Comparison of Platelet-Rich Plasma Prepared Using Two Methods: Manual Double Spin Method versus a Commercially Available Automated Device

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 (1(st) spin at 160 g × 10 min, 2(nd) 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 (PRP(m), 12.51 ± 5.89 × 10(5)/μL) as well as with the automated device (PRP(a,) 7.25 ± 4.74 × 10(5)/μL) had significantly higher mean platelet count than whole blood (2.58 ± 0.81 × 10(5)/μL, P < 0.001). The mean platelet count in PRP(m) was statistically significantly higher than PRP(a) (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 PRP(a)(coefficient of variation 65%) as compared to PRP(m)(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.