. 2024 Jan 25;18:29–59. doi: 10.2147/BTT.S290341

Table 4.

Effects of PRP on Bone Healing in Clinical Studies

Author (Year)	Study Design	PRP Delivery	Bone(s) Studied	PRP Group (s)	Control Group(s)	Sorting Method	Number of Patients	Follow-Up	Outcome
Namazi et al (2016)²¹⁷	Prospective randomized control trial	Intra-articular PRP injection	Radius	CRPP+PRP injection	CRPP	Non-blinded randomization	30	6m	PRP group shows decreased pain and increased function
Wei et al (2012)²²⁵	Prospective randomized control trial	Allograft bone+PRP	Calcaneus	ORIF+allograft+PRP	ORIF+allograft Autograft	Non-blinded randomization	175	72m	Better radiographic outcomes for allograft+PRP and autograft groups compared to allograft alone
Namazi et al (2016)²¹⁸	Prospective randomized control trial	Intra-articular PRP injection	Scaphoid	Casting+PRP injection	Casting	Non-blinded randomization	14	6m	PRP group had decreased pain at rest and increased total function
Griffin et al (2013)²¹⁰	Prospective randomized control trial	Fracture site PRP injection	Femur	CRPP+PRP injection	CRPP	Participant blinded randomization	200	12m	PRP reduced length of hospital stay, but risk of revision and clinical outcomes were equivalent
Rodriguez-Collazo et al (2015)²²⁶	Retrospective case series	Demineralized bone matrix (DBM)+PRP	Tibia/fibula	Ilizarov fixator+DBM+PRP Ilizarov fixator+DBM+concentrate bone marrow aspirate (cBMA)	Ilizarov fixator+DBM	None	20	18m	Faster radiographic healing with PRP and cBMA compared to control
Samy et al (2016)²²⁰	Prospective randomized control trial	Fracture site PRP injection	Femur	CRPP+PRP injection	CRPP	Non-blinded randomization	60	12–48m	Faster radiographic healing with PRP group, no difference in functional outcomes
Chiang et al (2007)²⁰⁶	Prospective case series	Bone graft and autologous platelet gel at fracture site	Femur and tibia	Internal or external fixation, ± soft tissue reconstruction	None	None	12	24–40m	Possible benefit of using PRP to treat non-unions
Lee et al (2014)²¹³	Prospective randomized control trial	Bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC)+PRP at fracture site	Tibia	External fixator (limb lengthening)	External fixator alone	Non-blinded randomization	20	24m	Significant improvement in bone formation in PRP+BMAC group
Calori et al (2008)²⁰⁵	Prospective randomized control trial	PRP injection at fracture site	Various	Surgical fixation + PRP	BMP-7 injection at fracture site	None	120	9–25m	Lower rate of clinical and radiographic union in PRP group compared to BMP-7 group
Liebergall et al (2013)²¹⁴	Prospective randomized control trial	Demineralized bone matrix (DBM), mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs), and PRP injected into fracture site	Tibia	Surgical fixation + DBM+MSCs+PRP	Surgical fixation alone	Non-blinded randomization	24	12m	The PRP group decreased time to union
Bielecki et al (2008)²⁰⁴	Prospective case series	Platelet-leukocyte rich gel (PLRG) injection at fracture site	Tibia/fibula	PLRG injection to fracture site	None	None	32	9m	Possible benefit of using PRP to treat non-unions
Peerbooms et al (2012)²¹⁹	Prospective randomized control trial	PRP and bone chips at fracture site	Tibia	PRP and bone chips	Bone chips alone	Non-blinded randomization	41	3m	PRP group had lower bone density
Mariconda et al (2008)²¹⁶	Prospective case series (compared to historical control group)	PRP injection at fracture site	Various	PRP and external fixator	External fixator alone	None	20	9m	PRP showed equal union rates compared to controls
Dallari et al (2007)²⁰⁷	Prospective randomized control trial	PRP and bone chips at fracture site	Tibia	PRP and bone chips PRP+bone chips+bone marrow stromal cells	Bone chips alone	Non-blinded randomization	33	12m	Higher rates of osseointegration in both PRP groups compared to control
Sanchez et al (2009)²²¹	Retrospective case series	PRP and bone graft at fracture site at time of surgery, then repeated PRP injections into fracture site post-operatively	Various	PRP and bone graft	None	None	15	8m	Possible benefit of using PRP to treat non-unions
Malhotra et al (2015)²¹⁵	Prospective case series	PRP injection at fracture site	Various	PRP injection	None	None	94	4m	Possible benefit of using PRP to treat non-unions
Galasso et al (2008)²⁰⁸	Prospective case series	PRP injection at fracture site	Various	Intra-medullary nail and PRP at fracture site	None	None	22	13m	Possible benefit of using PRP to treat non-unions
Say et al (2014)²²²	Prospective case series	PRP injection at fracture site	Various	PRP injection at fracture site	None	None	20	12m	Possible benefit of using PRP to treat non-unions
Tarallo et al (2012)²²⁴	Retrospective case series	Bone graft+PRP	Ulna	Surgical fixation with bone graft+PRP	None	None	10	3–36m	Possible benefit of using PRP to treat non-unions
Golos et al (2014)²⁰⁹	Prospective case series	PRP injection at fracture site	Various	PRP injection	None	None	132	4m	Possible benefit of using PRP to treat non-unions
Bibbo et al (2005)²⁰³	Prospective case series	Autologous platelet concentrate (APC)	Various	APC+autograft APC alone	None	None	62	2m	Possible benefit of using PRP to treat high risk fractures
Kitoh et al (2007a)²¹¹	Retrospective case series	Bone marrow cells (BMCs)+PRP at distraction osteotomy site	Femur/tibia	Distraction osteogenesis BMC+PRP	Distraction osteogenesis alone	None	20	N/A	Faster union rate in BMC+PRP group
Kitoh et al (2007b)²¹²	Retrospective case series	Bone marrow cells (BMCs)+PRP at distraction osteotomy site	Femur/tibia	Distraction osteogenesis BMC+PRP	Distraction osteogenesis alone	None	46	N/A	Faster union rate in BMC+PRP group
Sys et al (2011)²²³	Prospective randomized control trial	Autograft+PRP to posterior lumbar interbody fusion site	Lumbar spine	Autograft+PRP	Autograft alone	Non-blinded randomization, Radiologists were blinded	38	24m	No improvement in autograft+PRP compared to autograft alone