Characterization and Comparison of 5 Platelet‐Rich Plasma Preparations in a Single‐Donor Model

Purpose The purpose of this study was to compare the biological characteristics of platelet‐rich plasma (PRP) obtained from 4 medical devices and a preparation developed in our laboratory using a single‐donor model. Methods Ten healthy persons donated blood that was processed to produce PRP by use of 4 commercial preparation systems and a protocol developed in our laboratory. Volumes and platelet, white blood cell (WBC), and red blood cell concentrations were recorded. The platelet activation status was assessed by flow cytometry. Enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay was used to determine the concentrations of vascular endothelial growth factor, platelet‐derived growth factor AB, epidermal growth factor, and transforming growth factor β1. We calculated platelet capture efficiency, relative composition, and increase factors from whole blood in platelets and WBC, as well as platelet and growth factor (GF) doses, provided from each preparation. Results Leukocyte‐rich PRP was obtained with RegenPRP (RegenLab, Le Mont‐sur‐Lausanne, Switzerland) and the Mini GPS III System (Biomet Biology, Warsaw, IN) and provides PRP with higher proportions of red blood cells, WBCs, and neutrophils than leukocyte‐poor PRP obtained with the Selphyl System (Selphyl, Bethlehem, PA), Arthrex ACP (Arthrex, Naples, FL), and the preparation developed in our laboratory. The highest platelet and GF concentrations and doses were obtained with the Mini GPS III System and the preparation developed in our laboratory. Different centrifugation protocols did not show differences in the percentages of activated platelets. Finally, a positive correlation between platelet doses and all the GFs studied was found, whereas a positive correlation between WBC doses and GFs was found only for vascular endothelial growth factor and epidermal growth factor. Conclusions In a single‐donor model, significant biological variations in PRP obtained from different preparation systems were highlighted. The observed differences suggest different results for treated tissue and could explain the large variability in the clinical benefit of PRP reported in the literature. Clinical Relevance Our findings will help clinicians to choose a system that meets their specific needs for a given indication.