Abstract
BACKGROUND: The clinical potential of biologic augmentation in core decompression and bone grafting for femoral head necrosis is widely acknowledged, with platelet-rich plasma (PRP) being a frequently employed biologic adjunct. However, its clinical application is not standardized, and high-level evidence is lacking. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of core decompression and bone grafting combined with PRP for femur head necrosis. METHODS: Several databases were systematically retrieved for randomized controlled trials comparing core decompression and bone grafting combined with or without PRP. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following the PRISMA 2020 and AMSTAR 2 guidelines. The study is registered with PROSPERO under the code CRD42022361007, and it is also listed in the research registry under the identification number reviewregistry1537. RESULTS: Eleven studies with 642 participants (742 hips) were included. The pooled estimates revealed that when core decompression and bone grafting were combined with PRP, the Harris hip score (mean difference: 7.98; 95% CI: 5.77-10.20; P <0.001), visual analog scale (SMD: -0.68; 95% CI: -0.96 - -0.40; P <0.001) and the pain component of Harris hip score (SMD: 8.4; 95% CI: 4.12-12.68; P <0.001), and reduction of radiographic progression [risk ratio (RR): 0.40; 95% CI: 0.27-0.59; P <0.001] were superior to core decompression and bone grafting alone. Fewer patients with treatment failure (RR: 0.27; 95% CI: 0.14-0.52; P <0.001) and higher good-to-excellent results (RR: 1.48; 95% CI: 1.17-1.86; P <0.001) were observed in treatment groups than control groups. Meanwhile, the pooled analysis substantiated the superior safety profile of PRP (RR: 0.29; 95% CI: 0.11-0.77; P =0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The combination of core decompression and bone grafting with PRP is superior to the approach without PRP, demonstrating enhanced effectiveness in terms of function, pain relief, and radiographic progression. Additionally, it results in lower rates of treatment failure and adverse events. However, further high-quality RCTs are needed to evaluate their effectiveness due to methodological and implementation limitations observed in the existing evidence.