■勃起功能障碍(ED)是老年男性的常见病。同时,富血小板血浆(PRP),一种新兴的治疗替代方案,已证明有可能减轻与ED相关的症状。我们的研究旨在探讨使用PRP作为ED治疗策略的安全性和有效性。
■遵守系统审查和荟萃分析(PRISMA)协议的首选报告项目,我们的研究涉及对多个数据库的彻底搜索:PubMed,WebofScience,Embase,和Cochrane控制试验登记册.为了评估所选研究的方法学严谨性,我们采用改良的Jadad量表和非随机研究方法学指数(MINORS)量表作为评价工具.在这些评估之后,进行数据分析。
■我们的分析包括7项非随机研究和3项随机对照试验(RCT)。这些研究表明,在PRP治疗1、3和6个月后,国际勃起功能指数(IIEF-EF)评分显着改善,增加4.05[95%置信区间(CI):2.42,5.68;P<0.001],3.73(95%CI:2.93,4.53;P<0.001),和3.92(95%CI:3.00,4.85;P<0.001),与基线得分相比。此外,与安慰剂组相比,PRP组的IIEF-EF评分明显较高.PRP治疗还对最小临床重要差异(MCID)和峰值收缩速度(PSV)具有有益影响。然而,PRP组和安慰剂组在勃起硬度评分(EHS)[均差(MD)=0.63;95%CI:0.26,0.99;P<0.001]或视觉模拟评分(VAS)疼痛评分(MD=0.24;95%CI:-0.05,0.54;P=0.11)方面无显著差异.
■我们的研究结果表明PRP治疗ED的有效性和安全性。由于我们纳入的大多数文献都是单臂研究,未来的研究必须为验证提供更高质量的证据.
UNASSIGNED: Erectile dysfunction (ED) is a prevalent condition in aging men. Meanwhile, platelet-rich plasma (PRP), an emerging treatment alternative, has demonstrated potential in mitigating symptoms associated with ED. Our research aimed to explore the safety and effectiveness of employing PRP as a treatment strategy for ED.
UNASSIGNED: Adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocols, our research involved a thorough search across multiple databases: PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register. To assess the methodological rigor of the studies selected, we applied the modified Jadad scale and the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) scale as evaluation tools. Subsequent to these evaluations, data analysis was conducted.
UNASSIGNED: Our analysis included seven non-randomized studies and three randomized controlled trials (RCTs). These studies showed that the International Index of Erectile Function-Erectile Function (IIEF-EF) scores improved significantly after 1, 3, and 6 months of PRP treatment, with increases of 4.05 [95% confidence interval (CI): 2.42, 5.68; P<0.001], 3.73 (95% CI: 2.93, 4.53; P<0.001), and 3.92 (95% CI: 3.00, 4.85; P<0.001) respectively, compared to the baseline scores. Additionally, compared to the placebo group, the PRP group showed significantly higher IIEF-EF scores. PRP treatment also had a beneficial impact on minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and peak systolic velocity (PSV). However, no significant differences were found between the PRP and placebo groups in terms of erectile hardness score (EHS) [mean difference (MD) =0.63; 95% CI: 0.26, 0.99; P<0.001] or visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores (MD =0.24; 95% CI: -0.05, 0.54; P=0.11).
UNASSIGNED: Our study results demonstrated significant efficacy and safety of PRP in treating ED. Due to the fact that most of the literature we included was single-arm studies, it was imperative for future research to provide higher-quality evidence for validation.