Search PubMedSearch

subject

Platelet-Rich Plasma

Platelet-Rich Plasma: explore 3 source-linked works published from 2026 to 2026, with original documents and citations.

This collection is a preview while coverage and quality are evaluated.

Search within this collection

Coverage and selection

Includes records with this source-supplied label or an explicit phrase match in their metadata. Matches indicate a mention, not proof that a paper uses a method or tests a material. Source versions are consolidated by DOI.

Sources: pubmed. Collection updated 2026-09-16. Counts describe this index, not the complete source archives.

Hysteroscopic platelet-rich plasma and medically assisted reproduction outcomes: a systematic review and SWOT analysis.

BACKGROUND: Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has been proposed as an adjuvant treatment in reproductive medicine. While most evidence refers to blind intrauterine instillation, subendometrial administration under hysteroscopic guidance allows targeted delivery under direct visualisation. This systematic review aimed to synthesise the available evidence on hysteroscopic PRP administration and its impact on clinical medically assisted reproduction (MAR) outcomes. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted from inception to December 2025 across major databases. Studies were included if they evaluated hysteroscopic PRP administration in women undergoing MAR, comparing reproductive outcomes between treated and control groups. RESULTS: Out of 142 records, 3 studies met the inclusion criteria. Study populations were heterogeneous and included women with refractory thin endometrium and/or a history of implantation failure. Hysteroscopic PRP administration protocols varied in timing, technique, and dosage. In a prospective case-control study, hysteroscopic intraendometrial PRP injection at a depth of 2-3 mm in the four uterine walls, using an ovum aspiration needle, on days 11-13 of the cycle prior to euploid frozen embryo transfer (ET), was associated with higher implantation (IR), clinical pregnancy (CPR), and live birth rates (LBR) compared with standard therapy. Conversely, no significant differences in CPR, miscarriage rate, or LBR were observed in an observational study evaluating a single intraendometrial PRP injection (35-40 mL, 2-3 mm depth), administered via endoscopic needle on days 6-8 of the menstrual cycle preceding frozen ET, alone or after electrical impulse therapy. A randomised controlled trial in women undergoing intrauterine insemination reported a significant improvement in CPR following hysteroscopic subendometrial PRP instillation in the four uterine walls (1.0 mL each). CONCLUSIONS: Current literature on hysteroscopic PRP administration in reproductive medicine is limited, and robust conclusions cannot yet be drawn. Well-designed randomised controlled trials with standardised protocols are needed to clarify its clinical role.

Humans

Effectiveness of Platelet Rich Plasma in Reducing Oronasal Fistula and Scar Width in Primary Cleft Lip and Palate Repair-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

This review aimed to investigate platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) efficiency in reducing oronasal fistula during primary cleft lip and palate repair. An extensive search of PubMed, Google Scholar, Global Index Medics (WHO), PubMed Scopus, Cochrane Central, Proquest was performed up to march 2025. Eligible studies included prospective RCTs and non-randomized controlled trials in human subjects. Patients aged 6-24 months undergoing primary cleft lip and palate repair were involved. Interventions involved intraoperative use of PRP/PRF compared with controls without PRP/PRF. The primary outcome was occurrence of oronasal fistula; secondary outcomes were scar width, wound infection and postoperative bleeding with wound dehiscence. Study selection followed PRISMA guidelines, and the risk of bias was determined with the ROB-2 and ROBINS-I method of assessment. Seven studies met the required criterion and were qualitatively synthesized. Evidence suggested that PRP/PRF application was associated with a lower incidence of oronasal fistula and reduced scar width compared with controls. Additional benefits included accelerated wound healing and faster recovery. The use of autologous PRP was also reported to decrease the need for further surgical interventions. However, the certainty of evidence was limited due to small sample sizes and methodological heterogeneity. PRP and PRF show promising benefits in cleft lip and palate repair, particularly decreased fistula formation and reduced scar width. Nevertheless, current evidence is of low to very low certainty. Larger, well-designed randomized trials are required to validate the results obtained. Trial Registration: PROSPERO registration no. CRD420251032421.

Humans

Photothermal-Activated Platelet-Rich Plasma Versus Conventional Platelet-Rich Plasma for Melasma: A Split-Face, Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Melasma is a common acquired pigmentary disorder that predominantly affects women with darker skin types and substantially impairs quality of life. Current treatments are limited by variable efficacy, adverse effects, and frequent recurrence. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has emerged as a potential regenerative treatment through growth-factor-mediated modulation of melanogenesis. Photothermal activation, which combines photobiomodulation with controlled hypothermic conditioning, has been hypothesized to promote a more sustained growth-factor release than conventional PRP. This study compared the efficacy and safety of photothermal-activated PRP (PT-PRP) and conventional PRP (C-PRP) for melasma treatment. METHODS: This split-face, double-blind, randomized controlled trial included 26 women with epidermal or mixed-type melasma. Each participant received three monthly sessions of intradermal PRP, with PT-PRP and C-PRP injected into opposite facial sides. Outcomes were assessed at weeks 0, 4, 8, and 12 using the modified Melasma Area and Severity Index (mMASI), Mexameter melanin and erythema indices, patient satisfaction, overall improvement, and adverse events. RESULTS: Both treatments significantly reduced mMASI by week 12, with no significant between-group differences at any time point. C-PRP showed significant mMASI improvement from week 4, whereas PT-PRP reached significance from week 8. For the melanin index, PT-PRP produced a significant within-group reduction at week 12, while C-PRP did not. At week 12, PT-PRP showed a significantly lower melanin index than C-PRP. Mild injection-site bruising was the only adverse event. CONCLUSION: PT-PRP and C-PRP produced comparable clinical improvement, but PT-PRP achieved greater objective melanin reduction at week 12. PT-PRP may represent a safe alternative treatment for melasma. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Thai Clinical Trials Registry: TCTR20260318004.

Humans
Compare source metadata on this page

These are bibliographic comparisons, not experimental rankings. Follow the original document for methods and conditions.