Clinical and Trichoscopic Analysis of PRP Versus GFC Used for Male and Female Pattern Hair Loss.

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.