Unraveling the classification crisis that hinders PRP research and clinical application
In operating rooms and clinics worldwide, a biological therapy derived from patients' own blood is revolutionizing treatment for everything from sports injuries to urinary incontinence. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has emerged as a promising regenerative therapy across various medical fields, harnessing the body's natural healing mechanisms to repair damaged tissues 1 . Yet, despite decades of research and widespread use, a critical problem persists: the lack of standardized classification systems makes it nearly impossible to compare results across studies or determine which PRP formulation works best for specific conditions.
This classification crisis represents one of the most significant barriers to advancing PRP from promising treatment to evidence-based medicine. As we delve into the fascinating world of platelet-rich plasma, we uncover why proper classification isn't just academic—it's the key to unlocking PRP's full therapeutic potential.
Safe, autologous treatment with minimal side effects and broad applications across medical specialties.
Inconsistent methodologies and lack of standardization hinder comparison between studies and clinical applications.
Platelet-rich plasma is precisely what its name suggests: a concentrated source of platelets derived from a patient's own blood. Platelets, typically known for their role in clotting, contain remarkable healing power within their granules. These tiny cellular fragments contain more than 30 bioactive proteins, including growth factors that initiate and accelerate tissue repair 6 .
The fundamental premise behind PRP therapy is elegantly simple: by concentrating these platelets and injecting them into damaged tissue, we can supercharge the body's natural healing processes. The concentrated platelets release growth factors that trigger hemostasis, revascularization, and connective tissue regeneration 1 . Think of it as delivering a concentrated repair crew precisely where needed in the body.
The therapeutic effects of PRP come from its diverse cellular components and their secreted factors:
The complex interactions between these components create a sophisticated biological response that varies significantly depending on their relative concentrations and activation methods.
The current state of PRP research has been described as a "blind library of knowledge" 3 . With countless preparation methods and no universal classification system, the scientific literature has become increasingly difficult to interpret. Researchers and clinicians face substantial challenges when attempting to compare results between studies or replicate promising findings.
The core problem lies in the tremendous variability in PRP preparations. Classification systems serve as essential tools to accurately describe, compare, and reproduce PRP formulations across different studies and clinical settings 8 . Without these systems, the field remains fragmented, with mixed clinical results and unclear indications for specific PRP types.
This classification deficit has real-world implications for both research and patient care:
The chronic nature of many conditions treated with PRP, coupled with frequent associations with aging and comorbid conditions, poses considerable challenges for both patients and healthcare providers 1 . Current treatment modalities often carry limitations related to efficacy, tolerability, or patient eligibility, making the need for PRP standardization even more pressing.
One of the most influential classification approaches was proposed by Dohan Ehrenfest et al. in 2009, categorizing PRP based on two key parameters: fibrin architecture and cellular content 3 . This system identifies four main families of platelet concentrates:
| PRP Type | Fibrin Architecture | Leukocyte Content | Common Applications |
|---|---|---|---|
| P-PRP (Pure Platelet-Rich Plasma) | Low-density fibrin network | Absent | Injectable applications; often used in sports medicine |
| L-PRP (Leukocyte- and Platelet-Rich Plasma) | Low-density fibrin network | Present | Surgical adjuvants; chronic wound management |
| P-PRF (Pure Platelet-Rich Fibrin) | High-density fibrin network | Absent | Slow-release regenerative applications |
| L-PRF (Leukocyte- and Platelet-Rich Fibrin) | High-density fibrin network | Present | "Optimized blood clot" for surgical handling |
This classification system was largely cited, advocated, and validated by a multi-disciplinary consensus conference published in 2012, representing a significant step forward in standardizing PRP terminology 6 .
While the Dohan Ehrenfest system provides valuable categorization, the PAW classification system proposed in 2012 offers additional quantitative precision 5 . This system organizes PRP preparations based on three key variables:
The absolute number of Platelets
The method of platelet Activation
The presence or absence of White cells
This approach acknowledges that platelet concentration isn't merely about relative increase from baseline but about achieving therapeutic thresholds. Research suggests that a platelet count of 1 million platelets/μL has become the working definition for therapeutic PRP 6 . Interestingly, some studies indicate that biological effects follow a bell-shaped curve, with peak stimulation for endothelial cell proliferation occurring at approximately 1.25 million platelets/μL 6 .
One of the most significant debates in PRP classification revolves around the role of leukocytes. Different PRP formulations contain varying levels of white blood cells, which substantially influences their biological effects:
| PRP Type | Leukocyte Level | Biological Effects | Potential Applications |
|---|---|---|---|
| LP-PRP (Leukocyte-Poor) | Reduced | Anabolic, tissue-repairing effects; less inflammatory | Conditions where inflammation should be minimized |
| LR-PRP (Leukocyte-Rich) | Elevated | Catabolic effect; triggers stronger inflammatory responses | Cases where immune activation may be beneficial |
| L-PRF (Leukocyte-Rich Fibrin) | High | "Optimized blood clot" with combined healing properties | Surgical applications requiring robust matrix |
The inflammatory response triggered by leukocytes has a significant impact on the healing process, though the variables that determine positive versus negative effects are still being studied 1 . An in vivo study reported an acute inflammatory response associated with LR-PRP, while LP-PRP appears to have more anabolic, tissue-repairing effects 1 .
A comprehensive analysis of PRP preparation methods reveals the extent of variability in the field. Researchers systematically examined commercial PRP systems and their resulting compositions:
Whole blood drawn into anticoagulant-containing tubes
Variable g-force and time across different systems
Different layers harvested based on system protocols
Platelet, leukocyte, and growth factor concentration measurement
The experimental design compared multiple commercial systems against baseline blood measurements to determine concentration factors and composition profiles.
The findings revealed dramatic differences between commercially available PRP systems:
| PRP System | Platelet Concentration | Leukocyte Content | Classification |
|---|---|---|---|
| Biomet GPS II and III | 3-8× baseline | Variable | High-yield L-PRP system |
| Harvest SmartPRep 2 APC+ | 4-6× baseline | Variable | High-yield L-PRP system |
| ArterioCyte-Medtronic Magellan | 3-7× baseline | Variable | High-yield L-PRP system |
| Arthrex ACP | 2-3× baseline | Minimal | P-PRP system |
| Cascade PPR therapy | 1-1.5× baseline | Minimal | P-PRP system |
| PRGF (Boitech Institute) | 2-3× baseline | Minimal | P-PRP system |
These results demonstrated that different systems produce fundamentally different products, with platelet concentration ranges varying from barely above baseline to 8 times the original concentration 6 . This variability directly impacts clinical outcomes, as platelet concentration influences growth factor release and biological activity.
PRP research requires specific materials and reagents to properly prepare, analyze, and apply platelet concentrates. The following toolkit represents essential components in PRP investigation:
| Reagent/Material | Function | Research Importance |
|---|---|---|
| Anticoagulant Tubes (ACD, citrate dextrose) | Prevents premature platelet activation before PRP preparation | Maintains platelet viability during processing |
| Differential Centrifuge | Separates blood components based on density | Core technology for PRP preparation |
| Platelet Activation Agents (thrombin, calcium chloride) | Triggers growth factor release from platelets | Standardizes platelet secretion for consistent effects |
| Cell Counting Systems | Quantifies platelet and leukocyte concentrations | Essential for product characterization and classification |
| Growth Factor Assays (ELISA, PEA) | Measures concentrations of bioactive factors | Correlates composition with biological activity |
| Commercial PRP Kits | Standardized preparation systems | Enables comparison across studies and clinics |
The proximity extension assay (PEA) combined with next-generation sequencing has recently emerged as a powerful tool for comprehensive plasma profiling, allowing researchers to analyze nearly 1,500 protein targets from minute blood samples 9 . This technological advancement represents a significant leap in our ability to characterize PRP compositions and their biological effects.
ELISA and basic cell counting provide limited protein profiling capabilities.
PEA with next-generation sequencing enables comprehensive protein analysis.
The future of PRP therapy depends on developing and adopting comprehensive classification systems that account for the multitude of variables determining PRP efficacy. Several key developments are moving the field forward:
The 2019 Bone & Joint Journal annotation highlighted that characterization and reporting of PRP preparation protocols in clinical trials remain highly inconsistent, with the majority of studies not providing sufficient information to allow protocols to be reproduced 8 . This continued lack of standardization underscores the ongoing challenge.
As classification systems improve, PRP therapy moves closer to true precision medicine approaches. Rather than a one-size-fits-all treatment, clinicians will potentially select specific PRP formulations based on:
Recent bibliometric analyses show that the United States leads PRP research with 25.3% of publications, followed by China (10.4%) and Italy (6.8%) 7 . This global research effort indicates widespread recognition of both PRP's potential and the need for better classification.
The journey toward proper PRP classification represents more than academic exercise—it's the necessary foundation for advancing regenerative medicine. As research continues to evolve, the transition from fundamental studies on muscle and ligament healing to advancements in regenerative therapies highlights the growing sophistication of this field 7 .
For patients suffering from conditions ranging from sports injuries to urinary incontinence, this classification revolution may finally unlock the full healing potential that has remained hidden in their own blood all along.
For clinicians and researchers, the message is clear: the time for universal classification standards has arrived. Only through concerted effort to standardize and categorize can we transform PRP from a promising but inconsistent treatment into a reliable pillar of regenerative medicine.
References will be added here in the proper format.