PRP & PRFin Brighton & Hove
Your own blood, prepared to support your skin’s natural repair response.
PRP and PRF are prepared from a small sample of your own blood. They may suit thin, crepey or less resilient skin, supporting gradual improvement in skin quality.
This page explains the difference between PRP and PRF, what treatment feels like, what they may improve, what to expect, and what the evidence shows.
The aim is healthier-looking, more resilient skin — using your own biology, for the right concern.
Hair loss: see PRP for hair loss.
The essentials, before the detail.
PRP and PRF are regenerative skin-quality treatments prepared from a small sample of your own blood, concentrated so that your platelets deliver their own repair signals back into the skin.[6] They may be considered for selected texture, fine-line and mild crepiness concerns — particularly around the eyes — where the aim is gradually fresher, more resilient skin. Published improvement is real but moderate rather than transformative.[3]
- What it is
- A regenerative skin treatment prepared from a small sample of your own blood, spun to concentrate platelets and the signalling proteins they release[6]
- Material
- Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) or platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) — autologous, meaning your own blood, not donor material and not a stem-cell treatment
- Main role
- Skin quality: texture, fine lines and mild crepiness, with the best-studied area being the periorbital skin[2]
- What it may do
- Gradually improve facial texture and fine lines, and improve satisfaction with the under-eye area; measured change is typically modest — often less than half-way — yet patient satisfaction is generally high[3][2]
- What it cannot do
- Add volume, project features, lift lax skin or remove eyelid bags; nor does it resurface deep lines or reliably clear pigment — the measured ceiling is modest improvement, not correction[3]
- Appointment
- About 60–90 minutes in clinic: assessment, topical anaesthetic where used, blood draw, processing and treatment
- Comfort
- A blood draw followed by multiple fine injections; anaesthetic helps but does not remove all sensation, and tenderness afterwards is commonly reported[1]
- Initial appearance
- Redness and swelling on the day, with small injection points; early swelling can briefly look smoother, which is not the result[1]
- Visible recovery
- Redness and swelling settle over the following days; bruising is common and tends to be more noticeable around the eyes[1]
- Course & onset
- A course rather than one treatment — a mean of three sessions across periorbital studies, spaced several weeks apart in clinic; change accrues over weeks, not days[2]
- Meaningful assessment
- Judged after the course is complete, around three months from starting — the point at which most studies assess their outcome[2]
- Duration & maintenance
- Not established. Most studies follow patients only to about three to six months, so how long any gain lasts is genuinely unknown; further treatment is considered only if the first course earned it[2][3]
- Most common side effects
- In the largest facial trial, of 19 patients: redness 18, swelling 16, bruising 14, itch 1, scaling 1 — expected injection effects rather than complications. Less common risks are covered in the full clinical guide[1]
- Fee
- From £275 (two-vial); course options in the fee section. The £50 consultation fee is added to your patient account as clinic credit.
- Age
- Adults 18+ only
The aim is not a different face. It is healthier-looking skin — gradual, moderate, and matched to a concern the evidence actually supports.
The distinction that changes everything
PRP and PRF work with the quality of your skin — texture, fine lines, resilience. They do not create structure. Where the concern is volume, projection or lax tissue, a platelet preparation is the wrong instrument.
Because the material is made from your own blood, it cannot be standardised the way a manufactured injectable can: platelet yield, preparation system and your own biology all vary. That is part of the appeal, and part of why two people treated identically do not finish identically. The underlying platelet biology is examined in the full clinical guide.[6]
The choice you will actually be offered
PRP or PRF — and why neither is the “better” one.
PRP
- More fluid, as an anticoagulant may be used; distributes more widely
- Suits combination work, including microneedling protocols
- Where PRP’s evidence is clearest: as an adjunct that adds to another procedure — measurably so in atrophic acne scarring[4]
PRF / i-PRF
- No added anticoagulant, so a fibrin matrix forms
- Slower release and more localised placement; time-sensitive to prepare
- No advantage is established either way: a systematic review of periorbital use found no clear superiority[7]
Which of the two is proposed is a clinical judgement about your skin and the area being treated, not a ranking.
A realistic timeline — and honest recovery
I would not book PRP or PRF immediately before a wedding, an important event or significant travel. Bruising and swelling are unpredictable, and the change you are hoping for takes weeks.
When another route is the better one
A “tired” face has several possible causes, and they do not all respond to platelets. Where the concern is mainly:
A consultation establishes what is actually driving the concern, and whether PRP or PRF is the treatment most likely to help it. You will get a straight recommendation, and the decision stays yours.
Full clinical guide
Understanding · Deciding · Treatment & resultsVariation · Safety · Fees · Evidence
The real detail, when you are ready for it.
For patients who want to understand this properly: what PRP and PRF are, how your blood is prepared, why the protocol matters, what the human studies actually demonstrate for facial skin quality, fine lines, periorbital skin and acne-scar support — and what they cannot do. It is long on purpose, honest about uncertainty, and it replaces nothing said in a face-to-face assessment. Where I give a personal view I say so, and keep it separate from the evidence.
01What PRP and PRF are
Your own biology, given a reason to respond.
PRP is platelet-rich plasma; PRF is platelet-rich fibrin. Both begin with a routine blood draw, spun in a centrifuge to separate the fraction we want from the red cells. What remains is rich in platelets and the naturally occurring signalling proteins involved in tissue repair. Platelets are known for clotting, but they also release growth factors that coordinate healing — influencing fibroblasts, collagen and the wider repair environment in the skin.[6]
Two honest clarifications. First, PRP and PRF are platelet-based, not stem-cell treatments — no stem cells are collected or injected, whatever the marketing says. Second, the result is not instant and not identical in everyone: your own body still has to create the improvement, which is why response varies.
02How the blood is drawn and processed
I carry out the blood draw myself, the same as a routine blood test. The sample is placed in a centrifuge and spun so the platelet-rich fraction separates from the red cells. For PRP, an anticoagulant may be used so the preparation stays fluid; for PRF, no anticoagulant is added, so a natural fibrin network begins to form — which is why PRF must be prepared and delivered promptly. The preparation is then introduced with fine injections, or combined with another procedure such as microneedling where appropriate.
03Why preparation quality and protocol matter
“PRP” is not one standardised thing.
This is where a lot of confusion — and a lot of the inconsistency in the evidence — comes from. Different systems produce preparations with different platelet concentrations, different white-cell content, different activation and different centrifuge settings. Studies use different devices, techniques, injection depths, intervals and outcome measures, so their protocols are not interchangeable, and a result from one system does not automatically transfer to another.[3] That is a reason to be cautious about bold numeric promises, and to judge the treatment by the concern, not the brochure.
04PRP vs PRF — and injectable PRF
Different preparations, not better and worse.
PRP is usually more fluid, so it distributes evenly — useful for wider facial treatment, intradermal work, microneedling protocols and combinations. PRF (including injectable i-PRF) is prepared without an added anticoagulant, so a fibrin network forms and holds platelets in a developing matrix — more localised, with slower release, and time-sensitive once collected. A fibrin matrix changes how the preparation behaves, but it does not make PRF universally more advanced or more suitable; a systematic review comparing PRP and PRF for periorbital rejuvenation found no clear superiority of one over the other.[7]
PRP
More fluid
May be used
Wider distribution, combinations, microneedling
No
PRF / i-PRF
Fibrin-rich, matrix-like
Not added
Localised, delicate areas; slower release
No — not a predictable structural filler
At odNOVA the choice is based on the tissue, the objective and the practical characteristics of the preparation — not on the idea that one is automatically superior.
05How it differs from other skin treatments
- Polynucleotides & skin boosters are manufactured, standardised injectables that hydrate and support skin quality by a different mechanism — consistent batch to batch, where PRP depends on your own biology.
- Microneedling creates controlled micro-injury to prompt repair; PRP is frequently combined with it, and the strongest evidence for PRP in acne scars is as an add-on to microneedling or subcision.[5]
- Biostimulators prompt diffuse collagen for lost structural support over months; fillers restore volume and shape. Both address structure — PRP and PRF do not.
- Doing nothing, or structured skincare, is a legitimate route when the concern is mild.
06What it may improve — by area, and only where evidence supports it
Facial skin quality. Gradual improvement in texture, fine lines and overall quality — still your skin, on a better day. The one placebo-controlled facial RCT found patient-noticed texture gains after a single session, though the objective difference was not statistically significant, so a course and realistic expectations matter.[1]
Periorbital (under-eye) skin. May be considered for thin skin, mild crepiness and fine lines; reviews report improved satisfaction and appearance around the eyes.[2][10] It is less suited to deep hollowing, strong shadow, fat pads or fluid — the cause must be identified first.
Neck, décolletage and hands. May support tissue quality and mild crepiness for gradual improvement without obvious volume. It will not remove established pigment, tighten loose skin or conceal prominent veins.
Acne scarring. Scars are classified first. The evidence supports PRP mainly as an add-on that improves results when combined with microneedling or subcision, rather than used alone.[4][5] It does not release a tethered scar or replace focused treatments such as TCA CROSS for ice-pick scars.
07What it cannot do
It works with quality, not structure.
- Add volume, define the jaw or project cheekbones — that is filler or biostimulator territory
- Lift sagging tissue or erase deep folds
- Remove eyelid skin or prominent under-eye bags
- Reliably remove pigmentation or resurface established sun damage
- Treat active acne or inflammatory skin disease, or give an identical result in everyone
A “tired” face can come from thin skin, visible vessels, pigment, hollowing and shadow, puffiness, fat pads, laxity or bone-level change. These look alike in a photograph but do not respond to the same treatment — which is exactly why the concern is assessed before PRP is recommended.
08Who may — and may not — benefit
May suit: the concern is skin quality rather than facial shape; a mild-to-moderate change is the goal; you prefer gradual improvement with no obvious volume; and you accept a course, and that biology varies. “I don’t want to look different — I just want my skin to look healthier” is a reasonable goal.
Another method may fit better: significant hollowing or volume loss; pronounced laxity, excess eyelid skin or under-eye bags; active acne or inflammatory skin disease; established pigment or vascular change; deep movement lines; scars needing release or resurfacing; or any unassessed skin condition. Choosing another treatment is not a failure of regenerative medicine — it is better clinical matching.
09When another route — or none — is more appropriate
Matching the tool to the cause.
If the main issue is volume, fillers or biostimulators are more direct. If it is surface texture and fine lines, microneedling, peels or resurfacing may lead — often with PRP as an add-on. If it is dryness or crepiness, skin boosters or polynucleotides may suit. Pigment needs its own pathway; laxity or eyelid bags need energy-based or surgical assessment; hair thinning is a separate treatment. And structured skincare or simply waiting is legitimate when the concern is mild. PRP or PRF should always have a clear clinical objective.
10Consultation & choosing a practitioner
The assessment decides the treatment, not the booking.
We begin by discussing what you have noticed and considering whether the concern is mainly skin quality, pigment, volume, scarring, vascular change or laxity — and whether PRP, PRF or another treatment is appropriate. Because this involves a blood draw and injections, it should be carried out by a clinician with the training to take blood safely, handle it correctly and inject the face with anatomical knowledge. It is reasonable to ask who is treating you, their clinical background, and how they manage complications. New patients have a cooling-off period; there is no routine same-day treatment.
My role is not to produce PRP because you booked PRP. It is to decide whether it is likely to help the concern you actually have — and to say so plainly if it will not. When PRP or PRF is a good match, I am glad to offer it; when the honest answer is a filler, a peel, microneedling, skincare or simply waiting, I would rather tell you that than sell you a course.
11The appointment
The skin is cleansed and photographed, and topical anaesthetic may be applied. I take the blood sample, process it in the centrifuge, and — for PRF — prepare and deliver it promptly because the fibrin begins forming naturally. The preparation is introduced by fine injections, or combined with another procedure where appropriate, and you receive clear aftercare matched to the exact treatment. A typical appointment is about 60–90 minutes.
There is a blood draw and multiple injections. Anaesthetic helps but does not remove all sensation — you may feel pinching, stinging, pressure or brief burning, with the under-eye more sensitive than the cheeks. Most people tolerate it well. I don’t describe it as completely painless, because that is not always true.
12Recovery & aftercare
The skin may look treated before it looks improved.
Immediately afterwards you may have redness, small raised injection points, localised swelling, tenderness, pinpoint bleeding or bruising — the under-eye can swell more because the tissue is thin. Many people return to normal activity quickly, but bruising or swelling can last several days; some bruise very little, others for a week or more.
Aftercare depends on the area and whether PRP/PRF was used alone or combined — you may be advised to briefly avoid makeup, strenuous exercise, saunas, swimming, alcohol and active skincare (retinoids, acids). You receive written instructions matched to the treatment you actually had.
13Course, onset, timing & maintenance
Gradual by nature, judged after the course.
Treatment is usually planned as a course of about three sessions, four to six weeks apart, adjusted to the indication and your response. It is not instant: freshness and texture may build over the first weeks, with more meaningful change across one to three months, best judged after the course rather than after a single visit. Maintenance — often every six to twelve months — is considered only when the initial course produced worthwhile benefit. I don’t sell an endless course before the first result has been assessed.
14Why results vary
Your blood is not a factory-made product.
Being made from your own blood is part of the appeal — and one reason results vary. A manufactured injectable is designed for consistency; individual biology is not. Response may be influenced by general health, baseline skin quality, smoking, ultraviolet exposure, nutrition, platelet number and function, medication, inflammation, the condition treated, the preparation protocol, injection technique and the number of sessions. A limited result can reflect the indication, its severity, the protocol, the timing of assessment, or normal biological variation — which is why honest expectations are set before we start.
15Safety & risks
Your own blood — but not risk-free.
Because the preparation comes from your own blood, an allergic reaction to the main material is unlikely. The procedure still carries risk, and using your own blood does not remove the need for careful technique, anatomical knowledge, hygiene and aftercare.
Common — expected & temporary
Redness, swelling & bruising
ExpectedIn the facial-skin RCT, of 19 treated participants, redness affected 18, swelling 16 and bruising 14 — not linked to the preparation itself.[1] Settles over days; the under-eye can swell more.
Depends onArea, technique, bruising tendency, blood-thinning medicines.
Tenderness & small bumps
CommonShort-lived tenderness, pinpoint bleeding and small raised injection points that settle.
Depends onNumber of injections, area, individual response.
Less common
Prolonged swelling / nodules
Less commonLonger-lasting swelling, persistent small lumps or contour irregularity, usually settling with time or review.
Reduced byCorrect plane, conservative volume, appropriate area selection.
Pigment change / unsatisfactory result
Less commonTemporary pigment change at injection sites, or a result that falls short of hopes — more likely when the concern was not really skin quality.
Reduced byHonest assessment and matching the treatment to the cause.
Rare
Infection
RareAny injection breaks the skin; infection is uncommon with sterile technique but possible, and may need antibiotics.
Depends onSterility, aftercare, host factors.
Blood-draw complications
RareBruising, a small clot, feeling faint or, rarely, a difficult draw — if a safe sample cannot be obtained, treatment is postponed.
NoteA safe draw always matters more than proceeding.
Rare but serious
Vascular event with facial injection
RareAs with any facial injection, injury to or entry of a blood vessel is a recognised, rare risk. Sudden severe pain, skin colour change, or visual change needs urgent help.
Reduced byAnatomical knowledge, correct technique, careful placement.
16Red flags & urgent help
Seek urgent help. Increasing or disproportionate pain, spreading redness or heat, fever, a skin area turning white, grey, dusky or mottled, or any visual change — do not wait. Your written aftercare gives the clinic’s urgent route; visual symptoms or signs of spreading infection need emergency medical help. Most reactions are the ordinary redness, swelling and bruising described above, which settle on their own.
17Who should not have it
When treatment is postponed or avoided.
- Pregnancy or breastfeeding
- Active infection, illness, fever, or inflammation in the treatment area
- Significant anaemia, or platelet, bleeding or clotting disorders
- Medication that materially affects clotting, platelets or healing (assessed individually — never stop prescribed medication to become eligible)
- Uncontrolled medical conditions, or immunosuppression
- Inability to give a safe, suitable blood sample
- A skin concern needing medical assessment first, or expectations that cannot accommodate “gradual” and “variable”
This is not exhaustive; suitability is decided at a full assessment, and I decline treatment where it is not clearly in your interest.
18Fees
Because PRP and PRF are planned around your skin, area and goal, these figures are a guide and are usually best value as a course.
Combination scar plans involving another procedure are planned and priced individually. PRP or PRF should always have a clear clinical objective. Full fees: fees.
19Questions, answered
Understanding the treatment
Is this a stem-cell or “vampire” facial?
No. PRP and PRF are platelet-based preparations from your own blood; no stem cells are collected or injected. The marketing names add nothing clinical, and this page describes the treatment plainly.
Is PRF a filler?
No. PRF can become more matrix-like and may create brief fullness, but it does not provide the predictable structure of a dermal filler. If the concern is true volume loss, treating PRF as a filler tends to disappoint.
Will PRP change my face, lift it, or replace filler?
No to all three. PRP and PRF support tissue quality; they are not intended to reshape features, create lifting or replace lost structural volume. A structural or laxity concern needs a different assessment.
Which is better under the eyes — PRP, PRF or polynucleotides?
It depends on the cause. Thin skin, crepiness, pigment, hollowing and puffiness need different approaches, so no option is automatically best, and a systematic review found no clear superiority of PRP over PRF for the periorbital area.[7] Someone with significant bags or fluid needs careful assessment, because PRP does not remove that cause.
Results & evidence
How strong is the evidence, really?
Encouraging but modest and mixed. The one placebo-controlled facial RCT found patient-noticed texture gains after a single session but no statistically significant objective difference;[1] reviews report improvement usually under 50% with high satisfaction;[3] and the strongest signal is PRP added to microneedling or subcision for acne scars.[5]
Can PRP treat acne scars on its own?
Usually not adequately. The evidence supports PRP mainly as an add-on that improves results when combined with microneedling or subcision.[4] Scars are classified first, and PRP is added to support healing rather than used as the whole answer.
How many treatments, and when will I see a result?
Usually a course of about three sessions, four to six weeks apart. It is not instant — freshness and texture may build over the first weeks, with more meaningful change across one to three months, best judged after the course. I don’t sell an endless course before the first result has been assessed.
How long does it last?
Gradual and variable. Any benefit builds over months and then ages with you; maintenance every six to twelve months is considered only when the first course produced worthwhile benefit. No fixed duration is promised.
Practical & safety
Does it hurt?
There is a blood draw and multiple fine injections. Topical anaesthetic helps but does not remove all sensation — expect pinching, stinging or pressure, with the under-eye more sensitive. Most people tolerate it well; I don’t call it painless.
Can I have it on medication, and can my blood be too difficult to take?
Medication and supplements are reviewed individually, and you should never stop prescribed medication to prepare for an aesthetic procedure. If a safe, suitable sample cannot be obtained, treatment is postponed — the draw being done safely always matters more than proceeding.
What if it’s not right for me?
If PRP or PRF is not right, I will explain why and what is more likely to help — polynucleotides, a skin booster, peel, laser, collagen stimulator, filler, structured skincare, or waiting. A consultation has done its job when the right decision is not to proceed.
20The studies
What actually happened to patients.
Each card reports a specific study: how many took part, the design, the preparation and area where reported, the outcome measure, how much changed, when, satisfaction where measured, adverse events, the limitations, and the plain meaning. Cards are kept separate by study, preparation and indication and are not pooled or transferred — a periorbital result is not a whole-face result, and one PRP system is not another.
Randomised controlled trial · whole cheek, photoaged skin
Does a single PRP treatment beat placebo?
Participants & design
27 enrolled, 19 analysed (mean age 46). Split-face RCT, participants and raters masked; 3 mL intradermal PRP one cheek vs saline the other (Alam 2018).
Outcome & how much
At 6 months, masked participants rated fine and coarse texture significantly better on the PRP side — but overall, both participants and raters rated the PRP side only slightly higher — not by enough to rule out chance (the difference was not statistically significant).
Onset / duration
Single treatment; assessed to 6 months.
Satisfaction
Measured on a participant satisfaction scale (secondary outcome).
Adverse effects (num/denom)
Of 19: redness 18, swelling 16, bruising 14, itch 1, scaling 1 — not linked to the preparation.
Limitations
Small (n=19), single session, short follow-up, objective difference not significant, industry disclosures.
For a patient
One session gives patient-noticed texture gains but little proven objective change — a reason to plan a course and keep expectations modest.
Certainty & reference
RCT, small, single session — moderate · [1]
Systematic review & meta-analysis · periorbital
Does PRP help the under-eye area?
Participants & design
19 studies, 455 patients (95% female, 28–60); mean 3 treatments, follow-up ~3 months (Evans 2021).
Outcome & how much
Meta-analysis of 3 RCTs: PRP increased satisfaction over controls (saline, platelet-poor plasma, mesotherapy, laser adjunct) — overall effect p=0.001 (heterogeneity I²=64%). Histologic photoaging improvement and blinded rejuvenation also reported.
Satisfaction
Improved satisfaction was the pooled outcome.
Adverse effects
Consistent with injection effects; no new safety signal highlighted.
Limitations
Only 3 RCTs pooled; moderate heterogeneity; under-eye cause not delineated; authors flag industry conflicts.
For a patient
Periorbital satisfaction improves across studies, but this is pooled from mostly small work — not a magnitude guarantee for your under-eye.
Certainty & reference
SR/MA, few RCTs — low–moderate · [2]
Systematic review · PRP monotherapy for skin aging
How much does PRP alone improve ageing skin?
Participants & design
24 studies, including 8 RCTs, 480 patients receiving PRP (search to March 2019).
Outcome & how much
Modest improvement in facial appearance, texture and lines by physician global assessment; periorbital fine lines and pigment may benefit. Improvement was typically under 50%, yet patients generally reported high satisfaction.
Satisfaction
Generally high despite modest measured change.
Limitations
Heterogeneous, many non-RCT, no consensus protocol; short follow-up.
For a patient
An honest ceiling: expect gradual, moderate change — usually less than half-way “fixed” — that people are nonetheless often pleased with.
Certainty & reference
SR, mostly non-RCT — low–moderate · [3]
Systematic review & meta-analysis · atrophic acne scars (adjunct)
Does adding PRP to microneedling/subcision help scars?
Participants & design
8 studies, 311 participants (153 whole-face, 158 split-face); quantitative analysis of 241 across 6 studies (Long 2020).
Outcome & how much
Significant reduction in Goodman–Baron scar severity favouring microneedling or subcision plus PRP vs without (P<0.001).
Satisfaction / AEs
Patient satisfaction and adverse effects compared across arms; no major new safety concern.
Limitations
Heterogeneous procedures and PRP preparations; mostly small studies.
For a patient
For acne scars, PRP earns its place as an add-on to microneedling or subcision — not as a stand-alone scar treatment.
Certainty & reference
SR/MA — moderate for adjunct role · [4]
Meta-analysis · microneedling + PRP vs microneedling alone
How much does PRP add to microneedling for scars?
Participants & design
14 studies (4 RCTs + 10 split-face), 472 patients (Front Med 2021).
Outcome & how much
Odds of >50% improvement on Goodman’s scale OR 2.97 (95% CI 1.96–4.51), p<0.001; higher patient satisfaction OR 4.15 (2.13–8.09).
Adverse effects (num/denom)
Severe erythema (OR 1.59) and severe oedema (OR 1.14) were not significantly increased vs microneedling alone.
Limitations
Most component studies non-randomised split-face; PRP preparation varied between studies.
For a patient
Adding PRP roughly tripled the odds of a >50% scar improvement, without more severe side effects — the strongest quantitative case for PRP as an adjunct.
Certainty & reference
Meta-analysis — moderate · [5]
Blinded cohort · periorbital PRP + microneedling
Do patients and blinded assessors agree?
Participants & design
13 participants (mean 35); photos at baseline, 1 week and 3 months, judged by 3 blinded dermatologists on validated scales; patient self-assessment at 1 week (2025).
Outcome & how much
Self-reported improvement — homogeneity 72.7%, texture 81.8%. But blinded dermatologists found no significant difference before vs after.
Limitations
Very small, uncontrolled; self-assessment taken at 1 week during the swelling phase.
For a patient
Perceived improvement can outrun what independent assessors measure — a reason to judge results honestly, not by an early impression.
Certainty & reference
Small, uncontrolled — low · [8]
Overall: PRP and PRF are encouraging for selected skin-quality concerns, with the clearest quantitative evidence as an adjunct to microneedling or subcision for acne scars, and consistent satisfaction for periorbital and general skin quality — but change is usually gradual and moderate, objective differences after a single session are small, and results depend on both the protocol and your own biology.[3][9] The biology is plausible; the honest promise is “may help the right concern”, not “will transform your skin”.
21References
Human clinical trials, systematic reviews/meta-analyses and authoritative sources, labelled by type. Access date 23 July 2026.
- Randomised controlled trial (facial skin, n=19 analysed): Alam M, Hughart R, Champlain A, et al. (2018) ‘Effect of platelet-rich plasma injection for rejuvenation of photoaged facial skin: a randomized clinical trial’, JAMA Dermatol, 154(12), pp. 1447–1452. Available at: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30419125/ (Accessed: 23 July 2026).
- Systematic review & meta-analysis (periorbital, 19 studies / 455 patients): Evans AG, Ivanic MG, Botros MA, et al. (2021) ‘Rejuvenating the periorbital area using platelet-rich plasma: a systematic review and meta-analysis’, Arch Dermatol Res, 313, pp. 711–727. Available at: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33433716/ (Accessed: 23 July 2026).
- Systematic review (skin aging, 24 studies / 8 RCTs / 480 patients): Maisel-Campbell AL, Ismail A, Reynolds KA, et al. (2020) ‘A systematic review of the safety and effectiveness of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) for skin aging’, Arch Dermatol Res, 312, pp. 301–315. Available at: doi.org/10.1007/s00403-019-01999-6 (Accessed: 23 July 2026).
- Systematic review & meta-analysis (acne scars, adjunct; 8 studies / 311 patients): Long T, Gupta A, Ma S, Hsu S. (2020) ‘Platelet-rich plasma in noninvasive procedures for atrophic acne scars: a systematic review and meta-analysis’, J Cosmet Dermatol, 19(4), pp. 836–844. Available at: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32061047/ (Accessed: 23 July 2026).
- Meta-analysis (microneedling + PRP vs microneedling, 14 studies / 472 patients): (2021) ‘Combined effect of microneedling and platelet-rich plasma for the treatment of acne scars: a meta-analysis’, Front Med. Available at: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8882957 (Accessed: 23 July 2026).
- Mechanism (platelet biology): Everts P, Onishi K, Jayaram P, et al. (2020) ‘Platelet-rich plasma: new performance understandings and therapeutic considerations in 2020’, Int J Mol Sci, 21(20), 7794. Plausible biological rationale — not proof of durable clinical benefit. Available at: doi.org/10.3390/ijms21207794 (Accessed: 23 July 2026).
- Systematic review (PRP vs PRF, periorbital, 14 studies): Sollitto (2025) ‘A systematic review of platelet-rich plasma versus platelet-rich fibrin for periorbital rejuvenation’, J Cosmet Dermatol. No clear superiority established. Available at: pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12587466 (Accessed: 23 July 2026).
- Randomised blinded cohort (periorbital PRP + microneedling, n=13; patient vs blinded divergence): Al Hassan S, Saade DS, Kurban M, et al. (2024) ‘Evaluating the efficacy of combined platelet-rich plasma and microneedling for aesthetic rejuvenation of the periorbital area: a randomized, blinded cohort study’, J Cosmet Dermatol, 24(2), e16717. PMID: 39645648. Available at: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11845936 (Accessed: 23 July 2026).
- Overview of systematic reviews (facial rejuvenation; low certainty): Cruciani M, Masiello F, Pati I, Pupella S, De Angelis V. (2024) ‘Platelet-rich plasma for facial rejuvenation: an overview of systematic reviews’, Blood Transfus, 22(5), pp. 429–440. PMID: 38557322. Adjunct PRP satisfaction mean difference 0.63 (95% CI 0.25–1.0), p=0.001, low certainty. Available at: bloodtransfusion.it/bt/article/view/730 (Accessed: 23 July 2026).
- Infra-orbital RCT (supportive, small): Mehryan P, Zartab H, Rajabi A, Pazhoohi N, Firooz A. (2014) ‘Assessment of efficacy of platelet-rich plasma on infraorbital dark circles and crow’s feet wrinkles’, J Cosmet Dermatol, 13(1), pp. 72–78. Available at: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24641604/ (Accessed: 23 July 2026).
This page is general information about a cosmetic/medical procedure, not individual medical advice or an inducement to treatment. Suitability, technique and outcomes depend on your skin and are established only after a face-to-face assessment; treatment is never guaranteed.
Written and clinically reviewed by
MPharm · Pharmacist Independent Prescriber · MSc Cosmetic & Aesthetic Medicine · PGDip Dermatology in Clinical Practice
Healthier-looking skin — not a different face.
PRP and PRF can be valuable when the concern has been properly identified and the treatment has a clear purpose. A consultation compares the likely benefit, the alternatives, recovery and cost, so the decision makes clinical and practical sense — or so we agree it is not the right step.
