A platelet-rich plasma fraction is prepared from the patient’s own blood and used by a medical professional. Depending on the concept, it may be injected or used alongside procedures such as microneedling. PRP is neither a conventional filler nor a product with identical composition in every setting.

Some studies report modest improvements in fine lines or texture. Results are inconsistent and depend on the measurement method, protocol and baseline condition. They do not establish a lifting effect or reliable correction of pronounced wrinkles.

The most interesting current evidence concerns atrophic acne scars and PRP as an adjunct to microneedling. A 2026 meta-analysis found benefits over microneedling alone. Scar type, depth and accompanying procedures still influence outcomes.

PRP is usually prepared with an anticoagulant as a liquid plasma fraction. PRF is generally processed without anticoagulant and forms a fibrin network. Both are autologous, but they are not interchangeable. Current evidence does not show PRF to be generally superior.

The procedures use different mechanisms and are often combined. Microneedling creates controlled micro-injuries, while PRP is studied as an adjunctive biological component. Evidence does not support a universal ranking for all skin concerns.

Studies use different treatment series and intervals. A fixed number cannot be applied reliably to every person or objective. Planning and follow-up require medical assessment of the baseline condition.

Studies often assess changes after several weeks or months. Timing and magnitude depend on skin condition, procedure and measurement method. Early swelling should not be confused with a durable result.

Controlled long-term data remain limited for many cosmetic dermatology uses. Duration may depend on baseline skin condition, treatment series, combination procedures and individual factors.

Temporary redness, swelling, bruising and tenderness are common. Invasive procedures also carry risks including infection, pigment changes and, rarely, vascular or nerve injury.

Tube material, fill volume, additives and separation system affect preparation. A protocol should not be transferred to another tube system without validation. Intended use and instructions for use are decisive.

The centrifuge must match the tube system and intended process. Rotor, vessel capacity, RCF range, timing and medical-device status are relevant. A specific device does not replace a validated protocol.

RPM is rotational speed. RCF is the relative centrifugal force acting on the sample and also accounts for rotor radius. Two centrifuges can therefore generate different RCF at the same RPM.