Route · Injection

PRF: the review that set it against PRP concluded that neither is superior

We found one systematic review (14 studies) on the periorbital region. PRF was associated with texture, wrinkles and crepiness; PRP had stronger evidence for pigmentation — and the conclusion is that current evidence does not support the superiority of one over the other. Also, PRF's improvements often diminished by six months.

Last checked Sep 28, 2026

Start here

What it is: A fibrin clot obtained by spinning your own blood without an anticoagulant. Unlike PRP, which is a liquid, this is gel-like.
What it is used for: Injected into the face, including around the eyes.
How it is said to work: The fibrin mesh is said to release growth factors slowly. Lasting longer than PRP is this method's selling point.

There are no numbers and no citations in this box. What has been established, and how far, is below.

At a glance

Session length: 20–40 min
Pain: Moderate
Downtime: 1–4 days
Sessions: 1–3 sessionsThe review above made frequency one of its evaluation items, but no set number of sessions appears in the abstract.
How long it lasts: 6 monthsReported in a trialThe review above records that PRF improvements often diminished by six months. This cell is that number.
Relative cost: Middle
How well established: Early research

“Reported in a trial” means a number a study on this page actually reported. “Typical range” is not a measured value but roughly how it is usually done, and it varies by clinic and by person.

Cost is not an amount but a band: where this procedure falls when the ones on this site are lined up per session, or per area treated. Real prices differ several-fold by clinic and by how much is treated, so they are not given here. Surgery is measured on a different scale and cannot be compared with this band.

This is not how large the effect is but how well confirmed it is. It shows the highest grade among the findings on this page.

Korean classification Being checkedThe regulatory class has not yet been confirmed against a primary document. It will be filled in once it is.

PRF is the counterpart of PRP. Both are made by spinning your own blood, but the making differs.

PRP — spun with an anticoagulant to give a liquid
PRF — spun without an anticoagulant, letting the blood clot on its own, giving a gel-like mass holding a fibrin mesh

That mesh is PRF's selling point. Growth factors are said not to disperse at once but to come out slowly. By mechanism it ought to last longer.

But the review we found records the opposite. That is the second entry below.

And before reading this page, we suggest reading the PRP page alongside. It holds a trial that is rare in this layer — PRP into one cheek, saline into the other, participants and raters both masked, and the masked dermatologists found no difference while the participants did.

That matters here for a reason. A fair share of what the review below leans on is 'high patient satisfaction' — and what the PRP trial showed is that that very endpoint can point the opposite way from masked assessment.

This site does not deal in prices, clinics or reviews.

What is established

Not established

Set against PRP, the conclusion was that neither is superior

A 2025 systematic review in J Cosmet Dermatol. A PRISMA-guided search of PubMed, Embase and the Wiley Library, comparing injectable PRP and PRF in periorbital rejuvenation. Studies were evaluated for differences in preparation, injection technique, frequency, clinical outcomes, adverse events and satisfaction.

14 studies met the inclusion criteria.

Results:

PRF was associated with improvements in skin texture, wrinkles and crepiness
PRP showed stronger evidence for treating hyperpigmentation
Both had favourable safety and high patient satisfaction, with only mild, transient adverse effects reported

And we carry the authors' conclusion across as written — current evidence does not support the superiority of one modality over the other.

How to read it.

First, this is A versus B. Something made from your own blood went into both. So this review does not answer 'is PRF better than doing nothing'. It is the problem we set out on the PRP page and across this layer.

Second, this is not a meta-analysis. It is a systematic review that gathered 14 studies and compared their preparations and outcomes, and no pooled estimate appears in the abstract. So no effect size appears on this page either.

Third, look at the nature of the endpoints. What the abstract emphasises includes patient-reported outcomes and satisfaction. And the authors conclude that 'larger randomised controlled trials with standardised, objective outcome measures are needed'. Which is to say what exists now is not that.

Fourth, how to read the split 'PRF for texture, PRP for pigment'. That is a tendency observed across 14 studies, not a conclusion from setting the two against each other inside one trial. It can shift with which study measured what.

So it sits at 'not established'.

Open-label trial in people (14) · sample size not reported · Compared with another active ingredient · Funding not declared · Endpoint scores from blinded assessors PMID 41190633

Early research

PRF's improvements often diminished by six months

The durability part of the same review. We give it its own entry because it runs against PRF's selling point.

What was reported:

longevity of results remains unclear
PRF improvements often diminished by six months
whereas PRP outcomes for pigmentation were sustained at similar intervals

The authors' conclusion says the same — the long-term durability of PRF remains uncertain, with improvements often diminishing by six months.

Why this is worth reading.

PRF's mechanistic selling point is 'slow release'. No anticoagulant, so a fibrin mesh forms, and that mesh is said to let growth factors out gradually. On that account PRF ought to last longer than PRP.

What this review records is the opposite. At six months, the PRF side had diminished while the PRP side — pigmentation — held.

This site keeps mechanism and result apart. A plausible mechanism and a result in people are different sentences, and this is a place where the two diverge.

But we will not read it as 'PRF lasts less than PRP'. Two reasons.

First, the things compared are different. What diminished is PRF's texture and wrinkle improvement; what held is PRP's pigmentation outcome. Two different endpoints set side by side.

Second, this is a tendency across 14 studies, not a direct comparison following the same people for six months.

So it sits at 'early evidence'. The direction is stated plainly, and that it runs against this procedure's selling point is worth recording.

One thing worth taking when choosing — six months. What happens after that has to be part of the plan.

Open-label trial in people (14) · sample size not reported · 26 weeks · Compared with another active ingredient · Funding not declared · Endpoint scores from blinded assessors PMID 41190633

Known risks

It involves drawing your own blood and injecting it back. The risks of the draw and the injection remain.
Bruising, swelling, pain and redness at the injection site are common. The area around the eyes bruises readily.
The review above notes that only mild, transient adverse effects were reported. But we have not individually verified the designs and sizes of the 14 studies it gathered.
Because it uses your own blood, what goes in differs between people. And because no anticoagulant is used, the timing and spin conditions bear more directly on the result.
Blood disorders and anticoagulant medication affect whether this can be done. That judgement belongs to clinicians.
Around the eyes, blood vessels are close. With any injection, that changes the character of the risk.

What is not established

We could not include a trial with an inert control (saline or similar). The review above is a comparison against PRP.
There is no pooled estimate. It is a systematic review, but no effect size appears in the abstract.
Durability beyond six months is uncertain. The authors say so in their conclusion.
The word 'PRF' points at different things depending on how it is made. Spin speed and time, and the interval from draw to injection, change the nature of the fibrin mesh. The review itself made differences in preparation one of its evaluation items.
Larger randomised trials with standardised, objective outcome measures are needed, the authors write.
We have not yet opened the primary Korean regulatory classification, so it stays 'being verified'.

Whether to have it done is a decision to make with a doctor.

What this article relies on

PubMed — 미국 국립의학도서관 문헌 데이터베이스National Library of Medicine · Checked on 2026-09-16