by PRP mixed with autologous thrombin extracted from platelet-poor plasma, was injected at bone-tendon interface at end of repair in group A. Gel structure avoided evacuation of concentrates with irrigation liquid. Constant, QuickDash and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores were assessed pre-operatively and then successively post-operatively. Healing was assessed by 24-month control MRI according to Sugaya's classification. Sugaya 3, 4, and 5 were considered as iterative ruptures.Results: Average age was 56 years (±7.8). Mean follow-up was similar: 28.6 months (±3.3) vs 32.4 months (±9.4). Mean preoperative Constant was similar: 53.4 (±3.4) vs 54.6 (±5.4). Group A patients received 3.5 ml (±1.5 ml) of autologous PRP gel. No specific complication of injection was found. We observed higher trend in favour of PRP without significativity: Constant 86.7 (±11.1) vs 81.6 (±14.4), p = 0.11; VAS: 0.6 (±0.3) vs 1.1 (±0.9), p = 0.13; Forward flexion: 139.5° (±14.4°) vs 137.7° (± 16.5°), p = 0.63; Strength score: 17.6 vs 14.8, p = 0.66; QuickDash: 6.2 (±5.3) vs 8.2 (±6.9), p = 0.32 . On MRI, 90% (n = 3) of repairs were healed in group A versus 86% (n = 5) in group B.Conclusion: In this preliminary study, the group treated with autologous PRP gel showed a trend towards better clinical and radiological results. These results were not significant at the last follow-up. Only significantly higher clinical results were found at 3 months.Study design: Therapeutic prospective comparative cohort study; Level of evidence III.