RESUMO
PURPOSE: To evaluate and synthesize the available literature related to platelet-rich plasma (PRP) treatment of knee pathologies and to provide recommendations to inform future research in the field. METHODS: PubMed, CINAHL, and Scopus databases were queried on October 6, 2023. All identified citations were collated and uploaded into Covidence for screening and data extraction. Studies were included if they were human studies published in English with adult cohorts that received PRP as a procedural injection or surgical augmentation for knee pathologies with patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and level of evidence Levels I-IV. RESULTS: Our search yielded 2,615 studies, of which 155 studies from 2006 to 2023 met the inclusion criteria. Median follow-up was 9 months (±11.2 months). Most studies (75.5%) characterized the leukocyte content of PRP, although most studies (86%) did not use a comprehensive classification scheme. In addition, most studies were from Asia (50%) and Europe (32%) and were from a single center (96%). In terms of treatment, 74% of studies examined PRP as a procedural injection, whereas 26% examined PRP as an augmentation. Most studies (68%) examined treatment of knee osteoarthritis. Many studies (83%) documented significant improvements in PROMs, including 93% of Level III/IV evidence studies and 72% of Level I/II evidence studies, although most studies (70%) failed to include minimal clinically important difference values. The visual analog scale was the most-used PROM (58% of studies), whereas the Short Form Health Survey 36-item was the least-used PROM (5% of studies). CONCLUSIONS: Most published investigations of knee PRP are performed in Asia, investigate procedural injection for osteoarthritis, and show significant outcome improvements. In addition, this review highlights the need for better classification of PRP formulations. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, scoping Review of level I-IV studies.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Exoscope use in spinal neurosurgery has become a promising surgical option providing enhanced operative field visibility and ergonomics. However, data on its use in spine surgery are underreported in the literature. We aimed to assess the intraoperative outcomes in exoscope-assisted spine surgery compared with similar procedures performed using the operative microscope. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of all spinal surgeries performed using an exoscope and, subsequently, an equal number of operative microscope cases performed by 2 senior surgeons at a single institution from 2016 to 2023. The variables included demographics, clinical presentation, surgical treatment, and operative outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 123 exoscope spinal surgeries were performed on 116 unique patients with a mean age of 67 ± 14 years, of whom 60 (52%) were women. The microscope group included 126 surgeries on 120 unique patients with a mean age of 62 ± 14 years, of whom 53 (45%) were women. The mean blood loss (28 mL vs. 132 mL; P = 0.0009), operative time (83 minutes vs. 103 minutes; P = 0.006), and length of stay (1.04 days vs. 1.73 days; P = 0.02) were significantly less for the exoscope group than for the microscope group. CONCLUSIONS: The use of the exoscope resulted in a shorter operative time, less blood loss, a shorter length of stay, and favorable clinical outcomes compared with the use of the operative microscope. Neurosurgeons should consider this seemingly efficacious and ergonomically favorable visual technology for spinal surgeries.
