INTRODUCTION: Despite increasing popularity of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in treating aging facial skin, the quality of evidence supporting its use is poor due to the lack of consistent methods of its preparation and application. OBJECTIVE: This study was conducted to assess treatment efficacy and patient satisfaction with a single PRP treatment prepared with a simplified preparation and application technique. METHODS: Four millilitre of PRP were injected into 6 standardized points on each side of the face. Outcomes were assessed by independent physician evaluation of pretreatment and posttreatment photographs using the Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale (WSRS) and Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS). In addition, patient-reported outcomes were evaluated using the FACE-Q. RESULTS: Thirty-one participants ranging from 27 to 71 years of age (median, 38; IQR 32-58) were recruited for this study. Posttreatment WSRS scores improved in only 1 patient; the GAIS scores of 14 patients indicated aesthetic improvement. Analysis of FACE-Q scores revealed statistically significant increases in participant satisfaction with overall facial appearance and cheeks. The most frequently reported adverse effects were tenderness (23.4%; 7 of 31), facial tightness (20.0%; 6 of 31), and swelling (20.0%; 6 of 31). CONCLUSIONS: A simple method of PRP preparation offers modest benefit in treating the effects of skin aging and photodamage. Future research studies should alter our methods using a stepwise approach to optimize the treatment of aging facial skin with PRP.
INTRODUCTION: Despite increasing popularity of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in treating aging facial skin, the quality of evidence supporting its use is poor due to the lack of consistent methods of its preparation and application. OBJECTIVE: This study was conducted to assess treatment efficacy and patient satisfaction with a single PRP treatment prepared with a simplified preparation and application technique. METHODS: Four millilitre of PRP were injected into 6 standardized points on each side of the face. Outcomes were assessed by independent physician evaluation of pretreatment and posttreatment photographs using the Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale (WSRS) and Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS). In addition, patient-reported outcomes were evaluated using the FACE-Q. RESULTS: Thirty-one participants ranging from 27 to 71 years of age (median, 38; IQR 32-58) were recruited for this study. Posttreatment WSRS scores improved in only 1 patient; the GAIS scores of 14 patients indicated aesthetic improvement. Analysis of FACE-Q scores revealed statistically significant increases in participant satisfaction with overall facial appearance and cheeks. The most frequently reported adverse effects were tenderness (23.4%; 7 of 31), facial tightness (20.0%; 6 of 31), and swelling (20.0%; 6 of 31). CONCLUSIONS: A simple method of PRP preparation offers modest benefit in treating the effects of skin aging and photodamage. Future research studies should alter our methods using a stepwise approach to optimize the treatment of aging facial skin with PRP.
Authors: Min He; Tianyi Chen; Yuhuan Lv; Peiyang Song; Bo Deng; Xuewen Guo; Shunli Rui; Johnson Boey; David G Armstrong; Yu Ma; Wuquan Deng Journal: Front Bioeng Biotechnol Date: 2022-09-29