PRP (Platelet-Rich Plasma) after hair transplant?

[foranni]

My surgeon strongly recommended I get a PRP treatment. The first session is for free and I would have to pay the rest of them (2 or 3 more he says).


What do you think about this? I have done a lot of research about it but still don’t get to a clear point. I have read people (doctors and patients) who claim that it works, and people in the opposite view…


Apart from the effectivity, my main concern is the possibility of damaging the implanted grafts on the recipient area. I had my hair transplant almost 4 months ago, do you think that the PRP procedure (puncturing with a needle all over the head) could be dangerous for the implanted follicles?

 

[foranni]

Nobody?

 

[arfy]

I think PRP is a scam. Just my opinion. Will it actually damage the grafts? I have no idea. I'm guessing it won't do anything at all.

 

[foranni]

I think PRP is a scam. Just my opinion. Will it actually damage the grafts? I have no idea. I'm guessing it won't do anything at all.

Yes, I have read a lot of opinions on that direction. It would be nice to have more views in this thread.

 

[Pequod]

I didn't have it done when it was offered to me along with my hair transplant, I don't trust them to take blood and put in back in my body.

 

[arfy]

There's no standardization on what PRP is. So if one doctor is getting results with PRP, that doesn't mean your doctor is using the same protocol.

Also, the doctors who claim they get results have been copied by other doctors, who say they didn't get the same results (results not repeatable by other doctors). Which is sketchy.

Also, how much do you think it will improve your hair transplant? If PRP is so useful in improving hair transplant results, that indicates that regular hair transplant results without PRP are lacking... that regular hair transplant results could be better. I personally believe that's true, but conceptually, it will be a hard idea to accept for all the newbies who imagine that regular hair transplants are going to solve all their hair loss problems. Now you're saying that they need a special sauce, too (costs extra though). Because regular hair transplant without the sauce are lacking.

As far as PRP and "donor regeneration" I would file that in the same bin as the laser helmet, the magnetic hat, Dr. Feelgood's Magic Hair Tonic, the vibrating comb, and so on. It's pure hokum, in my opinion. A hair follicle is an organ, a complicated one. The only organ that can regenerate itself is the liver (a relatively simple organ). Yet I'm expected to believe that "growth factors" found in your bloodstream will allow an organ to be regenerated? That's science fiction.

 

[follicle2001]

I also would say that the evidence for PRP being effective is very slim. If your hair transplant was done right it should be enough.

 

[foranni]

I didn't have it done when it was offered to me along with my hair transplant, I don't trust them to take blood and put in back in my body.

There's no standardization on what PRP is. So if one doctor is getting results with PRP, that doesn't mean your doctor is using the same protocol.

Also, the doctors who claim they get results have been copied by other doctors, who say they didn't get the same results (results not repeatable by other doctors). Which is sketchy.

Also, how much do you think it will improve your hair transplant? If PRP is so useful in improving hair transplant results, that indicates that regular hair transplant results without PRP are lacking... that regular hair transplant results could be better. I personally believe that's true, but conceptually, it will be a hard idea to accept for all the newbies who imagine that regular hair transplants are going to solve all their hair loss problems. Now you're saying that they need a special sauce, too (costs extra though). Because regular hair transplant without the sauce are lacking.

As far as PRP and "donor regeneration" I would file that in the same bin as the laser helmet, the magnetic hat, Dr. Feelgood's Magic Hair Tonic, the vibrating comb, and so on. It's pure hokum, in my opinion. A hair follicle is an organ, a complicated one. The only organ that can regenerate itself is the liver (a relatively simple organ). Yet I'm expected to believe that "growth factors" found in your bloodstream will allow an organ to be regenerated? That's science fiction.

I also would say that the evidence for PRP being effective is very slim. If your hair transplant was done right it should be enough.

I have been seeking more information and I have found several studies which conclude that the procedure has positive results, I really don't know what to think at this point...

Here I leave you one of these studies: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4134641/



RESULTS

Before treatment, all our patients (100%) had a positive hair pull test with mean number of 10 hair. After the fourth session, the pull test was negative in 9 patients (81.81%) with average number of three hairs. A significant reduction in hair loss was observed between first and fourth injection as noticed by patients. Global pictures also revealed a moderate improvement in hair volume and coverag


Results:

A significant reduction in hair loss was observed between first and fourth injection. Hair count increased from average number of 71 hair follicular units to 93 hair follicular units. Therefore, average mean gain is 22.09 follicular units per cm2. After the fourth session, the pull test was negative in 9 patients.

Conclusion:

PRP injection is a simple, cost effective and feasible treatment option for androgenic alopecia, with high overall patient satisfaction.

Pre-treatment clinical photograph

Post-treatment clinical photograph

What do you think?

 

[Pequod]

At the bottom of the study it says Clinical evidence is still weak. I would not trust a study that is not done scientifically.

 

[foranni]

At the bottom of the study it says Clinical evidence is still weak. I would not trust a study that is not done scientifically.

Yes, I read that fragment, but I think you misconstrued it. As far as I know the study is scientific, what they mean with "clinical evidence is still weak" is that more studies have to be done by others too. In any case, the results they obtained are pretty visible.

 

[Pequod]

Eleven patients suffering from hair loss due to androgenic alopecia and not responding to 6 months treatment with minoxidil and finasteride were included in this study.

The outcome was assessed after 3 months by clinical examination, macroscopic photos, hair pull test and patient's overall satisfaction.

***************************************************************
This study is not scientific as they allowed patients on proven hair growth drugs into the study. If the photos of the guy are only a three month duration that hair he grew looks like it took longer than three months. Sorry, I am still skeptical of this study, especially when they allow patients on finasteride which has a delay in new growth, so the results shown could be due to finasteride and minoxidil, and not PRP.

 

[arfy]

First of all, those pictures are not good. Wet hair in the before picture, and dry hair in the after picture. I also suspect that concealer is used in the after photo. Look at how dense black the after photo is. It defies all logic. That is a result that should make front page headlines, if true. So I suspect it's not true. The description calls the results "moderate" - that photo is not moderate, it's amazing.

Also, this:

A significant reduction in hair loss was observed between first and fourth injection as noticed by patients.

So patients were asked to report on their own hair loss over time. Hair growth is cyclical (whether you get injections or not) and hair could be in a dormant phase during one period, and in a growth period in another (which also could explain the rise in follicle counts). Also, long hair covers better than short hair. So over time, it's easy to imagine why a guy might think a treatment is reducing hair loss.

As I said before, so far, doctors are unable to reproduce the good results that get reported. And there are patient reports online saying that PRP did nothing. I would tend to believe them, instead of a Before/After photograph. Photos are very often used to deceive people in this field.