Table 3.
- Results of clinical use of PRP in bone healing.
| Authors (year) | Diagnosis | Design | Size | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bibbo et al. 2005 | High risk foot and ankle patients | Case series | 62 patients | Short time union with PRP + ABG vs PRP |
| Carreon et al. 2005 | Bone healing in instrumented spinal fusion | Retrospective cohort study | 76 patients | High rate of non union vs control (not significant) |
| Calori et al. 2006 | Long bone critical size defects | Randomized controlled study | 29 patients | n/a |
| Savarino et al. 2006 | Bone healing in varus HTO | Randomized case control | 5 patients | No functional or clinical difference |
| Dallari et al. 2007 | Bone healing in varus HTO | Prospective randomized control | 23 patients 11 with PRP 12 with bone chips, BMC and PRP | No clinical difference |
| Kitoh et al. 2007 | Bone healing in distraction osteogenesis | Retrospective comparison case control | 32 patients | Short average healing time with PRP versus control |
| Kitoh et al. 2007 | Osteotomies for limb length discrepancies | Case series | 46 patients | Healing index better with BMC + PRP vs control |
| Calori et al 2008 | Persistent fracture non-unions | Randomized controlled trial | 120 patients 60 PRP 60 PRP + BMP | Lower median clinical and radiographic healing time observed in the rhBMP-7 group |
| Sanchez et al 2009 | Bone healing in non unions | Retrospective case series | 16 patients | 84% healing, unclear if PRP made a difference |