PRP: is my published protocol still up to date?
Objectives: To evaluate whether my PRP protocol published in 2010 remains scientifically and clinically valid, and to identify which aspects are still relevant and which require updating according to current evidence and practice.
Introduction: Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP) has been widely used in regenerative medicine and aesthetic treatments for over two decades. In 2010, I published a standardized PRP protocol aimed at optimizing platelet concentration, handling, and clinical outcomes. Since then, technological advances, improved classification systems, and a growing body of clinical evidence have reshaped the understanding and application of PRP. A critical reassessment of early protocols is therefore necessary.
Materials / method: A retrospective and narrative review was conducted, comparing the original 2010 PRP protocol with current literature (2015–2025) focusing on PRP preparation techniques, platelet concentration, leukocyte content, activation methods, and clinical indications. Key outcome parameters included biological rationale, reproducibility, safety profile, and clinical effectiveness. The protocol was also assessed against contemporary PRP classification systems.
Results: Several core principles of the original protocol—such as autologous preparation, minimal manipulation, and avoidance of excessive platelet concentration—remain consistent with current recommendations. However, limitations were identified regarding the lack of standardized classification, incomplete characterization of leukocyte content, and absence of indication-specific customization. New evidence supports a more tailored PRP approach depending on tissue target and clinical indication.
Conclusion: Platelets themselves have not changed over time, and their biological role in tissue regeneration remains constant regardless of evolving preparation techniques. While different PRP protocols may influence concentration, handling, and delivery, the fundamental regenerative potential of platelets is unchanged. My protocol published in 2010 remains valid and clinically effective because it is grounded in these stable biological mechanisms, demonstrating that sound, biology-driven approaches can transcend technical variations and maintain long-term clinical relevance.
