Efficacy of Platelet-Rich Plasma in the Treatment of Equine Tendon and Ligament Injuries: A Systematic Review of Clinical and Experimental Studies

Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.

• Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
• Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
• Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
• Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
• Emerging · Emerging topic under active research

Abstract (original English)

(1) Background: Tendon and ligament injuries are a leading cause of lameness in horses, with significant economic implications. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has gained attention for its regenerative potential, but its efficacy remains uncertain due to inconsistent study designs and reporting. (2) Methods: This systematic review, following the PRISMA guidelines, evaluated 22 studies (clinical and experimental) to assess the safety and efficacy of PRP in treating equine tendon and ligament injuries. The risk of bias was analyzed using the ROBINS-I and RoB 2.0 tools. (3) Results: PRP demonstrated a favorable safety profile, with no severe adverse effects reported. Clinical outcomes included improved lameness scores, ultrasonographic tissue organization, and return-to-work rates. However, variability in PRP formulations (e.g., leukocyte-rich vs. leukocyte-reduced) and activation methods (e.g., calcium chloride, thrombin) contributed to inconsistent results. Experimental studies supported PRP's role in collagen synthesis and neovascularization, but comparative trials with stem cells or other therapies (e.g., extracorporeal shockwave) showed mixed results. The methodological quality of studies varied, with only 27% achieving "good" scores for PRP reporting. (4) Conclusions: PRP is a safe and potentially effective treatment, but its clinical application is hindered by a lack of standard

Evidence level

Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.