A prospective split-face comparative study of plasma gel versus platelet-rich plasma in the treatment of atrophic acne scars
Namrata C. Manjunath, Jaswandi Dilip ShirodkarObjectives:
The objectives are to study and compare the efficacy of plasma gel with platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in the treatment of atrophic acne scars using a split-face model.
Material and Methods:
PRP was injected into the left half of the face and plasma gel on the right half of the face once a month for 3 months. Patients were followed up to assess and record the results and complications for a total of 6 months since the first visit.
Results:
The mean Goodman and Baron (GB) scores for both PRP and plasma gel were equally reduced over the course of the treatment with a slight difference in their standard deviations. The quantitative mean GB scar (GBS) score reduced from 6.44 to 4.0, and the qualitative mean GBS score reduced from 3.52 to 2.96. At the final visit, the Visual Analog Scale score was 48.20 on the side receiving plasma gel and 48.40 on the side that received PRP injections. The side effects noted were transient pain at the time of injections (88%), transient erythema (64%), and transient edema (52%) which resolved in 24 h.
Conclusion:
Plasma gel is a safe, simple autologous biofiller with immediate volumetric effect and mild transient side effects. Both plasma gel and PRP provided comparable improvement and patient satisfaction in the amelioration of atrophic acne scars after 3 monthly sessions. The difference between the results of the two interventions was statistically insignificant.