4.0 Review

The Efficacy of Platelet-Rich Plasma in the Field of Hair Restoration and Facial Aesthetics-A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

期刊

JOURNAL OF CUTANEOUS MEDICINE AND SURGERY
卷 23, 期 2, 页码 185-203

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/1203475418818073

关键词

alopecia areata; androgenetic alopecia; facial aesthetics; meta-analysis; platelet-rich plasma

向作者/读者索取更多资源

As a promising alternative to traditional treatment, platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is being used to encourage hair growth through the release of growth factors and cytokines. In addition to hair restoration, PRP's multifactorial capabilities can also be used to treat aging skin, facial scarring, and acne. The purpose of this review is to critically examine the success of PRP in the field of dermatology, with specific attention to the role of PRP in hair restoration. Where possible, meta-analyses were used to evaluate the efficacy of PRP. In androgenetic alopecia (AGA) patients, 3 monthly PRP injections (1 session administered every month for 3 months) exhibited greater efficacy over placebo as measured by change in total hair density (hair/cm(2)) over the treatment period (mean difference: 25.61, 95% CI: 4.45 to 46.77; P = .02). The studies included in the meta-analysis used a half-head design, which may have influenced the results because of the effects PRP can induce. Controlled studies suggest that 2 to 4 sessions of PRP combined with traditional therapies and procedures can help minimize acne scarring and facial burns, improve aesthetic results, and decrease recovery time. However, data for these indications are lacking and are less robust in design. In conclusion, to achieve an improvement in hair restoration in patients with mild AGA, 3 initial monthly PRP injections should be given. Only upon completion of rigorous, randomized, controlled studies can standardized and effective PRP protocols for treating dermatology conditions such as acne scarring, facial burns, and aging skin be determined.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据