Scholarlink

Objective <p>To compare the clinical value of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) therapy versus microfracture technique in rotator cuff repair.</p> Methods <p>A retrospective study included 142 patients undergoing rotator cuff repair surgery, divided into PRP, microfracture, and control groups. Postoperative tendon-bone union, shoulder function scores (ASES, UCLA), pain scores (VAS), and complication rates were compared across groups.</p> Results <p>Baseline characteristics were comparable across groups. Both PRP and microfracture techniques effectively promoted tendon-bone healing and improved shoulder function, outperforming the control group. Safety profiles were equivalent between the two intervention groups. However, early VAS scores indicated higher pain levels in the microfracture group compared to both the PRP group and control groups.</p> Conclusion <p>Both PRP and microfracture techniques demonstrate sound clinical utility and safety in rotator cuff repair. PRP yields milder early postoperative pain, while microfracture offers cost advantages. Clinicians may tailor intervention choices based on individual patient factors including pain tolerance and financial circumstances.</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

A comparative study of the clinical value of PRP and microfracture techniques in the repair of rotator cuff injuries

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年4月19日

查看全文
  • Shulin Li,
  • Qing Lan,
  • Xin Liu,
  • Yujing Zhan,
  • Qinrong Kang,
  • Jianzhang Zheng,
  • Faqiang Tang,
  • Huiling Guo

摘要

Objective

To compare the clinical value of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) therapy versus microfracture technique in rotator cuff repair.

Methods

A retrospective study included 142 patients undergoing rotator cuff repair surgery, divided into PRP, microfracture, and control groups. Postoperative tendon-bone union, shoulder function scores (ASES, UCLA), pain scores (VAS), and complication rates were compared across groups.

Results

Baseline characteristics were comparable across groups. Both PRP and microfracture techniques effectively promoted tendon-bone healing and improved shoulder function, outperforming the control group. Safety profiles were equivalent between the two intervention groups. However, early VAS scores indicated higher pain levels in the microfracture group compared to both the PRP group and control groups.

Conclusion

Both PRP and microfracture techniques demonstrate sound clinical utility and safety in rotator cuff repair. PRP yields milder early postoperative pain, while microfracture offers cost advantages. Clinicians may tailor intervention choices based on individual patient factors including pain tolerance and financial circumstances.