Table 1.

Effectiveness of P-PRP and L-PRPin rotator cuff tears.

Study	Study design	Patients enrolled				Outcome	Use of PRP
		Total	PRP	CS	Saline
Kwong et al. (28)	RCT	99	47	52		P-PRP was superior in pain and function at 3 mo FU. No benefit of P-PRP over CS at 12 months FU	+ (P-PRP)
Dadgostar et al. (29)	RCT	58	30	28		L-PRP shows similar results to that of CS in most clinical aspects. Pain and ROM may show more significant improvement with L-PRP	0 (L-PRP)
Shams et al. (30)	PRCS	40	20	20		P-PRP shows better clinical outcomes at 3 months FU over CS. No statistically significant better results after 6 months	+ (P-PRP)
von Wehren et al. (31)	TS	50	25	25		P-PRP shows better clinical outcomes at 3 months FU over CS. No statistically significant difference after 6 months	+ (P-PRP)
Kesikburun et al. (25)	RCT	40	20		20	At 1-year FU, L-PRP was no more effective in improving the quality of life, pain, disability and ROM over placebo	– (L-PRP)
Schwitzguebel et al. (26)	RCT	80	41		39	P-PRP did not improve tendon healing or clinical scores compared with saline injections	– (P-PRP)

+, support the use of PRP; –, does not support the use of PRP; 0, neither support nor against PRP use.

FU, follow-up; PRCS, prospective randomized controlled study; TS, therapeutic study.