Table 2 Preclinical summary
Author, year | Study type | Objective | PRP type versus control | Bacteria targeted | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Nimal, 2016 [47] | Drosophila model | To develop a novel injectable hydrogel system for infectious wound treatment that can reduce the inflammatory phase (by inhibiting the bacterial growth using tigecycline) and enhance the granulation phase (by the addition of PRP) and simultaneously promote efficient wound healing | PRP from blood bank versus Tigecycline nanoparticles + chitosan hydrogel in PBS | S. aureus | * tg-ChPRP gel, and tg-ChNPs-ChPRP gel showed a significant zone of inhibition against S. aureus |
* ChPRP gel alone failed to demonstrate any antibacterial activity, and the incorporation of PRP into the tg-Ch and tg-ChNPs-Ch gel did not enhance or inhibit antibacterial activity | |||||
* ChPRP gel with the lowest concentration of tg-ChNPs (1 μg/mg) showed a significant reduction in bacterial growth | |||||
Yassin, 2019 [48] | Rat model (N = 12) | To compare the efficacy of PRP wafers and PRP powder in terms of platelet count, antibacterial and healing effects in a rat model | PRP wafer and lyophilized PRP versus PRP-free wafer | A. baumannii | * PRP had antibacterial activity against A. baumannii |
* PRP wafer showed highest percent of wound size reduction on induced wounds in rat | |||||
* PRP wafers achieved the shortest healing time followed by lyophilized PRP powder and finally PRP-free wafer | |||||
Shibata, 2018 [37] | Rabbit model (N = 16) | To evaluate the effectiveness of the controlled release of PRP from biodegradable gelatin hydrogel used to promote healing in a rabbit ischemic sternal model | PRP versus no treatment | Sternal healing, no particular bacteria flora studied | * PRP gel group showed a significantly higher proportion of fibrosis within the fracture area (an indicator of sternal healing) than the other groups |
* PRP significantly increased the mean intensity of osteocalcin, suggesting bone regeneration | |||||
Farghali, 2018 [50] | Canine (N = 6) | To compare healing and bacterial clearance of MRSA-infected wounds and wound tissue expression of TNF-α, and VEGFA and the concentration of malondialdhyde and gluthathione reductase in wound tissue over time | PRP versus clindamycin | MRSA | The PRP experimental group demonstrated superior healing by all measures: clinical examination/measurement, clinical examination, bacterial growth evaluation, biochemical assessment of oxidative stress, quantification of the expression of growth factor and cytokine genes, histopathological analysis, and immunohistochemical evaluation. PRP had a strong effect on MRSA; notably however, this effect was only observed when PRP was activated with CaCl2 |
Li, 2013 [41] | New Zealand rabbits (N = 50) | To compare MRSA-induced osteomyelitis treatment outcomes radiologically, microbiologically, and histologically | L-PRP gel versus no treatment, debridement and parenteral treatment with vancomycin (VAN) alone, L-PRP gel + VAN, L-PRP gel injection | MRSA | L-PRP gel + VAN group exhibited best therapeutic efficacy for bone healing and infection elimination. Best in vivo efficacy was for vancomycin, although PRP also demonstrated antibiotic efficacy |