Comparison of platelet-rich plasma prepared using two methods: Manual double spin method versus a commercially available automated device
Autor: | Mona Pathak, Anita Singh Parihar, Vinod Sharma, Vishal Gupta |
---|---|
Rok vydání: | 2020 |
Předmět: |
Chromatography
automated device business.industry Brief Report Venous blood sample platelet-rich plasma lcsh:RL1-803 manual double-spin Leukocyte Counts 030207 dermatology & venereal diseases 03 medical and health sciences platelet yield 0302 clinical medicine comparison 030220 oncology & carcinogenesis Platelet-rich plasma lcsh:Dermatology Standard protocol Medicine Platelet business Whole blood |
Zdroj: | Indian Dermatology Online Journal, Vol 11, Iss 4, Pp 575-579 (2020) Indian Dermatology Online Journal |
ISSN: | 2229-5178 |
DOI: | 10.4103/idoj.idoj_653_19 |
Popis: | 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. |
Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
Externí odkaz: | |
Nepřihlášeným uživatelům se plný text nezobrazuje | K zobrazení výsledku je třeba se přihlásit. |