Does Platelet-Rich Plasma Significantly Improve Postoperative Wound Healing Outcomes in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Compared with Standard Care?

Abstract

The Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP) is employed extensively in the field of plastic and reconstructive surgeries, because it is believed that the biological capacity of this material provides high concentrations of growth factors which would improve the rate of tissue regeneration. However, it remains debatable whether such capacity could produce any significant effect in comparison with traditional methods of treatment. The main goal of this systematic review will be to assess the effect of platelet-rich plasma on enhancing wound healing results after operations, including healing time, risk of complications, and scar formation, in comparison with the traditional techniques. The synthesis of methods was done based on peer-reviewed meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials, and clinical data published between 2020 and 2025, which were based on such journals as the Journal of Clinical Medicine, Annals of Plastic Surgery, and Acta Biomaterialia. Findings show that PRP has biological plausibility (release of growth factors (PDGF, VEGF, TGF-b)) and demonstrates some patient-reported efficacy. But there is inconsistency in the objective outcome measures. The data of meta-analysis indicate that there is no statistically significant change in the scores of the observer rated Vancouver Scar Scale, at three months. The benefits of healing velocity are marginal (around 2.5 days) and insignificant in mass pooled studies. The cost-effectiveness analysis ranks PRP at some 8635 per quality adjusted life year. In summary, the existing evidence fails to contradict the idea that PRP should be taken as a postoperative procedure that is mandatory in case of the regular plastic and reconstructive surgery. PRP must continue to be a voluntary supplement, which is availed to a select group of patients in a way that has been effectively communicated to them of the peripheral and largely subjective quality of anticipated gains. Before conclusive or definite recommendations can be arrived at, the standardization of the protocols is in dire need.