PRP in ACLR: Updated Meta-Analysis 2025
Abbas H · Cureus (2025)
This 2025 updated meta-analysis pooled 16 RCTs with 1085 patients to evaluate PRP augmentation in ACL reconstruction. It represents the most current and comprehensive analysis of this question. PRP provided statistically significant pain reduction at 3 and 6 months post-surgery but no benefit at 12 months. Functional scores (Lysholm, IKDC) showed small non-significant gains. KT-1000 knee stability measurements showed no PRP advantage.
Clinical Relevance
PRP augmentation during ACLR provides modest short-term pain relief during the initial recovery period but does not improve the fundamental reconstruction outcomes. Clinicians should consider PRP as an optional pain management adjunct rather than a standard part of ACLR protocols.
Key Takeaways
- Pain reduced at 3 months (MD -0.76) and 6 months (MD -0.67), but NOT at 12 months
- Functional scores (Lysholm, IKDC) showed non-significant trends only
- No improvement in knee stability (KT-1000)
- No improvement in graft maturation or tunnel integrity
- 16 RCTs, 1085 patients (largest meta-analysis for this question)
- PRP is an adjunct for early recovery, not a long-term outcome modifier
Key Findings
1085 patients. Pain reduced at 3mo (MD -0.76) and 6mo (MD -0.67), NO difference at 12mo. Short-term only.
Clinical Context
Study Design
Meta-Analysis
Condition
ACL Reconstruction
Sample Size
1085 patients
Follow-up
24 months
Control Group
Standard ACLR
Primary Outcome
VAS, Lysholm, IKDC, Tegner, KT-1000
PRP Protocol & Intervention
Preparation System
Various (16 RCTs)
Injection Frequency
1 injection(s)
Guidance Method
Intraoperative