Efficacy and safety of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in erectile dysfunction (ED): a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT

Background: Erectile dysfunction (ED) is a prevalent condition in aging men. Meanwhile, platelet-rich plasma (PRP), an emerging treatment alternative, has demonstrated potential in mitigating symptoms associated with ED. Our research aimed to explore the safety and effectiveness of employing PRP as a treatment strategy for ED. Methods: Adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocols, our research involved a thorough search across multiple databases PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register. To assess the methodological rigor of the studies selected, we applied the modified Jadad scale and the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) scale as evaluation tools. Subsequent to these evaluations, data analysis was conducted. Results: Our analysis included seven non-randomized studies and three randomized controlled trials (RCTs). These studies showed that the International Index of Erectile Function-Erectile Function (IIEF-EF) scores improved significantly after 1, 3, and 6 months of PRP treatment, with increases of 4.05 [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.42, 5.68; P<0.001], 3.73 (95% CI 2.93, 4.53; P<0.001), and 3.92 (95% CI 3.00, 4.85; P<0.001) respectively, compared to the baseline scores. Additionally, compared to the placebo group, the PRP group showed significantly higher IIEF-EF scores. PRP treatment also had a beneficial impact on minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and peak systolic velocity (PSV). However, no significant differences were found between the PRP and placebo groups in terms of erectile hardness score (EHS) [mean difference (MD) =0.63; 95% CI 0.26, 0.99; P<0.001] or visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores (MD =0.24; 95% CI -0.05, 0.54; P=0.11). Conclusions: Our study results demonstrated significant efficacy and safety of PRP in treating ED. Due to the fact that most of the literature we included was single-arm studies, it was imperative for future research to provide higher-quality evidence for validation.