Platelet-rich plasma has been used in medicine for over four decades.
It was used to accelerate bone healing in oral and maxillofacial reconstruction in the 1980s. It was used in cardiac surgery to reduce post-operative bleeding and improve tissue recovery. It was used in orthopaedics on tendons, ligaments, and joints — building an evidence base on knees, elbows, and shoulders long before it ever went anywhere near a face. It was used in wound healing for diabetic ulcers and chronic non-healing wounds. It was used in dentistry, in reconstructive plastic surgery, in sports medicine.
Then, around fifteen years ago, someone put it on a face, someone else posted a photo of it on Instagram, and PRP became a vampire facial.
And here’s where it started going wrong.
Because when a treatment with a serious medical lineage gets rebranded for aesthetic marketing, several things happen at once.
The name changes to something evocative.
The clinical protocols get compressed to make the treatment cheaper and faster to deliver.
The training required to perform it well gets loosened, because the marketing implies it’s a facial rather than a medical procedure.
The technical variables that determine whether the treatment actually works get quietly abandoned.
And patients start walking into clinics asking for “a vampire facial” the way they’d order a coffee — with no understanding that the same name now covers protocols ranging from genuinely sophisticated to unsafe.
Let’s untangle it.
What PRP actually is
Platelet-rich plasma is derived from your own blood. A sample is drawn, usually 10 to 30 millilitres, depending on the protocol and placed in a centrifuge. The centrifuge spins the blood at a specific speed for a specific duration, separating it into layers by density. The heavier red blood cells settle at the bottom. The clear plasma sits at the top. The middle layer — the buffy coat — is where the platelets concentrate.
Platelets are best known for their role in clotting, but they do far more than that. They release a range of growth factors:
platelet-derived growth factor,
transforming growth factor-beta,
vascular endothelial growth factor,
epidermal growth factor,
and others
that trigger tissue repair, stimulate cell proliferation, and support collagen synthesis. In other words, they carry the biological signals your body uses to heal itself.
When platelet-rich plasma is reintroduced to the skin — via microneedling, injection, or a combination, the theory is that the concentrated growth factors amplify the skin’s own regenerative processes. That’s the mechanism. It’s real. It’s biologically coherent. It has a genuine evidence base behind it.
And it’s also where the marketing version and the clinical version start to diverge.
PRP is not the only blood-derived regenerative treatment
Here’s the part that most patients, and honestly, a lot of clinics, don’t distinguish between.
“PRP” has become a shorthand term for a whole category of autologous blood-derived regenerative treatments, but the category has evolved significantly over the past decade.
The version being sold under the “vampire facial” label is almost always first-generation PRP. But regenerative aesthetic medicine now includes several distinct preparations, each with different biological properties, different clinical applications, and different reasons for being chosen for a specific patient.
Let me walk through the ones that matter, because if you’re being offered a “vampire facial” without any conversation about which type of blood-derived preparation is being used, you’re not being offered a considered treatment. You’re being sold the marketing word.
PRP — Platelet-Rich Plasma.
The classic first-generation preparation.
Blood is drawn, centrifuged, and the platelet-rich plasma layer is separated in liquid form. Growth factors are released rapidly once the PRP is activated and delivered. Effects are relatively fast in onset but the biological signalling window is shorter. Well-established evidence base. Still the appropriate choice for many indications, but not the only tool in the category.
PRF — Platelet-Rich Fibrin.
The second-generation evolution of PRP. The blood is processed differently, typically with a slower centrifuge protocol and without anticoagulants, producing a fibrin-based matrix rather than a liquid.
That fibrin matrix acts as a scaffold, holding platelets and growth factors in place and releasing them slowly over days rather than minutes. The clinical result is a sustained biological signalling window rather than a burst-and-fade one.
Increasingly used in dental and oral surgery, and in aesthetic applications where longer-term tissue remodelling is the goal. Requires different equipment, different preparation, and different clinical judgement from first-generation PRP.
Biofiller — Albumin gel combined with PRP or PRF.
A more recent development in the regenerative injectable category. Autologous plasma proteins, primarily albumin, are heat-processed to form a gel-like matrix, which is then combined with PRP or PRF.
The resulting biofiller offers both volumising properties and the regenerative biological signalling of the platelet preparation. It sits in an interesting clinical space between traditional dermal fillers (which are typically hyaluronic acid-based and function purely as volumisers) and pure regenerative treatments (which stimulate the skin’s own processes without adding volume).
Used for specific indications where both tissue regeneration and gentle volume restoration are the clinical goal, particularly in areas where synthetic fillers may not be ideal.
Three preparations.
Three different biological profiles.
Three different clinical use cases.
The point of walking through them is not that one is “better” than another — the point is that they are different treatments, chosen for different reasons, and the practitioner recommending one over another should be able to explain why.
A clinic that offers “PRP” as if it’s a single treatment, without distinguishing between which preparation they use or when they’d choose a different one, is not offering you the current standard of regenerative injectable care. They’re offering you the version of it they know how to sell.
The variables that determine whether any of this actually works
Regardless of which preparation is being used, the same technical variables determine whether the treatment does what the research says it does.
One — the centrifuge protocol.
Different centrifuges spin at different speeds. Different protocols separate the blood layers differently. Different systems concentrate platelets to different degrees. A protocol that produces plasma with 2x baseline platelet concentration is doing something very different from one that produces 5x or 8x concentration. The clinical evidence for PRP is built on specific concentration ranges. A protocol operating outside those ranges is not delivering the treatment the research studied. It’s delivering something adjacent to it — often something weaker — and calling it the same name. PRF and biofiller preparations require their own specific protocols, and the equipment and training to prepare them properly are not universal.
Two — platelet activation and preparation.
Whether the platelets are activated before delivery, how they’re activated, whether an anticoagulant is used, whether the fibrin matrix is preserved, and what all of this does to the release profile of growth factors matters enormously. Different preparation methods produce different biological signals. This is technical, but it’s the technical detail that determines whether the growth factor release is sustained and clinically meaningful or fast and functionally useless.
Three — the delivery method.
These treatments can be delivered by microneedling, by injection, or by both in combination. The depth of delivery matters. The pattern matters. The volume matters. The regions treated matter. A single-technique operator delivering the same product the same way to every patient is not doing the same job as an operator who chooses preparation and delivery method based on the specific tissue concern being treated.
Four — the training of the operator.
Drawing blood safely, handling it in a way that maintains sterility, preparing it correctly across multiple preparation types, and delivering it into the dermis with technique that produces the desired biological response — none of this is a facial. It’s a medical procedure requiring medical training. The gap between an operator with proper training and one who’s completed a two-day certification course is enormous, and it shows up in the results.
Five — the frequency and the plan.
These treatments are rarely one-off. The evidence base is built on treatment courses — typically three sessions spaced weeks apart, sometimes followed by maintenance. A single session sold as a “glow-up” is not the treatment the literature evaluated. It’s a shortened, cheaper version being marketed as if it delivers the same result.
Five variables. Every one of them determines whether these treatments do what the research says they do or something notably less. And every one of them is almost invisible in the marketing.
Where the evidence actually sits
The evidence base varies significantly between preparations and indications.
For first-generation PRP, wound healing, particularly chronic non-healing wounds, has strong data. Post-procedural recovery has good evidence, with published work showing accelerated healing and reduced downtime when PRP is used alongside procedures like laser resurfacing or microneedling. Scar remodelling, particularly for acne scarring, has moderate-to-strong evidence when combined with microneedling in a structured treatment course. Hair loss, specifically androgenetic alopecia, has an emerging but reasonable evidence base.
For PRF, the evidence in oral surgery, dental implant integration, and specific wound healing contexts is well-established. The aesthetic-specific evidence is smaller but growing, particularly in indications where sustained biological signalling is the clinical rationale for choosing PRF over PRP.
For biofiller preparations, the evidence base is emerging. There are legitimate clinical applications and a coherent biological rationale for the combination, but the depth of published evidence is smaller than for PRP or PRF individually. It’s a treatment that should be offered with appropriate honesty about where the evidence sits.
The evidence for standalone facial rejuvenation using any of these preparations, as sold in most “vampire facial” marketing, is more moderate across the board. It exists. It’s not nothing. But it’s much less dramatic than the marketing implies, it varies enormously based on the technical variables above, and it typically requires a structured course of treatment rather than a one-off session.
The honest read is that autologous blood-derived regenerative treatments are a legitimate and evolving category with real evidence, being marketed under a name — “vampire facial” — that has almost completely detached from the clinical version of the procedures involved.
The principle that runs underneath this
Here’s what every meaningful blood-derived regenerative treatment has in common when it’s delivered by someone who actually knows what they’re doing.
It is not a facial. It is not a glow-up. It is not a one-off luxury experience with a dramatic Instagram photo at the end. It is a medical procedure using a biological product derived from your own blood, prepared according to a specific protocol appropriate to the clinical goal, delivered by someone with medical training, inside a plan that has been built around your particular clinical concern.
The evidence base for these treatments was built on patients who were assessed first, treated according to a considered protocol, and followed up over time. It was not built on people who walked in pointing at a price list.
If you’re being offered a “vampire facial” without a proper clinical assessment, without a clear explanation of which preparation is being used and why, without a stated training background of the operator, without a treatment plan that accounts for how many sessions you’ll need and why — you’re being sold a service, not a medical treatment.
There’s a difference. And the difference is your face, your safety, and your money.
What to ask before this goes near your skin
One — which specific preparation is being used, and why is that one being chosen for my concern? PRP, PRF, biofiller, or something else? If the clinic can’t answer or answers vaguely, that’s your answer. The choice of preparation should be a clinical decision, not a menu default.
Two — what centrifuge system and protocol is being used, and what platelet concentration or fibrin structure does it produce? The clinical evidence is built on specific systems. If the clinic can’t name theirs, you don’t know what treatment you’re actually getting.
Three — what’s the operator’s medical training and specific experience with autologous regenerative treatments? These procedures involve drawing blood, handling it under sterility conditions, and delivering it into your skin. The training required to do this well is not a weekend certification.
Four — is this being sold as a single session or as a structured course, and why? The evidence supports structured courses for most indications. If a single session is being sold as sufficient, ask what evidence supports that recommendation for your specific concern.
Five — what plan does this sit inside? These treatments are tools, not standalone products. What is the wider clinical assessment that led to this recommendation? What is the treatment plan around it? What comes before, alongside, and after?
If the answers don’t exist, neither does the medicine.
The bigger picture
This is post two in a series on regenerative aesthetics. The cornerstone on why “skin boosting” and its cousin marketing terms are marketing language and not medicine sits here. If you haven’t read that one, start there. This post extends the same principle into one specific category of treatment.
Autologous blood-derived regenerative treatments, PRP, PRF, biofiller preparations, are among the oldest and most-studied regenerative treatments in modern aesthetics. They have real evidence, a real medical lineage, and legitimate places in a properly-considered clinical plan for the right patient with the right concern.
They are also, right now, among the most variably delivered treatments in the industry — because the marketing name has detached almost entirely from the clinical procedures, and clinics offering the marketing version at the marketing price are undercutting a category of treatments that, done properly, are genuinely useful medicine.
The treatments aren’t the problem. The unconsidered application of them is.
