College
Rowan-Virtua School of Osteopathic Medicine
Keywords
Platelet-Rich Plasma, Regenerative Medicine, Achilles Tendon Rupture, Non-surgical Intervention
Date of Presentation
5-1-2025 12:00 AM
Poster Abstract
Background
In the world of regenerative medicine, platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has gained much attention as a potential enhancer of musculoskeletal healing. However, despite promising results in many applications, the use of PRP in Achilles tendon ruptures (ATR) remains a topic of debate. While some studies suggest potential benefits in terms of pain reduction and early-phase healing, others report no significant difference in clinical or functional outcomes compared to standard treatment. This inconsistency underscores the need for further investigation into PRP’s role in tendon repair, particularly in high-stress, load-bearing structures such as the Achilles tendon.
Objective
This review aims to evaluate the current literature highlighting the efficacy of standard nonoperative PRP, including when combined with nonoperative modalities, for the treatment of ATR.
Methods
A literature search was conducted across three major databases (1995–2024) using a curtailed search string, with key terms such as "Achilles Tendon Rupture" and "Platelet-Rich Plasma”. Ten studies met inclusion criteria based on patient population, intervention type, and functional outcome measures (ATRS, VISA-A, VAS).
Results
Findings across studies were mixed. Historical studies (e.g., Anitua, Marx) demonstrated enhanced bone and soft tissue healing with PRP. However, more recent RCTs (Boesen, Keene, Kearney) found no significant differences in pain, function, or range of motion when comparing PRP to placebo. Meta-analyses (Nauwelaers, Chen) confirmed a lack of long-term benefit. Some short-term gains in muscle strength and ROM (Zou) were observed but diminished over time. Variability in PRP preparation and administration likely contributed to inconsistent results.
Conclusion
Current evidence does not support the routine use of PRP for ATR due to inconsistent outcomes and lack of standardized protocols. Future research should focus on optimizing PRP formulation, timing, and patient selection to determine its true clinical value. Until then, PRP for ATR remains an adjunctive therapy with uncertain benefit.
Disciplines
Biological Factors | Investigative Techniques | Medicine and Health Sciences | Musculoskeletal Diseases | Orthopedics | Pathological Conditions, Signs and Symptoms | Sports Medicine
Included in
Biological Factors Commons, Investigative Techniques Commons, Musculoskeletal Diseases Commons, Orthopedics Commons, Pathological Conditions, Signs and Symptoms Commons, Sports Medicine Commons
Efficacy of Platelet-Rich Plasma in the Management and Treatment of Achilles Tendon Ruptures: A Literature Review
Background
In the world of regenerative medicine, platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has gained much attention as a potential enhancer of musculoskeletal healing. However, despite promising results in many applications, the use of PRP in Achilles tendon ruptures (ATR) remains a topic of debate. While some studies suggest potential benefits in terms of pain reduction and early-phase healing, others report no significant difference in clinical or functional outcomes compared to standard treatment. This inconsistency underscores the need for further investigation into PRP’s role in tendon repair, particularly in high-stress, load-bearing structures such as the Achilles tendon.
Objective
This review aims to evaluate the current literature highlighting the efficacy of standard nonoperative PRP, including when combined with nonoperative modalities, for the treatment of ATR.
Methods
A literature search was conducted across three major databases (1995–2024) using a curtailed search string, with key terms such as "Achilles Tendon Rupture" and "Platelet-Rich Plasma”. Ten studies met inclusion criteria based on patient population, intervention type, and functional outcome measures (ATRS, VISA-A, VAS).
Results
Findings across studies were mixed. Historical studies (e.g., Anitua, Marx) demonstrated enhanced bone and soft tissue healing with PRP. However, more recent RCTs (Boesen, Keene, Kearney) found no significant differences in pain, function, or range of motion when comparing PRP to placebo. Meta-analyses (Nauwelaers, Chen) confirmed a lack of long-term benefit. Some short-term gains in muscle strength and ROM (Zou) were observed but diminished over time. Variability in PRP preparation and administration likely contributed to inconsistent results.
Conclusion
Current evidence does not support the routine use of PRP for ATR due to inconsistent outcomes and lack of standardized protocols. Future research should focus on optimizing PRP formulation, timing, and patient selection to determine its true clinical value. Until then, PRP for ATR remains an adjunctive therapy with uncertain benefit.
