PRF TREATMENT
PRF vs PRP for Hair Loss
How PRF and PRP compare, why the distinction matters, and why suitability depends on the clinical context.
PRF (platelet-rich fibrin) and PRP (platelet-rich plasma) are both autologous regenerative treatments — meaning they use components of the patient’s own blood. Both have been used in hair-loss treatment, and patients often encounter both terms when researching options. They are related but not identical: they are prepared differently, released differently in tissue, and have distinct properties that may influence which is more appropriate in a given clinical situation.
The choice between them — or whether either is appropriate — depends on the clinical context, the type of hair loss, and what the patient is hoping to achieve.
ON THIS PAGE
How PRP is prepared
PRP is prepared by taking a blood sample and centrifuging it to separate the plasma (the liquid component) from the red blood cells. The resulting platelet-rich plasma contains a higher concentration of platelets than whole blood, along with growth factors such as PDGF, TGF-β and VEGF. It is a liquid preparation that is injected into the scalp and releases its growth factors relatively quickly after administration. PRP has been used in hair restoration for over a decade and has a reasonable evidence base, though results vary and study quality is mixed.
The difference
How PRF differs
PRF is prepared without the use of anticoagulants, which allows the blood to begin forming a fibrin matrix during centrifugation. The result is a denser, gel-like concentrate that traps platelets and growth factors within a fibrin scaffold. This scaffold releases growth factors more slowly and over a longer period compared to the rapid release of liquid PRP.
The sustained release is one of the main theoretical advantages — it maintains a higher local concentration of growth factors at the treatment site for longer. PRF also tends to contain a broader range of bioactive components, including white blood cells, which may play a role in the regenerative response.
Same-day appointments available. Book online or call 020 7736 7557.
Which is better for hair loss
There is no definitive answer to which is “better” — the evidence base for both treatments is growing but not yet conclusive. PRF is often described as the next-generation approach because of its sustained-release properties and the fact that it avoids anticoagulant additives. However, PRP has a longer track record and more published clinical data. In practice, the choice may depend on what the treating clinician offers, the specific preparation protocol used, and patient preference. What matters more than the label is whether the treatment is part of a properly assessed and monitored plan rather than offered in isolation without diagnosis.
Assessment first
Why assessment should come first
Neither PRF nor PRP is appropriate for every patient or every type of hair loss. A patient with iron deficiency or thyroid dysfunction driving their hair loss needs those conditions treated first. A patient with advanced pattern hair loss where follicles have been permanently lost may not respond meaningfully to either treatment.
The most useful starting point is a hair restoration consultation that assesses the likely cause, discusses realistic expectations, and then determines whether regenerative treatment — PRF or otherwise — is a sensible part of the plan. See PRF treatment for the full service page.
FURTHER READING