Dermatologic surgery : official publication for American Society for Dermatologic Surgery [et al.] · 2025
Clinical and Trichoscopic Analysis of PRP Versus GFC Used for Male and Female Pattern Hair Loss.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Garg Suruchi, Thirumalaiswamy Aparna
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Male and female pattern hair loss (MPHL and FPHL) significantly affect quality of life. This study compares the clinical and trichoscopic outcomes of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and growth factor concentrate (GFC) in treating patterned hair loss, evaluating their efficacy and safety.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and side effect profiles of PRP and GFC in treating pattern hair loss and assessing associated trichoscopic changes.
METHODS: A retrospective study of 42 patients (21 MPHL and 21 FPHL), divided into Group 1 (PRP, 25 patients) and Group 2 (GFC, 17 patients). Each underwent three treatment sessions, 4 weeks apart. Evaluations included trichoscopy, clinical photography, and the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS).
RESULTS: GFC showed better outcomes in total hair count, shaft diameter, and GAIS score than PRP, with significant improvement in hair count after the second session ( p < .05). GFC also had more bulbar enlargement ( p < .05), while PRP showed more erythema and angiogenesis ( p < .05). At 6 months, PRP had better hair diameter and GAIS scores, indicating a more sustained effect.
CONCLUSION: PRP and GFC improve hair parameters with choices based on patient preference, cost, and expertise. GFC provides quick improvement, while PRP offers long-term benefits, making sequential treatments ideal for sustainable results.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and side effect profiles of PRP and GFC in treating pattern hair loss and assessing associated trichoscopic changes.
METHODS: A retrospective study of 42 patients (21 MPHL and 21 FPHL), divided into Group 1 (PRP, 25 patients) and Group 2 (GFC, 17 patients). Each underwent three treatment sessions, 4 weeks apart. Evaluations included trichoscopy, clinical photography, and the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS).
RESULTS: GFC showed better outcomes in total hair count, shaft diameter, and GAIS score than PRP, with significant improvement in hair count after the second session ( p < .05). GFC also had more bulbar enlargement ( p < .05), while PRP showed more erythema and angiogenesis ( p < .05). At 6 months, PRP had better hair diameter and GAIS scores, indicating a more sustained effect.
CONCLUSION: PRP and GFC improve hair parameters with choices based on patient preference, cost, and expertise. GFC provides quick improvement, while PRP offers long-term benefits, making sequential treatments ideal for sustainable results.