• Users Online: 30215
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
BRIEF REPORT
Year : 2020  |  Volume : 11  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 575-579

Comparison of platelet-rich plasma prepared using two methods: Manual double spin method versus a commercially available automated device


1 Department of Dermatology and Venereology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
2 Department of Biostatistics, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India

Correspondence Address:
Vinod K Sharma
Department of Dermatology and Venereology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi - 110 029
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/idoj.IDOJ_653_19

Rights and Permissions

Background: In the absence of a standard protocol, several methods and devices have been used for preparing platelet-rich plasma (PRP) with varying platelet concentrations. Methods: Venous blood sample from 20 patients was used for preparing PRP using two methods: a manual double-spin method (1st spin at 160 g × 10 min, 2nd spin at 400 g × 10 min), and using a commercially available automated device (DrPRP-Kit®, REMI Laboratory Instruments). Platelet, erythrocyte, and total leukocyte counts were calculated for each PRP sample and compared. Results: Platelet count in the PRP prepared with the manual double-spin method (PRPm, 12.51 ± 5.89 × 105/μL) as well as with the automated device (PRPa, 7.25 ± 4.74 × 105/μL) had significantly higher mean platelet count than whole blood (2.58 ± 0.81 × 105/μL, P < 0.001). The mean platelet count in PRPm was statistically significantly higher than PRPa (P < 0.001). The platelet capture efficiency of the manual method (mean 47.11%, median 41.75%) was statistically significantly higher than that of the automated device (mean 31.89%, 29.51%, P = 0.012). Platelet counts in both PRPs were variable, but the counts were more dispersed in PRPa(coefficient of variation 65%) as compared to PRPm(coefficient of variation 47%). Conclusion: The manual double-spin method had a higher platelet capture efficiency resulting in a higher platelet concentration as compared to the automated device. Though there was a significant interindividual variation in the platelet yield in the PRPs produced by both methods, results were more consistent with the manual method.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed127    
    Printed3    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded33    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal