Are Platelet-Rich Plasma and Platelet-Rich Fibrin Worth Your Time and Money?

When your blood is drawn and spun at a high speed with an anticoagulant (a compound that prevents clotting), uncoagulated platelets (specialized cell fragments responsible for clotting a wound and stopping bleeding) and plasma proteins are isolated. This isolate (what we call PRP) is then either injected into sections of the scalp or applied after microneedling.

It’s expensive, requires completely sterile and specialized equipment, and a qualified hair specialist to administer (such as myself and my team).

However, there are some caveats all the recent hype tends to skip over.

PRP is NOT a replacement for medical hair loss therapy. It’s best thought of as an adjunct or complimentary therapy. It can improve gains and possibly help speed results along, and there may be a place for it for helping recovery from temporary forms of hair loss (such as telogen effluvium), but it’s costly and needs to be repeated every few months to see results. While it can be beneficial, you need to know your budget. Opting for PRP instead of the bedrock of medical therapy is a recipe for poor results. Also, there is no guarantee. While it’s an established adjunct therapy, results can and will vary.

The biggest difference between PRP and PRF is that for PRF, an anticoagulant isn’t used. Blood is spun at lower speed where, unlike PRP where clotting is prevented, blood forms natural clots. This clotting leads to the formation of a fibrin scaffold that traps platelets, white blood cells, and stem cells.

In theory, the fibrin matrix should allow for a slower, sustained release of growth factors over days instead of hours compared to PRP. That prolonged release could mean better, longer-lasting growth stimulation.

However, it’s far from proven. Though recent small studies (many with <50 patients conducted between 2020–2024) suggest PRF is at least not inferior to PRP and possibly modestly superior, the results are mixed and, honestly, not statistically significant. The only true head-to-head trial that compared PRF to PRP ultimately found no significant difference in growth or density. We need more data and larger studies.

The other issue that comes up with PRF is that unlike PRP there are no standardized protocols. The spin is slower, the application is trickier and requires finesse since the platelets are coagulated. Larger needles and speed are required, and no one is quite sure which treatment style works best yet. PRF also costs significantly more than PRP but with less certainty. That doesn’t make it bad, but you need to be aware of the limitations if you’re considering trying it.

I like to think of PRP and PRF as a stimulation step, one that can help “wake up” existing follicles and improve shaft caliber. Patients considering it however should keep their expectations in check. Patients aiming for stability and visible thickening are typically really happy with this kind of treatment. Folks who are expecting a 30–50% transformation from PRP/PRF injections alone will be disappointed.