PRP Preparation in Hair Medicine: Tubes, RCF and Centrifugation

PRP is not a standardized preparation

Clinical literature on androgenetic alopecia now includes many randomized trials. Yet heterogeneity of PRP methods remains a major limitation. Studies differ in centrifugation, activation, cellular composition, blood-to-PRP ratio and treatment protocols. PRP from study A is therefore not automatically comparable with PRP from study B. ^{[1] [6]}

Which factors determine the PRP product?

Why methodology matters when interpreting clinical outcomes

A positive PRP study does not automatically identify which tube, RCF or cellular composition determined the effect. Without adequate characterization, it is difficult to know whether another preparation system actually produces a comparable product. ^[2]

For medical users, process reporting therefore matters: starting blood, tube system, anticoagulant, rotor, RCF, run time, number of spins, final volume and – where measured – cellular composition. ^{[2] [6]}

What role does the PRP tube play?

A PRP tube is part of the preparation system, not merely a container. Depending on the system, it may include defined vacuum, citrate and separation gel. These components affect technical separation. Product function and clinical effect must remain clearly separated.

Anticoagulant and separation gel

Citrate-based anticoagulants are used to prevent premature clotting during preparation. The choice cannot be assessed independently of the validated system. In gel-based systems, thixotropic gel forms a physical barrier between blood fractions after centrifugation; it has no therapeutic function itself.

How should PRP tubes for hair medicine be selected?

Selection should not be based on whether a tube is marketed as “for hair.” More relevant are the intended purpose, instructions for use, additives, fill volume and the centrifugation protocol defined for the workflow. Cap colour, glass appearance or nominal volume alone do not establish suitability.

With or without separator gel?

Do not treat “with gel” versus “without gel” as a simple better-or-worse comparison. The relevant unit is the complete system of tube, centrifuge, RCF, run time and handling.

Single spin or double spin?

Double-spin is not automatically superior. A 2025 meta-analysis of three randomized studies found no significant advantage of either single- or double-spin for final platelet concentration or the investigated hair outcomes. The evidence base is small, but it argues against blanket superiority claims. ^[4]

More platelets = better PRP?

Not necessarily. Concentration is only one characteristic. Final volume, total platelet dose, leukocyte content, residual erythrocytes and activation status also matter. The DEPA classification therefore considers Dose, Efficiency, Purity and Activation rather than a single concentration number. ^[5]

What should be documented?

What does this mean for hair-medicine studies?

Clinical evidence for PRP in androgenetic alopecia has grown, but meta-analyses may combine very different PRP methods. Positive clinical signals therefore do not imply that one universal preparation protocol exists. Technical differences matter, but their clinical relevance must be demonstrated rather than assumed. ^{[1] [6]}

Why PRP is not simply PRP

For medical users, a reproducible and documented preparation process is more informative than searching for one allegedly optimal number. RCF is more useful than isolated RPM, high platelet concentrations are not automatically better, and tube, centrifuge and protocol should be viewed as one preparation system.

This specialist article provides scientific and technical information. It is neither a universal PRP treatment protocol nor a treatment recommendation for a specific form of hair loss.

Further links