4.7 Article

Evaluation of Not-Activated and Activated PRP in Hair Loss Treatment: Role of Growth Factor and Cytokine Concentrations Obtained by Different Collection Systems

Journal

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijms18020408

Keywords

androgenic alopecia; hair loss; autologous PRP; activated PRP; growth factors

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Platelet rich plasma (PRP) was tested as a potential therapy for androgenetic alopecia (AGA) through two different clinical protocols in which one population (18 participants) received half-head treatment with autologous non-activated PRP (A-PRP) produced by CPunT Preparation System (Biomed Device, Modena, Italy) and the other half-head with placebo, and a second separated population in which all participants (n = 6, 3 participants per group) received treatment with calcium-activated PRP (AA-PRP) produced from one of two different PRP collection devices (Regen Blood Cell Therapy or Arthrex Angel System). For the A-PRP study, three treatments were administered over 30-day intervals. Trichoscan analysis of patients, three months post-treatment, showed a clinical improvement in the number of hairs in the target area (36 +/- 3 hairs) and in total hair density (65 +/- 5 hair cm(2)), whereas negligible improvements in hair count (1.1 +/- 1.4 hairs) and density (1.9 +/- 10.2 hair cm(2)) were seen in the region of the scalp that received placebo. Microscopic evaluation conducted two weeks after treatment showed also an increase in epidermal thickness, Ki67(+) keratinocytes, and in the number of follicles. The AA-PRP treatment groups received a singular set of injections, and six months after the treatments were administered, notable differences in clinical outcomes were obtained from the two PRP collection devices (+90 +/- 6 hair cm(2) versus -73 +/- 30 hair cm(2) hair densities, Regen versus Arthrex). Growth factor concentrations in AA-PRP prepared from the two collection devices did not differ significantly upon calcium activation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available