Scholarlink

Background <p>Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is an established often autologous medical product in regenerative medicine and is increasingly used in vascular medicine for the treatment of chronic wounds. Despite its widespread use, the evidence base is inconsistent and characterized by methodological heterogeneity.</p> Aim of the study <p>To analyze the current evidence, methodological limitations and existing standardization deficits in the use of PRP in wound therapy.</p> Material and methods <p>A&#xa0;systematic literature search according to PRISMA guidelines in MEDLINE and Web of Science (1978–2025) identified 1051 publications of which 36&#xa0;studies met the inclusion criteria. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool&#xa0;2 and the WESS-PQR score were used to assess the potential for bias and the quality of the PRP.</p> Results <p>The included studies showed considerable heterogeneity in terms of study design, patient groups, wound classification and PRP processing. The mean WESS-PQR score was 9.1 ± 4.5&#xa0;points, corresponding to the lowest quality level. More than half of the studies lacked information on platelet count, growth factors or vascular diagnostics.</p> Discussion <p>The results demonstrate a&#xa0;significant lack of methodological standardization and limited comparability of results. Validated manufacturing protocols, complete recording of relevant comorbidities and the use of objective digital wound measurement systems are necessary for reliable evidence.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Plättchenreiches Plasma in der Gefäßmedizin: Evidenzlimitationen, Standardisierungsbedarf und Zukunftsperspektiven

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年1月7日

查看全文
  • Sebastian Kapahnke,
  • Philipp Pauli,
  • Sandra Fraund-Cremer,
  • Melanie Rusch,
  • Alexandra Bonietzki,
  • Grischa Hoffmann,
  • René Rusch,
  • Matthias Buerger

摘要

Background

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is an established often autologous medical product in regenerative medicine and is increasingly used in vascular medicine for the treatment of chronic wounds. Despite its widespread use, the evidence base is inconsistent and characterized by methodological heterogeneity.

Aim of the study

To analyze the current evidence, methodological limitations and existing standardization deficits in the use of PRP in wound therapy.

Material and methods

A systematic literature search according to PRISMA guidelines in MEDLINE and Web of Science (1978–2025) identified 1051 publications of which 36 studies met the inclusion criteria. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2 and the WESS-PQR score were used to assess the potential for bias and the quality of the PRP.

Results

The included studies showed considerable heterogeneity in terms of study design, patient groups, wound classification and PRP processing. The mean WESS-PQR score was 9.1 ± 4.5 points, corresponding to the lowest quality level. More than half of the studies lacked information on platelet count, growth factors or vascular diagnostics.

Discussion

The results demonstrate a significant lack of methodological standardization and limited comparability of results. Validated manufacturing protocols, complete recording of relevant comorbidities and the use of objective digital wound measurement systems are necessary for reliable evidence.