Table 2.

Effectiveness of PRP in augmentation of rotator cuff tear repairs.

Study	Study design	Patients			Tear type	Outcome	Use of PRP
		Total	PRP	Control
Jo et al. (46)	RCT	48	24	24	Large to massive	P-PRP significantly improved structural outcomes. No significant difference in clinical outcomes except the overall shoulder function after 1-year FU	+ (P-PRP)
Jo et al. (47)	RCT	74	37	37	Medium to large	P-PRP significantly improved the structural quality but not the speed of healing	+ (P-PRP)
D’Ambrosi et al. (49)	RCT	40	20	20	Medium to large	L-PRP leads to a reduction in pain during a short-term follow-up	+ (L-PRP)
Wang et al. (50)	RCT	60	30	30	Full thickness	P-PRP treatment does not improve early tendon–bone healing or functional recovery	– (P-PRP)
Ebert et al. (51)	RCT	60	30	30	Full thickness	Maximal abduction strength was greater in the midterm after P-PRP. Repeated P-PRP has no additional benefit to tendon integrity	0 (P-PRP)
Flury et al. (52)	RCT	120	60	30 RV	All tear size	No significantly improved function at 3, 6 and 24 months after arthroscopic repair compared with control patients	–
Malavolta et al. (53)	RCT	54	26	25	Small to medium	P-PRP did not promote better clinical or structural results at 60-month follow-up	– (P-PRP)
Pandey et al. (54)	RCT	102	52	50	Medium to large	P-PRP improves clinical and structural outcome in large cuff tears at minimum 2-year FU	+ (P-PRP)

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

FU, follow-up; RV, ropivacaine.