Platelet-rich Plasma: Three Decades and Ongoing, Do We Have a Conclusion? | ||||
| Suez Canal University Medical Journal | ||||
| Editorial, Volume 22, Issue 1, March 2019, Page 1-8 PDF (215.12 K) | ||||
| DOI: 10.21608/scumj.2019.42956 | ||||
 View on SCiNiTO | ||||
| Author | ||||
Noha M Kamel  
| ||||
| Clinical Pathology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Suez Canal University, Ismailia, Egypt. | ||||
| Abstract | ||||
| Blood components for non-transfusion uses have been the focus of researches in various clinical fields for the last thirty years. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) can expedite healing, with minimal side effects. As a biologic autologous product, it is well-tolerated, and safe choice for many physicians and patients. Yet, no consensus has been reached regarding PRP preparation, needed volume, the use of an activator, number of sessions, and the period between the sessions in different clinical scenarios. Thus, further clinical studies are needed with higher level of evidence taking into consideration the optimization of these aspects. Up to date, there are many PRP preparation systems on the market with FDA clearance. Meanwhile, FDA has not attempted to regulate activated PRP. Determining the main bioactive components which are responsible for the clinical effects of PRP and the inter-individual variability of growth factors and cytokines production and the synergy of platelets count and growth factors will remain as major obstacles to achieve standardization of PRP. PRP is yet to become the standard of care; nevertheless, more clinical studies with longer periods of follow up to understand the best candidate and to determine the best ways to use it to improve healing; it may be an approved practice in the future. | ||||
| Keywords | ||||
| platelet-rich plasma; growth factors; Platelets; applications; preparation methods | ||||
|
Statistics Article View: 436 PDF Download: 701 |
||||
