Comparison of platelet‐rich plasma efficacy with and without photoactivation in melasma: A randomized double‐blind study

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundPhotoactivation has been suggested to enhance the efficacy of platelet‐rich plasma (PRP) in conditions other than dermatological diseases.AimsTo evaluate the efficacy of photoactivated PRP (P‐PRP) treatment for melasma by comparing it with non‐photoactivated, classical PRP (C‐PRP).MethodsThe study consisted of 38 female patients diagnosed with melasma between April 2022 and May 2023. The patients were randomized into the P‐PRP and C‐PRP groups. Three sessions of P‐PRP or C‐PRP were applied to the patients at 2‐week intervals. The Melasma Area and Severity Index (MASI) and Melasma Quality of Life Index (MELASQoL) scores were compared before and 2 weeks after treatment.ResultsThe median age was 38 years, and the median disease duration was 60 months. Clinically, 94.7% of the cases were centrofacial and 5.3% were malar. According to Wood's lamp examination, 55.3% of the cases were epidermal, 13.2% were dermal, and 31.6% were mixed‐type. The median pre‐ and post‐treatment scores were 14.5 and 9, respectively, for MASI and 36.5 and 17, respectively, for MELASQoL. The post‐treatment MASI and MELASQoL scores of both groups significantly decreased (p < 0.001 for both). However, the intergroup difference was not significant. When all patients were evaluated together a moderate, positive, and significant relationship was detected between PRP and the pre‐ and post‐treatment MASI and MELASQoL scores (r = 0.494 and p = 0.002). No side effects associated with PRP were observed.ConclusionPRP is an effective and safe treatment method for melasma. Further studies are needed to evaluate the contribution of photoactivation to PRP treatment in melasma.