Curasan PRP kit vs. PCCS PRP system. Collection efficiency and platelet counts of two different methods for the preparation of platelet-rich plasma.

An important reason to improve methods of isolating platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is the potential use of autologous thrombocyte growth factors. In addition to discontinuous cell separation, two methods for extracting PRP that can be performed directly by the surgeon are now available. This study compared the suitability of these two methods for the preparation of PRP. Whole blood was drawn from 47 healthy donors (18 men, 29 women) aged 20-59 years (mean 29.9, SD 7.7). For each donor, PRP was separated by the PCCS method (PCCS Kit, 3i Implant Innovations, Palm Beach Gardens, FL, USA) and by the Curasan method (analogous to the PRP kit, Curasan, Kleinostheim, Germany). Thrombocyte counts differed significantly (sign test P = 0.001) between the donor blood (mean 290,000/ micro l, SD 86,000/ microl), the PCCS PRP preparation (mean 2,209,000/ microl, SD 901,000/ microl), and the Curasan PRP (mean 1,075,000/ micro l, SD 636,000/ microl). The correlation between the thrombocyte count in the PRP and the thrombocyte count in the donor whole blood was greater for the PCCS PRP (Spearman's correlation coefficient rS = 0.60) than for the Curasan PRP (r(S) = 0.34). A slight, clinically irrelevant, influence of gender on thrombocyte concentration in whole blood was found, but no influence of age was detected.