Adding platelet-rich plasma (PRP) to the lipo-graft for facial lipofilling, or fat grafting, shortened patient recovery time but did not improve skin elasticity, graft volume maintenance or patient satisfaction, compared to lipofilling alone, according to a recent study published in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery.
Researchers in The Netherlands conducted a double-blinded, placebo-controlled randomized study on 32 healthy females, who underwent cosmetic facial lipofilling with either saline or PRP added, according to the study’s abstract. Researchers looked for changes in skin elasticity, nasolabial fold volumetric changes, recovery time differences and patient satisfaction during a one-year follow up. Twenty-five of the women complete the follow up.
They found that while adding PRP significantly improved recovery time after lipofilling, it did not improve cosmetic outcomes or patient satisfaction.
Still, in a recent review of studies looking at adding PRP to fat grafting, French researchers found 11 clinical studies on humans and seven on animals and noted a significant increase of the survival rate of fat grafts in nine comparative studies.
“Our synthesis allowed us to set up the following protocol: addition of 20 [%] of PRP activated with calcium hydrochloride to fat grafts. It may enhance the results of autologous facial fat graft in regenerative and aesthetic facial surgery,” they write.
Some of the same authors of the recent study in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery published a study in 2014 on the effects of PRP on recovery time and cosmetic outcomes in facial rejuvenation. This was a preliminary retrospective observation of four patient groups, including: patients treated with fat grafting only; those treated with fat grafting and PRP; patients treated with a minimal access cranial suspension-lift and fat grafting; and patients treated with a minimal access cranial suspension-lift, fat grafting, and PRP.
They found that adding PRP to lipofilling decreased the number of recovery days needed to return to work or socializing to an average 13.2, compared to 18.9 without PRP but with lipofilling. Interestingly, they didn’t find an effect from adding PRP to the minimal access cranial suspension-lift and lipofilling. But the aesthetic outcome of the lipofilling and minimal access cranial suspension-lift groups that added PRP was significantly improved compared to those groups without PRP.