PRP vs PRF in Management of Striae Distensae

Split-Side Comparative Clinical Study of Platelet-Rich Fibrin Versus Platelet-Rich Plasma With or Without Microneedling in Treatment of Striae Distensae

Status

Completed

Phases

Unknown

Study type

Interventional

Source

ClinicalTrials.gov

Registry ID

NCT07561671

Enrollment

Registered

2026-05-01

Start date

2024-02-02

Completion date

2026-02-17

Last updated

2026-05-07

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Striae Distensae

Brief summary

A split-side comparative clinical study evaluating the efficacy and safety of injectable platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) versus platelet-rich plasma (PRP), alone or combined with microneedling, in the treatment of striae distensae. Thirty patients received PRF or PRP on one side and combination therapy with microneedling on the contralateral side over five sessions. Outcomes included striae width, length, severity score, and patient satisfaction

Interventions

BIOLOGICALPRF group

Autologous platelet-rich fibrin prepared via single-spin centrifugation without anticoagulant and injected intradermally

BIOLOGICALPRP injection

Intradermal injection of platelet-rich plasma

DEVICEPRF and microneedling

Performed using a dermapen device with 1 mm needle depth, followed by topical application of PRF.

DEVICEPRP and microneedling

Performed using a dermapen device with 1 mm needle depth, followed by topical application of PRP.

Study design

Allocation

RANDOMIZED

Intervention model

PARALLEL

Primary purpose

TREATMENT

Masking

DOUBLE (Subject, Outcomes Assessor)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender

ALL

Age

18 Years to 70 Years

Healthy volunteers

Inclusion criteria

* Adults ≥18 years * Presence of striae distensae (rubrae or alba) * Willingness to participate and provide informed consent

Exclusion criteria

* Keloid or hypertrophic scar tendency * Bleeding disorders or anticoagulant use * Pregnancy * Active skin infections (e.g., herpes, impetigo, tinea) * History of malignancy or collagen disease * Use of antineoplastic drugs * Conditions impairing wound healing * Unrealistic expectations

Design outcomes

Primary

Measure	Time frame	Description
The Imam, Nelva, Alviera score (INA score) (Change in striae severity)	baseline to 1 month after last session	The INA score ranges from 0 to 54, with higher scores indicating greater striae distensae severity, therefore representing a worse outcome. Severity was categorized as mild for scores \<21, moderate for scores 21-40, and severe for scores \>40.
Change in striae severity (Imam, Nelva, Alviera score (INA score)	1 month after last session	The INA score ranges from 0 to 54, with higher scores indicating greater striae distensae severity, therefore representing a worse outcome. Severity was categorized as mild for scores \<21, moderate for scores 21-40, and severe for scores \>40.

Countries

Egypt

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: May 8, 2026