The Effect of Platelet-Rich Fibrin Matrix at the Time of Gluteus Medius Repair: A Retrospective Comparative Study

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the effect of platelet-rich fibrin matrix (PRFM) on outcomes after surgical repair of gluteus medius tendons.

Methods: This is a retrospective review of prospectively collected data comparing patients who underwent gluteus medius repair with PRFM and patients without PRFM. Preoperative characteristics, intraoperative characteristics, and postoperative outcomes at a minimum of 1 year were recorded. Statistical analysis was performed using a multivariate analysis of variance to test for differences in continuous demographic variables and postoperative-only scores between patient groups, χ² tests were performed for categorical variables, and a repeated-measures analysis of variance was performed to test for the effects of PRFM. We also assessed for interobserver variation in grading adductor tendon tears.

Results: In total, the series of gluteus medius repairs without PRFM included 29 patients (25 women and 4 men, 15 right and 4 left) with a mean age of 63.09 ± 12.0 years. The series of gluteus medius repairs with PRFM included 18 patients (16 women and 2 men, 6 right and 12 left) with a mean age of 60.26 ± 8.8 years. There were no differences in patient preoperative variables or intraoperative characteristics. Although there was a significant effect of surgical intervention on the visual analog scale for pain, Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living, Hip Outcome Score-Sports Specific, and modified Harris Hip Score, the use of PRFM had no significant effect on outcome. Linear models showed a significant positive effect of PRFM on only postoperative Short Form 12 Physical and International Hip Outcome Tool 12 scores.

Conclusions: PRFM augmentation does not appear to have an effect on gluteus medius tendon repair in terms of pain or clinical evidence of retears but may have a role in improving subjective outcomes of overall and hip-specific physical functioning.

Level of evidence: Level III, retrospective comparative study.