Comparison of full endoscopic lumbar discectomy combined with and without platelet-rich plasma injections for lumbar disc herniation: a meta-analysis

Article information

Asian Spine J. 2025;19(5):728-744

Publication date (electronic) : 2025 July 25

doi : https://doi.org/10.31616/asj.2024.0243

Liangjie Lu ¹^,²^,³

, Keyi Xiao ⁴

, Li-Ru He ⁵

, Rui-Song Chen ⁶^,^*

, Teng-Hui Zeng ⁷^,^*

, Guang-Xun Lin ⁸^,⁹^,¹⁰^,^*

¹Department of Orthopaedics, Ningbo Medical Center Li Huili Hospital, Li Huili Hospital Affiliated to Ningbo University, Ningbo, China

²Division of Spine, Department of Orthopaedics, Tongji Hospital, Tongji University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China

³School of Life Science and Technology, Tongji University, Shanghai, China

⁴The School of Clinical Medicine, Fujian Medical University, Fujian, China

⁵Department of Anesthesia and Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China

⁶Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology of Traditional Chinese Medicine, The Third Hospital of Xiamen, Xiamen, China

⁷Department of Orthopaedics, The Second People’s Hospital of Shenzhen (The First Affiliated Hospital of Shenzhen University), Shenzhen, China

⁸Department of Orthopaedics, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University, School of Medicine, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China

⁹The School of Clinical Medicine, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China

¹⁰The School of Clinical Medicine, Fujian University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Fuzhou, China

Corresponding author: Rui-Song Chen, Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology of Traditional Chinese Medicine, The Third Hospital of Xiamen, Xiamen, China, Tel: +86-05927197568, Fax: +86-05927197568, E-mail: chenrs027@163.com

Co-corresponding author: Teng-Hui Zeng, Department of Orthopaedics, The Second People’s Hospital of Shenzhen (The First Affiliated Hospital of Shenzhen University), Shenzhen, Guangdong, China, Tel: +86-075583366388, Fax: +86-075583347562, E-mail: zth0307@qq.com

Co-corresponding author: Guang-Xun Lin, Department of Orthopaedics, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University, School of Medicine, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China, Tel: +86-05922137309, Fax: +86-05922137209, E-mail: linguangxun@hotmail.com

*These authors contributed equally to this work as the corresponding authors.

Received 2024 June 19; Revised 2025 March 5; Accepted 2025 March 6.

Abstract

Study Design

A meta-analysis study

Purpose

To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of combining full endoscopic lumbar discectomy (FELD) with platelet-rich plasma (PRP) administration versus FELD alone in treating lumbar disc herniation (LDH).

Overview of Literature

FELD is effective for LDH, but PRP may enhance healing; evidence comparing both remains unclear.

Methods

A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang Data up to December 20, 2023. Primary outcomes included postoperative Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain scores, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores. Secondary outcomes included disc height, complications, and Pfirrmann grade of disc degeneration.

Results

Six studies involving 433 patients were included (214 undergoing FELD combined with PRP and 219 undergoing FELD alone). Patients in the FELD+PRP group had significantly lower VAS scores for back pain after surgery compared to the FELD group (p<0.05). JOA and ODI scores showed significantly better improvement in the FELD+PRP group than in the FELD group (p<0.05). Compared to the FELD group, the FELD+PRP group had less disc height loss and a lower complication rate (p=0.0005). There was a significantly better improvement in disc degeneration (based on Pfirrmann grading) at final follow-up in the FELD+PRP group compared to the FELD group (p=0.002).

Conclusions

The combination of FELD and PRP offers superior outcomes compared to FELD alone in the treatment of LDH, including a more pronounced relief from back pain, significant functional improvement, and fewer postoperative complications. Additionally, it facilitates the repair of the annulus fibrosus of the intervertebral disc and reduces the loss of disc height.

Keywords: Endoscopy; Diskectomy; Platelet-rich plasma; Intervertebral disc displacement; Lumbar vertebrae

GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT

Introduction

Lumbar disc herniation (LDH), a prevalent degenerative spinal disease, poses a significant clinical challenge. Treatment primarily encompasses conservative and surgical approaches [1,2]. Although conservative measures, which mainly focus on alleviating symptoms, benefit many patients, those who are unresponsive or experiencing progressive neurological decline often require surgical intervention [3]. Traditionally, open surgery has been the mainstay of surgical treatment, but its inherent drawbacks—extensive muscle dissection, bone resection, and potential complications—have led to the need for alternative approaches [4]. Minimally invasive spine surgery has emerged as a preferred technique in recent years, offering benefits such as reduced tissue trauma, faster recovery, and shorter hospital stays [5]. Techniques such as full endoscopic lumbar discectomy (FELD) have shown promising clinical efficacy in treating LDH [6,7]. However, both conservative and surgical interventions do not address the underlying disc degeneration process, highlighting the need for further therapeutic advancements.

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is a concentrated suspension of autologous platelets extracted from peripheral blood through centrifugation. Its therapeutic potential stems from its biological safety, ease of preparation and sourcing, and enrichment with multiple growth and anti-inflammatory factors [8,9]. This synergistic cocktail of bioactive molecules in PRP facilitates the repair of intervertebral disc tissues by promoting cellular regeneration and mitigating inflammatory responses [10]. Consequently, PRP holds promise in slowing, or even potentially reversing, the pathological progression of intervertebral disc degeneration [11].

The existing literature on the combined application of FELD and PRP injections for treating LDH is limited, with sparse evidence regarding its efficacy and safety. This meta-analysis aimed to systematically evaluate the available research on the synergistic effects of PRP injections post-FELD in patients with LDH. The primary objective was to determine whether FELD combined with PRP administration improves clinical outcomes and facilitates disc remodeling compared to FELD alone.

Materials and Methods

Search strategy

Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) framework, we conducted a systematic search across established academic databases, including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Wanfang Data. Conducted on December 20, 2023, the search employed a predefined set of keywords: (“lumbar disc herniation” OR “back pain” OR “full endoscopic lumbar discectomy” OR “percutaneous endoscopy” OR “full endoscopy” OR “FELD” OR “PELD” OR “PETD”) AND (“PRP” OR “platelet-rich plasma”). This search strategy aimed to identify all relevant studies investigating the efficacy and safety of PRP injections after FELD in the treatment of patients with LDH.

Additionally, the bibliographies of all included articles were manually screened to identify potentially relevant studies that were not captured by the initial database search [12]. This helped enhance both the breadth and depth of the literature review, ensuring the inclusion of potentially valuable research missed by the primary search strategy [13].

This is a meta-analysis study, so ethics committee approval was not required.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

The inclusion criteria are as follows: (1) study design: randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, and case-control studies; (2) study population: patients aged ≥18 years diagnosed with low back pain and/or unilateral radiating pain; unsuccessful conservative treatment for at least 3 months; confirmed diagnosis of simple LDH without stenosis of the spinal canal; treated through transforaminal FELD approach; (3) outcome measures: studies reporting at least one of the following outcomes: Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score for back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), or complications; and (4) language of publication: English or Chinese.

The exclusion criteria are as follows: (1) studies enrolling patients with concurrent severe underlying medical or infectious diseases, spinal stenosis, spondylolisthesis, scoliosis, spinal tuberculosis, or tumors; (2) literature reviews, editorials, letters, and meeting abstracts; and (3) studies lacking essential clinical outcome data.

Data extraction

Two reviewers independently screened all retrieved articles against the predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Any discrepancies were resolved by consensus among the research team. During the initial screening, titles and abstracts were reviewed for relevance to the study objectives. For studies with unclear or insufficient information in the titles and abstracts, a full-text review was conducted to determine eligibility. This ensured the identification of all pertinent studies. For studies with missing data, the corresponding author was contacted by email to obtain the relevant data; however, no response was received.

Data extraction encompassed key elements from the included studies, categorized into three main domains: (1) basic information such as title, authors, publication year, and journal; (2) sample size, surgical segment, patient age and sex, and duration of follow-up; and (3) relevant clinical outcomes: VAS score, ODI score, Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score [14], disc height, complications, and Pfirrmann grade of disc degeneration [15].

Quality assessment and publication bias

The quality of the included non-randomized studies evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) [16]. The NOS facilitates a systematic evaluation of key study parameters across selection, comparability, and outcome assessment domains. Studies that achieve a predetermined threshold of five “stars” on the NOS scale, based on defined rating criteria, are considered to meet high quality standards.

Egger’s test was used to detect publication bias. Sensitivity analysis was performed by sequential exclusion of one study at a time from the meta-analysis (leave-one-out analysis) to evaluate the influence of individual studies on the overall results.

Further, this meta-analysis incorporates the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology [17]. GRADE systematically evaluates the credibility of pooled results by considering factors such as publication bias, the precision of the results, and the magnitude of the treatment effect. This comprehensive assessment ultimately assigns a quality grade to the resulting evidence, categorized into four distinct levels: high, moderate, low, and very low.

Statistical analysis

The meta-analysis was conducted using the Review Manager ver. 5.3 software (RevMan; Cochrane, London, UK). Weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for continuous variables. Odds ratios (OR) with their corresponding 95% CI were calculated for categorical variables. Heterogeneity among the studies was quantified using the I² statistic. I² values exceeding 50% were considered indicative of substantial heterogeneity. In the absence of significant heterogeneity (I² <50%; p>0.1), a fixed-effects model was used for pooled analysis [18]. In case of significant heterogeneity (I² ≥50%; p<0.1), a random-effects model was used [19]. The chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test was used for quantitative data. IBM SPSS ver. 23.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) was used for statistical analysis [20]. All p-values <0.05 were considered indicative of statistical significance for all analyses. The impact of potential publication bias on the results of the meta-analysis was evaluated using funnel plots.

Results

Literature selection and characterization

A total of 210 articles were retrieved from databases. Of these, 204 articles were excluded according to predetermined criteria, resulting in the eventual inclusion of six articles (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1

Flowchart of study selection for meta-analysis.

The characteristics of the six included studies are summarized in Table 1. These included two prospective studies and four retrospective studies [21–26]. Two studies were published in English and four in Chinese. All six studies were conducted in China. The combined study population consisted of 433 patients, with 214 assigned to the experimental group receiving FELD combined with PRP treatment (FELD+PRP group), and 219 receiving FELD alone (FELD group). All procedures were performed using the transforaminal approach. Table 2 presents the baseline comparisons between the two groups (FELD+PRP vs. FELD), including preoperative VAS, ODI, JOA scores, and Pfirrmann classification. There were no significant differences between the two groups regarding the baseline data prior to surgery.

Table 1

Characteristics of the included studies

Table 2

Baseline comparison between the two groups

Pain relief

VAS score for back pain

Both sensitivity analysis and heterogeneity analysis showed no statistically significant differences (p>0.05). All six studies had provided data on preoperative VAS score for back pain with no significant heterogeneity among the studies (I²=0%; p>0.05). With a total of 433 patients (214 in the FELD+PRP group and 219 in the FELD group), meta-analysis using a fixed-effects model revealed no significant differences between the two groups (WMD, 0.09; 95% CI, −0.16 to 0.33; p=0.48) (Fig. 2A).

Fig. 2

Forest plot comparison of Visual Analog Scale for back pain between the full endoscopic lumbar discectomy (FELD) combined with platelet-rich plasma group and the FELD group at preoperative (A) and postoperative 3-month (B), 6-month (C), and final follow-ups (D). SD, standard deviation; IV, inverse variance; CI, confidence interval; df, degrees of freedom.

Five studies reported VAS scores for back pain at 3 months after surgery, with a total of 360 patients (178 in the FELD+PRP group and 182 in the FELD group). Meta-analysis using a random-effects model (I²=63%) revealed a significantly lower mean VAS score in the FELD+PRP group compared to the FELD group (WMD, −0.58; 95% CI, −0.89 to −0.28; p=0.0002) (Fig. 2B), indicating potentially greater pain relief for patients receiving the combined therapy.

Four studies reported VAS scores for back pain at 6 months postoperatively, with a total of 299 patients (146 in the FELD+PRP group and 153 in the FELD group). Meta-analysis using a fixed-effects model (I²=25%) showed significantly lower mean VAS score in the FELF+PRP group compared to the FELD group (WMD, −0.24; 95% CI, −0.38 to −0.10; p=0.0007) (Fig. 2C), indicating potentially greater pain relief for patients receiving the combined therapy.

Four studies reported VAS scores for back pain at the final follow-up, with a total of 275 patients (134 in the FELD+PRP group and 141 in the FELD group). Meta-analysis using a fixed-effects model (I²=37%) showed significantly lower mean VAS score in the FELD+PRP group compared to the FELD group (WMD, −0.21; 95% CI, −0.34 to −0.07; p=0.002) (Fig. 2D), indicating potentially greater pain relief for patients receiving the combined therapy.

VAS score for leg pain

Three studies provided data on preoperative VAS scores for leg pain, with a total of 264 patients (130 in the FELD+PRP group and 134 in the FELD group). Meta-analysis using a fixed-effects model (I²=0%; p>0.05) revealed no significant between-group differences in this respect (WMD, −0.03; 95% CI, −0.44 to 0.39; p=0.89) (Fig. 3A). Sensitivity analysis and heterogeneity analysis showed no statistically significant differences (p>0.05).

Fig. 3

Forest plot comparison of Visual Analog Scale for leg pain between the full endoscopic lumbar discectomy (FELD) combined with platelet-rich plasma group and the FELD group at preoperative (A) and postoperative 3-month (B), 6-month (C), and final follow-ups (D). SD, standard deviation; IV, inverse variance; CI, confidence interval; df, degrees of freedom.

Three studies reported VAS scores for leg pain 3 months after surgery. After conducting further heterogeneity and sensitivity analyses, we found some differences with the leave-one-out method. However, excluding any particular study did not alter the overall results. Therefore, we decided to retain the study by Li et al. [23] in 2024 in the analysis (Supplement 1). With a total of 264 patients (130 in the FELD+PRP group and 134 in the FELD group, meta-analysis using a random-effects model (I²=83%), showed no significant difference between the two groups (WMD, 0.03; 95% CI, −0.49 to 0.55; p=0.91) at 3 months postoperatively (Fig. 3B).

Two studies had reported VAS scores for leg pain at 6 months postoperatively, with a total of 166 patients (80 in the FELD+PRP group and 86 in the FELD group). Meta-analysis using a random-effects model (I²=91%) showed no significant difference between the two groups (WMD, −0.04; 95% CI, −0.91 to 0.83; p=0.93) at 6 months postoperatively (Fig. 3C). Both sensitivity analysis and heterogeneity analysis showed no statistically significant differences (p>0.05).

Two studies reported VAS scores for leg pain at 12 months postoperatively, with a total of 166 patients (80 in the FELD+PRP group and 86 in the FELD group). Meta-analysis using a random-effects model (I²=87%) showed no significant difference between the two groups (WMD, −0.00; 95% CI, −0.69 to 0.68; p=0.99) at 12 months postoperatively (Fig. 3D). Both sensitivity analysis and heterogeneity analysis showed no statistically significant differences (p>0.05).

Functional outcomes

ODI scores

Six studies provided data on preoperative ODI scores, with a total of 433 patients (214 in the FELD+PRP group and 219 in the FELD group). Meta-analysis using a fixed-effects model (I²=0%) revealed no significant between-group difference in terms of preoperative ODI scores (WMD, −0.12; 95% CI, −1.73 to 1.50; p=0.89) (Fig. 4A). Both sensitivity analysis and heterogeneity analysis showed no statistically significant differences (p>0.05).

Fig. 4

Forest plot comparison of Oswestry Disability Index scores between the full endoscopic lumbar discectomy (FELD) combined with platelet-rich plasma group and the FELD group at preoperative (A) and postoperative 3-month (B), 6-month (C), and final follow-ups (D). SD, standard deviation; IV, inverse variance; CI, confidence interval; df, degrees of freedom.

Five studies reported ODI scores at 3 months postoperatively, with a total of 360 patients (178 in the FELD+PRP group and 182 in the FELD group). Meta-analysis using a random-effects model (I²=85%) showed no significant between-group difference (WMD, −1.13; 95% CI, −3.82 to 1.56; p=0.41) at 3 months postoperatively (Fig. 4B). Both sensitivity analysis and heterogeneity analysis showed no statistically significant differences (p>0.05).

Four studies reported ODI at 6 months postoperatively, with a total of 299 patients (146 in the FELD+PRP group and 153 in the FELD group). Although heterogeneity and sensitivity analyses revealed statistical differences, excluding the study by Lu et al. [25] in 2021 did not change the overall results. Therefore, we retained this study in the analysis (Supplement 2). Meta-analysis using a random-effects model (I²=82%) showed a significantly lower mean ODI score in the FELD+PRP group compared to the FELD group (WMD, −2.29; 95% CI, −4.61 to 0.02; p=0.05) at 6 months postoperatively (Fig. 4C).

Four studies reported ODI at final follow-up, with a total of 275 patients (134 in the FELD+PRP group and 141 in the FELD group). Meta-analysis using a fixed-effects model (I²=0%) showed significantly lower mean ODI score in the FELD+PRP group compared to the FELD group (WMD, −2.89; 95% CI, −3.59 to −2.20; p<0.0001) at final follow-up (Fig. 4D). Both sensitivity analysis and heterogeneity analysis showed no statistically significant differences (p>0.05).

JOA scores

Four studies provided data on preoperative JOA scores, with a total of 252 patients (127 in the FELD+PRP group and 125 in the FELD group). Further heterogeneity and sensitivity analyses revealed some differences in the leave-one-out method; however, the heterogeneity analysis showed no statistically significant differences. After careful consideration, we decided to retain the study by Du et al. [21] in 2023 in the analysis (Supplement 3). Meta-analysis using a fixed-effects model (I²=16%) revealed no significant between-group difference in terms of preoperative JOA scores (WMD, 0.39; 95% CI, −0.14 to 0.92; p=0.15) (Fig. 5A).

Fig. 5

Forest plot comparison of Japanese Orthopaedic Association scores between the full endoscopic lumbar discectomy (FELD) combined with platelet-rich plasma group and the FELD group at preoperative (A) and postoperative 3-month (B), and 12-month (C). SD, standard deviation; IV, inverse variance; CI, confidence interval; df, degrees of freedom.

Four studies reported JOA scores at 3 months postoperatively, with a total of 252 patients (127 in the FELD+PRP group and 125 in the FELD group). Although the sensitivity analysis indicated statistical differences, the heterogeneity analysis showed none. Considering this, we decided to include the study by Lu et al. [25] in 2021 in the final analysis (Supplement 4). Meta-analysis using a random-effects model (I²=92%) showed significantly higher mean JOA score in the FELD+PRP group compared to the FELD group (WMD, 1.97; 95% CI, 0.02 to 3.93; p=0.05) at 3 months postoperatively (Fig. 5B).

Two studies reported JOA at 12 months postoperatively, with a total of 94 patients (47 in the FELD+PRP group and 47 in the FELD group). Meta-analysis using a fixed-effects model (I²=34%) showed significantly higher mean JOA score in the FELD+PRP group compared to the FELD group (WMD, 1.33; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.97; p<0.0001) at 12 months postoperatively (Fig. 5C). Both sensitivity analysis and heterogeneity analysis showed no statistically significant differences (p>0.05).

Disc height

Both sensitivity analysis and heterogeneity analysis showed no statistically significant differences (p>0.05). Three studies provided data on preoperative disc height, with a total of 192 patients (97 in the FELD+PRP group and 95 in the FELD group). Meta-analysis using a fixed-effects model (I²=0%) revealed no significant between-group difference in terms of baseline disc height (WMD, 0.12; 95% CI, −0.14 to 0.38; p=0.37) (Fig. 6A).

Fig. 6

Forest plot comparison of disc height between the full endoscopic lumbar discectomy (FELD) combined with platelet-rich plasma (PRP) group and the FELD group at preoperative (A), final follow-up (B), and change in disc height (C). Forest plot comparison of complications between the FELD combined with PRP group and the FELD group (D). SD, standard deviation; IV, inverse variance; CI, confidence interval; df, degrees of freedom; M-H, Mantel-Haenszel.

Three studies reported postoperative disc height, with a total of 192 patients (97 in the FELD+PRP group and 95 in the FELD group). Meta-analysis using a fixed-effects model (I²=24%) showed significantly greater disc height in the FELD+PRP group compared to the FELD group (WMD, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.51 to 1.00; p<0.00001) at final follow-up (Fig. 6B).

Three studies reported a change in disc height after the procedure, with a total of 192 patients (97 in the FELD+PRP group and 95 in the FELD group). Meta-analysis using a fixed-effects model (I²=0%) showed significantly lesser loss of disc height in the FELD+PRP group compared to the FELD group (WMD, −0.64; 95% CI, −1.00 to −0.28; p=0.0005) (Fig. 6C).

Complications

Data on postoperative complications were reported by six studies with a total of 433 patients. Despite statistical differences observed in the sensitivity analysis, no significant differences were found in the heterogeneity analysis (Supplement 5). Meta-analysis using a fixed-effects model (I²=0%) revealed a significantly lower postoperative complication rate in the FELD+PRP group compared to the FELD group (WMD, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.19 to 0.98; p=0.04) (Fig. 6D). The incidence rates of complications in the FELD group and FELD+PRP group were 9.13% and 4.21%, respectively.

Pfirrmann grading

Data from five studies were employed to assess Pfirrmann grading of disc degeneration. Comparison of preoperative Pfirrmann grading between the two groups yielded no statistically significant differences (χ²=1.82; p=0.611). However, at the final follow-up, the FELD+PRP group showed significantly better Pfirrmann grading compared to the FELD group (χ²=16.53; p=0.002).

Quality analysis and publication bias

Table 3 presents the results of the risk-of-bias evaluation for all studies included in the meta-analysis. Each of the included studies surpassed predefined quality thresholds, achieving a NOS score of ≥5 stars. The impact of potential publication bias on the results of the meta-analysis was evaluated by visual inspection of the funnel plot (Fig. 7). The symmetrical distribution of the studies around the effect estimate reinforced the conclusion of a low risk of publication bias. Table 4 summarizes the application of the GRADE methodology to assess the overall credibility of the results, providing a transparent framework for interpreting the strength of the evidence.

Table 3

Quality assessment of the included studies

Fig. 7

Funnel plots of publication bias for final Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for back (A), final VAS for leg (B), Oswestry Disability Index (C), Japanese Orthopaedic Association (D), disc height (E), and complications (F). SE, standard error; MD, mean difference.

Table 4

A credibility assessment according to the GRADE scoring system

Discussion

LDH clinically manifests as low back pain, radiating nerve root pain in the lower limbs, and possible sensory disturbances in the affected dermatomes [27]. For patients unresponsive to conservative measures, surgical intervention remains the mainstay of therapy. The emergence of minimally invasive techniques, particularly spinal endoscopy, has garnered enthusiasm due to its advantages of reduced tissue trauma and expedited recovery, yielding favorable clinical outcomes [28,29]. However, minimally invasive approaches, while preserving surrounding tissues, often necessitate fragmentation or removal of herniated disc material, compromising the structural integrity of the disc and potentially exacerbating postsurgical disc degeneration. Moreover, the avascular nature of the intervertebral disc poses a significant challenge, as its limited self-repair capacity hinders meaningful recovery from existing damage. In light of these limitations, developing novel therapeutic strategies that promote intervertebral disc tissue repair and regeneration while slowing the disc degeneration progression has become imperative. Innovative therapeutic approaches offer immense promise for the future management of LDH.

PRP is a platelet concentrate derived from the centrifugation of autologous peripheral blood [30]. PRP releases a multitude of biologically active substances with immunomodulatory, anti-inflammatory, and neuroprotective properties. These substances also promote Schwann cell activation and axonal regeneration, facilitating the repair of degenerated intervertebral discs [31–33]. The multifaceted attributes of PRP underscore its comprehensive therapeutic impact, making it a promising avenue for alleviating pathological nerve conditions.

The present study provides compelling evidence for the potential benefits of combining FELD with PRP injection for managing LDH. Our findings suggest the following potential effects of PRP: (1) Pain relief: Patients receiving FELD+PRP reported lower postoperative VAS scores for back pain, indicating greater pain relief and improved quality of life. (2) Functional improvement: Both JOA and ODI scores showed greater improvement in the FELD+PRP group, indicating better functional recovery. (3) Slowing disc degeneration: PRP’s regenerative properties promote repair and regeneration of the damaged intervertebral disc annulus fibrosus, potentially slowing disc degeneration and disc height loss. (4) Reduced postoperative complications: The FELD+PRP group experienced fewer postoperative complications, with a significantly lower recurrence rate compared to the FELD alone group, likely attributed to PRP’s ability to promote intervertebral disc repair and slow degeneration.

The combination of FELD and PRP confers distinct advantages compared to FELD alone. First, PRP stimulates the proliferation of intervertebral disc cells and facilitates the synthesis of extracellular matrix [34]. This, in turn, fosters tissue repair and delays the progression of intervertebral disc degeneration [35]. Second, the anti-inflammatory factors in PRP inhibit the release of cytokines, exerting anti-inflammatory effects [36]. Localized PRP injection has been shown to alleviate chemically-induced discogenic low back pain [37]. Third, due to the autologous origin of PRP, it poses a lower risk of infection and allergic reactions. The inherent antimicrobial properties of PRP further reduce the likelihood of postoperative infections [38]. Lastly, the utilization of intervertebral foraminoplasty enables the precise injection of PRP into the intervertebral disc through direct visualization from the annular fibrous rupture. This increased precision enhances the efficacy of PRP in mitigating disc degeneration, thereby optimizing its therapeutic impact [22].

Considerations for PRP injections under FELD include adhering to the principle that a concentrated application of platelets and growth factors directly to intervertebral disc cells is crucial for initiating the tissue repair cascade. Direct injection of liquid PRP into the intervertebral disc may result in substantial PRP outflow, reducing its content within the disc and compromising the efficacy of intervertebral disc repair. Moreover, surgical excision of the disc tissue during the procedure requires delicate balance. Removing too much tissue can cause postoperative lumbar instability, while removing too little can compromise decompression of the intervertebral spine, potentially leading to complications such as disc scar tissue proliferation, herniation, and nerve compression. Therefore, the extent of herniated disc removal during surgery is a crucial determinant of long-term outcomes. Furthermore, repair of the ruptured annulus fibrosus is a critical aspect of treatment, given its prolonged recovery duration. Premature and strenuous physical activity postoperatively may precipitate the protrusion of the nucleus pulposus from the ruptured annulus fibrosus. Some studies suggest that combining FELD with fibrous annular suturing is more effective in preserving disc height, thus reducing the recurrence of disc herniation [23,26]. Therefore, it is imperative to preserve annulus fibrosus integrity during surgery to minimize recurrence. Lastly, the efficacy of PRP is closely tied to the degree of disc degeneration. In patients with severe disc degeneration, the reduced number and activity of active cells within the intervertebral disc reduce the sensitivity to growth factors in PRP. Consequently, applying PRP in the treatment of young patients with LDH in the early stages of disc degeneration is of particular significance, as it leverages the relatively stronger disc cell bioactivity and favorable internal environment conducive to tissue repair.

To the best of our knowledge, this meta-analysis is the first comprehensive evaluation of the efficacy and safety of FELD combined with PRP for treating LDH. While it provides valuable insights into the potential benefits of FELD+PRP, some limitations must be acknowledged. The relatively small number of studies and sample size limit the generalizability of the findings. Additionally, the majority of studies were non-RCTs, introducing potential bias into the results. Furthermore, all studies originated from China, raising concerns about the generalizability of the findings to other populations with diverse genetic, environmental, and healthcare considerations. Finally, the possibility of publication bias cannot be ruled out, which could influence the observed effect size. Variations in follow-up time, postoperative Pfirrmann classification assessment timing, and inter-observer variability may also contribute to statistical bias.

Conclusions

This study reveals that combining FELD with PRP for treating LDH leads to better outcomes than FELD alone. These outcomes include better back pain relief, greater functional improvement, and fewer postoperative complications. This observed superiority is attributed to the synergistic effects of FELD and PRP, which not only alleviate back pain but also contribute to the repair of the annulus fibrosus of the intervertebral disc. Additionally, this combined approach helps ameliorate intervertebral disc degeneration and mitigate loss of disc height. These benefits suggest that combining FELD with PRP is a more effective and safer treatment option for LDH, which warrants consideration in clinical practice.

Key Points

Full endoscopic lumbar discectomy (FELD) combined with platelet-rich plasma (PRP) demonstrated superior clinical outcomes compared to FELD alone for lumbar disc herniation.
Postoperative pain relief (lower Visual Analog Scale scores) and functional recovery (improved Oswestry Disability Index and Japanese Orthopaedic Association scores) were significantly better in the FELD+PRP group.
Disc height preservation was greater, and the complication rate was lower with the combined treatment (p=0.0005).
Disc degeneration improvement, as assessed by Pfirrmann grading, was significantly enhanced in the FELD+PRP group (p=0.002).

Notes

Conflict of Interest

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Acknowledgments

The author (G.X.L.) wishes to acknowledge the financial support of the “Xiamen Health System Discipline Leaders and their Backup Candidates, Senior Management Talent Training Candidates Training Program (2021)”. The datasets are presented within the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the funded by the Xiamen Municipal Bureau of Science and Technology (Grant Number: 3502Z20224033); funded by the Natural Science Foundation of Ningbo (No.2023J032); supported by Shenzhen Key Medical Discipline Construction Fund (SZXK022). The funder had no role in the design of the study or collection, analysis, or interpretation of data or in writing the manuscript.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: GXL, RSC, THZ. Data curation: GXL, KX, LRH. Formal analysis: RSC, LRH. Funding acquisition: GXL, LL, THZ. Methodology: LL, KX. Project administration: GXL, LL. Visualization: THZ, RSC. Writing–original draft: GXL, LL. Writing–review & editing: GXL, RSC, THZ. Final approval of the manuscript: all authors.

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary materials can be available from https://doi.org/10.31616/asj.2024.0243.

Supplement 1. Heterogeneity analysis (A) and sensitivity analysis (B).

asj-2024-0243-Supplement-1.pdf

Supplement 2. Heterogeneity analysis (A) and sensitivity analysis (B).

asj-2024-0243-Supplement-2.pdf

Supplement 3. Heterogeneity analysis (A) and sensitivity analysis (B).

asj-2024-0243-Supplement-3.pdf

Supplement 4. Heterogeneity analysis (A) and sensitivity analysis (B).

asj-2024-0243-Supplement-4.pdf

Supplement 5. Heterogeneity analysis (A) and sensitivity analysis (B).

asj-2024-0243-Supplement-5.pdf

References

1. Lin GX, Zhu MT, Kotheeranurak V, Lyu P, Chen CM, Hu BS. Current status and research hotspots in the field of full endoscopic spine surgery: a bibliometric analysis. Front Surg 2022;9:989513.

2. Kotheeranurak V, Liawrungrueang W, Quillo-Olvera J, et al. Full-endoscopic lumbar discectomy approach selection: a systematic review and proposed algorithm. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2023;48:534–44.

3. Chen BL, Guo JB, Zhang HW, et al. Surgical versus non-operative treatment for lumbar disc herniation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Rehabil 2018;32:146–60.

4. Rasouli MR, Rahimi-Movaghar V, Shokraneh F, Moradi-Lakeh M, Chou R. Minimally invasive discectomy versus microdiscectomy/open discectomy for symptomatic lumbar disc herniation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014;2014:CD010328.

5. Kanno H, Aizawa T, Hahimoto K, Itoi E. Minimally invasive discectomy for lumbar disc herniation: current concepts, surgical techniques, and outcomes. Int Orthop 2019;43:917–22.

6. Sivakanthan S, Hasan S, Hofstetter C. Full-endoscopic lumbar discectomy. Neurosurg Clin N Am 2020;31:1–7.

7. Chen CM, Lin GX, Sharma S, et al. Suprapedicular retrocorporeal technique of transforaminal full-endoscopic lumbar discectomy for highly downward-migrated disc herniation. World Neurosurg 2020;143:e631–9.

8. Raeissadat SA, Ghazi Hosseini P, Bahrami MH, et al. The comparison effects of intra-articular injection of platelet rich plasma (PRP), plasma rich in growth factor (PRGF), hyaluronic acid (HA), and ozone in knee osteoarthritis; a one year randomized clinical trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2021;22:134.

9. Wongjarupong A, Pairuchvej S, Laohapornsvan P, et al. “Platelet-rich plasma” epidural injection an emerging strategy in lumbar disc herniation: a randomized controlled trial”. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2023;24:335.

10. Le VT, Nguyen Dao LT, Nguyen AM. Transforaminal injection of autologous platelet-rich plasma for lumbar disc herniation: a single-center prospective study in Vietnam. Asian J Surg 2023;46:438–43.

11. Tuakli-Wosornu YA, Terry A, Boachie-Adjei K, et al. Lumbar intradiskal platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections: a prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled study. PM R 2016;8:1–10.

12. Lin GX, Kim JS, Kotheeranurak V, Chen CM, Hu BS, Rui G. Does the application of expandable cages in TLIF provide improved clinical and radiological results compared to static cages?: a meta-analysis. Front Surg 2022;9:949938.

13. Lin GX, Chen CM, Zhu MT, Zheng L. The safety and effectiveness of tranexamic acid in lumbar interbody fusion surgery: an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. World Neurosurg 2022;166:198–211.

14. Azimi P, Mohammadi HR, Montazeri A. An outcome measure of functionality and pain in patients with lumbar disc herniation: a validation study of the Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score. J Orthop Sci 2012;17:341–5.

15. Rim DC. Quantitative Pfirrmann disc degeneration grading system to overcome the limitation of Pfirrmann disc degeneration grade. Korean J Spine 2016;13:1–8.

16. Lin GX, Yao ZK, Zhang X, Chen CM, Rui G, Hu BS. Evaluation of the outcomes of biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion compared with conventional fusion operations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World Neurosurg 2022;160:55–66.

17. Solmi M, De Toffol M, Kim JY, et al. Balancing risks and benefits of cannabis use: umbrella review of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials and observational studies. BMJ 2023;382:e072348.

18. Feng AP, Yu SF, Zhu MT, He LR, Lin GX. Impact of postoperative bracing following spinal fusion for degenerative lumbar conditions: an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int J Spine Surg 2024;18:540–50.

19. Feng AP, Yu SF, Chen CM, He LR, Jhang SW, Lin GX. Comparative outcomes of obese and non-obese patients with lumbar disc herniation receiving full endoscopic transforaminal discectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2024;25:322.

20. Lin GX, He LR, Nan JN, et al. Comparing outcomes of banana-shaped and straight cages in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurospine 2024;21:261–72.

21. Du W, Ding Y, Chui H, et al. Percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy combined with platelet-rich plasma for discogenic low back pain. Orthop J Chin [Internet] 2023;[cited 2024 Jun 10]. 31:887–91. Available from: https://jxwk.ijournals.cn/zgjxwkzz/article/abstract/20231005?st=search.

22. Jiang Y, Zuo R, Yuan S, et al. Transforaminal endoscopic lumbar discectomy with versus without platelet-rich plasma injection for lumbar disc herniation: a prospective cohort study. Pain Res Manag 2022;2022:6181478.

23. Li T, Ding Y, Jiang Q, Zhang H, Liu J. Percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy combined with platelet-rich plasma in treatment of lumbar disc herniation. Chin J Tissue Eng Res 2024;28:2385–90.

24. Lin Z, Deng G, Hou P, et al. Effect of platelet-rich plasma on outcomes of percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy. Orthop J Chin [Internet] 2022;[cited 2024 Jun 10]. 30:1750–5. Available from: https://jxwk.ijournals.cn/zgjxwkzz/article/abstract/20221905?st=search.

25. Lu Z, Jiang Q, Fu B, et al. Treatment of lumbar disc herniation in young adults using percutaneous spinal endoscopic technique combined with platelet rich plasma injection. Transl Med J [Internet] 2021;[cited 2024 Jun 10]; 10:30–4. Available from: https://jxwk.ijournals.cn/zgjxwkzz/article/abstract/20221905?st=search.

26. Zhang L, Zhang C, Song D, Chen G, Liu L. Combination of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy and platelet-rich plasma hydrogel injection for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation. J Orthop Surg Res 2023;18:609.

27. van der Windt DA, Simons E, Riphagen II, et al. Physical examination for lumbar radiculopathy due to disc herniation in patients with low-back pain. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010;(2):CD007431.

28. Zhu MT, Hu BS, Chen CM, Liu HQ, Lin GX. Comparison of full endoscopic lumbar diskectomy using the transforaminal approach versus interlaminar approach for L5-S1 lumbar disk herniation treatment: a meta-analysis. J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg 2024;85:501–12.

29. Gulsever CI, Sahin D, Ortahisar E, Erguven M, Sabanci PA, Aras Y. Full-endoscopic transforaminal approach for lumbar discectomy. J Vis Exp 2023;(199):e65508.

30. Filardo G, Previtali D, Napoli F, Candrian C, Zaffagnini S, Grassi A. PRP injections for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Cartilage 2021;13(1_suppl):364S–375S.

31. Kawabata S, Akeda K, Yamada J, et al. Advances in platelet-rich plasma treatment for spinal diseases: a systematic review. Int J Mol Sci 2023;24:7677.

32. Li P, Zhang R, Zhou Q. Efficacy of platelet-rich plasma in retarding intervertebral disc degeneration: a meta-analysis of animal studies. Biomed Res Int 2017;2017:7919201.

33. Formica M, Cavagnaro L, Formica C, Mastrogiacomo M, Basso M, Di Martino A. What is the preclinical evidence on platelet rich plasma and intervertebral disc degeneration? Eur Spine J 2015;24:2377–86.

34. Gelalis ID, Christoforou G, Charchanti A, et al. Autologous platelet-rich plasma (PRP) effect on intervertebral disc restoration: an experimental rabbit model. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 2019;29:545–51.

35. Anitua E, Padilla S. Biologic therapies to enhance intervertebral disc repair. Regen Med 2018;13:55–72.

36. Pixley JN, Cook MK, Singh R, Larrondo J, McMichael AJ. A comprehensive review of platelet-rich plasma for the treatment of dermatologic disorders. J Dermatolog Treat 2023;34:2142035.

37. Monfett M, Harrison J, Boachie-Adjei K, Lutz G. Intradiscal platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections for discogenic low back pain: an update. Int Orthop 2016;40:1321–8.

38. Velasquez Garcia A, Ingala Martini L, Franco Abache A, Abdo G. Role of platelet-rich plasma in the treatment of rotator cuff tendinopathy. World J Orthop 2023;14:505–15.

Article information Continued

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Study (year)	Study design	Country	Group	Gender (M:F)	Mean age (yr)	Operation level	PRP extraction and dosage	BMI (kg/m²)	Measured outcome	Complications (no.)	Follow-up (mo)
Du et al. [21] (2023)	Prospective	China	FELD+PRP	8:10	48.2±10	L3–4 (3); L4–5 (8); L5–S1 (7)	2nd centrifugation: 2 mL	22.3±2.0	VAS; JOA; ODI; Pfirrmann grading; disc height	NR	12
			FELD	9:9	46.8±10.4	L3–4 (3); L4–5 (9); L5–S1 (6)	-	23.1±2.3		NR
Jiang et al. [22] (2022)	Prospective	China	FELD+PRP	32:19	48.1±10.25	L3–4 (6); L4–5 (33); L5–S1 (12)	2nd centrifugation: 3.5–4 mL	NR	VAS; JOA; ODI; Pfirrmann grading	Recurrence (1)	12
			FELD	33:24	45.9±9.83	L3–4 (7); L4–5 (30); L5–S1 (20)	-			Recurrence (4)
Li et al. [23] (2024)	Retrospective	China	FELD+PRP	26:21	43.38±14.01	L4–5 (27); L5–S1 (20)	2nd centrifugation: 4 mL	22.60±3.35	VAS; JOA; ODI; Pfirrmann grading; disc height	Recurrence (1)	28.03±2.69
			FELD	20:18	42.93±10.37	L4–5 (22); L5–S1 (16)	-	23.13±3.51		Recurrence (3)	27.86±2.17
Lin et al. [24] (2022)	Retrospective	China	FELD+PRP	21:15	48.36±9.53	L3–4 (6); L4–5 (21); L5–S1 (9)	2nd centrifugation: 5 mL	28.92±3.21	VAS; ODI; Pfirrmann grading	Dural tears (2); nerve root injure (3)	15.37±1.92
			FELD	17:20	49.12±8.72	L3–4 (8); L4–5 (16); L5–S1 (13)	-	28.47±2.93		Dural tears (3); nerve root injure (2); incisional hematoma (1)
Lu et al. [25] (2021)	Retrospective	China	FELD+PRP	38:22	NR	L3–4 (8); L4–5 (37); L5–S1 (15)	2nd centrifugation: 4 mL	NR	VAS; JOA; ODI; Pfirrmann grading	NR	6
			FELD				-			Recurrence (1)
Zhang et al. [26] (2023)	Retrospective	China	FELD+PRP	28:22	41.5±9.8	L3–4 (9); L4–5 (18); L5–S1 (23)	2nd centrifugation: 3.5–4 mL	21.3±3.1	VAS; JOA; ODI; Pfirrmann grading; disc height	Recurrence (2)	18
			FELD	26:22	45.8±11	L3–4 (8); L4–5 (16); L5–S1 (24)	-	23.4±2.9		Recurrence (6)

Variable (no.)	FELD+PRP (no.)	FELD (no.)	p-value
Preop VAS for back pain (n=433)	5.8±1.4 (214)	5.7±1.7 (219)	>0.05
Preop VAS for leg pain (n=264)	7.0±1.8 (130)	7.0±1.8 (134)
Preop ODI (n=433)	56.2±21.1 (214)	56.2±12.8 (219)
Preop JOA (n=252)	12.1±2.1 (127)	11.8±2.3 (125)
Preop disc height (n=192)	10.8±1.0 mm (97)	10.6±0.9 mm (95)
Mean age (n=373)	45.9 yr (202)	46.1 yr (171)
Body mass index (n=269)	23.8 kg/m² (151)	24.5 kg/m² (114)
Gender	202	197	>0.05
Male	115	104
Female	87	93
Preop Pfirrmann grading	196	201	>0.05
I	2	4
II	24	22
III	115	130
IV	55	49
V	0	0

Studies	Selection				Comparability	Exposure			Total scores (of 9)

	Is the case definition adequate?	Representativeness of the cases	Selection of controls	Definition of controls	Comparability of cases and controls on the basis of the design or analysis	Ascertainment of exposure	Same method of ascertainment for cases and controls	Non-response rate
Du et al. [21] (2023)	⋆	⋆	⋆	⋆	⋆⋆	⋆	⋆		8

Jiang et al. [22] (2022)	⋆	⋆	⋆	⋆	⋆⋆	⋆	⋆		8

Li et al. [23] (2024)	⋆	⋆		⋆	⋆⋆	⋆	⋆		7

Lin et al. [24] (2022)	⋆	⋆		⋆	⋆⋆	⋆	⋆		7

Lu et al. [25] (2021)	⋆	⋆		⋆	⋆⋆	⋆	⋆		7

Zhang et al. [26] (2023)	⋆	⋆		⋆	⋆⋆	⋆	⋆		7

Outcome	No. of participants (studies)	Quality of the evidence (GRADE)	Comments and overall results
VAS for back	433 (6)	Moderate	VAS for back pain at 3 months, 6 months, and final follow-up after surgery were significantly lower in the FELD combined PRP group than in the FELD group for the treatment of LDH (p<0.05)
VAS for leg	264 (3)	Low	There was no statistically significant difference in the VAS leg pain at 3 months, 6 months, and final follow-up after surgery in the FELD combined PRP group compared to the FELD group for the treatment of LDH (p>0.05)
ODI	433 (6)	Moderate	Compared with the FELD group, the FELD combined with PRP group for the treatment of LDH showed more improvement in ODI at 6 months postoperatively and at final follow-up (p<0.05)
JOA	252 (4)	Moderate	Compared with the FELD group, the FELD combined with PRP group for the treatment of LDH showed more improvement in JOA at 3 months and 12 months postoperatively (p<0.05)
Disc height	192 (3)	Moderate	Showed the FELD combined with PRP group exhibited a less loss of disc height compared to the FELD group (p=0.0005)
Complications	433 (6)	Low	Showed the FELD combined with PRP group exhibited a lower postoperative complication rate compared to the FELD group (p=0.02)
Pfirrmann grading	392 (5)	Moderate	The statistically significant improvement in Pfirrmann grading at final follow-up in the FELD combined with PRP group compared to the FELD group highlights the potential benefits of this combined approach (χ²=11.382, p=0.023)