Blood Injection Therapy Cuts Athlete Recovery Time for Muscle Injuries
Platelet-rich plasma injections significantly accelerate return-to-sport timelines for athletes with acute muscle injuries, according to a meta-analysis of nine clinical trials. The finding could reshape sports medicine protocols and reduce lost-time costs for professional teams and athletic organizations.
Originaltitel: Platelet-Rich Plasma Accelerates the Return to Sport in Athletes with Acute Muscle Injuries: A Systematic Review and Statistical Fragility Index-Based Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
BACKGROUND: Muscle lesions are common sport injuries resulting in prolonged absence from sport activity and long rehabilitation periods. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to quantify the clinical benefits of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections in treating acute muscle injuries. METHODS: The search was conducted on PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science in January 2026. The PRISMA guidelines were used. Inclusion criteria were: randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in English comparing PRP injections with control (rehabilitation or placebo) for the treatment of acute muscle injuries. The outcomes analysed were: time to return to sport (RTS), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for pain, re-injury and complication rates. Two sub-analyses were performed, one on the double-blind RCTs and one on the RCTs focusing on hamstrings. A fragility analysis was performed using the fragility index (FI) and the continuous FI (CFI). The quality of each article was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 and the GRADE tools. RESULTS: Among the 4969 articles retrieved, nine RCTs (474 patients) were included. PRP provided faster RTS both in the overall analysis (p < 0.001, mean difference (MD) = 7.5, CFI = 188) and in the two sub-analyses (p < 0.001, MD = 8.8, CFI = 67 and p = 0.001, MD = 7.5, CFI = 97 respectively), as well as superior VAS improvement in the hamstring sub-analysis (p = 0.006, MD = 0.4, CFI = 22). No difference was found in terms of re-injury and complication rates between the two groups (FI = 5 and FI = 7, respectively). The evaluation using the RoB 2 tool showed that four studies had a "low risk" of bias and five had a "high risk" of bias. The GRADE evaluation showed a limited quality of evidence of the analysed outcomes. CONCLUSION: PRP produced a faster RTS compared to controls in acute muscle injury patients, both in the overall analysis and in the sub-analyses. PRP was able to produce a statistically higher pain relief only in the hamstring subgroup, while no difference was found in terms of re-injury and complication rates, suggesting a similar safety profile when compared to rehabilitation alone and placebo. The fragility analysis supported the benefits in terms of RTS, although the high-quality literature addressing this topic remains limited, warranting caution in the interpretation of the current results.