Loading
Procedure guide · Hair
PRP hair treatmentPRP hair treatment injects platelet-rich plasma prepared from your own blood into the scalp to stimulate thinning hair follicles, either as a course of sessions for early hair loss or after a transplant to support graft survival. Each session takes thirty to sixty minutes with no anaesthesia beyond a numbing cream and no downtime. Evidence shows modest increases in hair density for some patients with androgenetic alopecia; it does not regrow hair on bald scalp, and results fade without maintenance every four to six months.
Platelet-rich plasma is prepared by drawing a small amount of blood and spinning it so the platelet-rich layer can be separated. Platelets release growth factors that, when injected into the scalp, appear to prolong the growth phase of miniaturised hairs and improve blood supply. Sessions are quick and done with numbing cream.
PRP suits early or moderate pattern loss and diffuse thinning where follicles are still alive, and is often used after a transplant to support graft survival. Its effect is modest and fades without maintenance, so it is best combined with finasteride or minoxidil.
The rationale behind PRP rests on the biology of platelets rather than the plasma itself. Platelets contain alpha granules packed with growth factors — platelet-derived growth factor, vascular endothelial growth factor, transforming growth factor-beta, epidermal growth factor and insulin-like growth factor among them. When platelets are activated, either spontaneously on contact with the injected tissue or deliberately with an activating agent such as calcium chloride, they release these factors around the hair follicle and its surrounding dermal papilla cells. The working hypothesis is that this growth-factor signal encourages follicles that have entered a shortened, miniaturised growth cycle — the hallmark of androgenetic alopecia — to spend longer in the active growth phase and shorter in the resting phase, while also encouraging new blood vessel formation around the follicle. Laboratory studies support plausible biological activity along these lines, and dermal papilla cells exposed to PRP in culture show increased proliferation markers. What remains harder to establish is how reliably this laboratory-level activity translates into visible, durable hair growth in a living scalp, across different ages, degrees of hair loss and genetic backgrounds, and that gap between plausible mechanism and consistent clinical outcome is central to how this treatment should be understood.
Taken as a whole, the clinical evidence for PRP in pattern hair loss is genuinely mixed rather than clearly positive or clearly negative. Multiple randomised, placebo-controlled trials and several systematic reviews have reported statistically significant improvements in hair density or hair count compared with saline or sham injections, particularly in men and women with early-to-moderate androgenetic alopecia followed for three to six months. These findings are real enough that PRP is no longer dismissed as implausible by most hair-loss specialists. At the same time, the trials behind these conclusions are mostly small, often lack long-term follow-up beyond a year, use inconsistent ways of measuring hair growth, and were not always blinded as rigorously as a medication trial would be. Several other trials have found no significant difference from placebo. Reviews that pool this evidence generally grade its overall quality as low to moderate, meaning the direction of effect looks encouraging but the size of benefit, its durability and the patients most likely to respond are not yet well defined. This is the honest position: PRP has biological plausibility and some supportive trial data for early pattern hair loss, not proof of reliable, substantial regrowth for most people who try it.
A large part of the uncertainty comes from how differently PRP is actually prepared and delivered from one clinic, and one study, to the next. The platelet concentration achieved depends on centrifuge speed, spin time and whether blood is spun once or twice; some protocols use leukocyte-rich PRP and others leukocyte-poor; some activate the platelets with calcium chloride or thrombin before injection and others rely on activation occurring naturally in the scalp; injection technique varies in depth, spacing, volume per session and whether microneedling is added. Because no single protocol has been adopted as a reference standard, a trial or a clinic reporting good results may be describing a meaningfully different treatment than one reporting disappointing ones, which makes comparing published outcomes an imprecise exercise. This variability is also why realistic candidate selection matters more than brand or marketing: PRP has something to work with only where hair follicles are still present, even if miniaturised and producing thin, short hairs. Where follicles have been lost entirely, there is no follicular activity left for growth factors to stimulate, and PRP in that setting has no plausible mechanism of action, regardless of how it is prepared.
Surgeons look for these points at the consultation.
Adults with early to moderate androgenetic (pattern) hair loss or diffuse thinning who still have miniaturised hairs, and transplant patients wanting to support graft growth.
Reasons a good surgeon will ask you to wait or choose something else.
Bald areas without follicles, platelet disorders, anticoagulant use, active scalp infection, and unrealistic expectations of regrowth on smooth scalp.
Ask your surgeon which technique they recommend for you and why.
Blood is centrifuged once to concentrate platelets before injection.
Two centrifuge cycles yield a higher platelet concentration.
Microneedling of the scalp before or during PRP injection.
Step by step, from arrival to discharge.
A small tube of blood is taken from the arm.
The blood is spun once or twice to concentrate platelets.
PRP is injected across the thinning areas after numbing cream; microneedling may be added.
Normal activity the same day; no washing for 12-24 hours.
Frequencies follow published guidance; your personal risk depends on your health and the surgeon.
PRP is generally considered one of the lower-risk procedures covered on this site, because the injected material is the patient’s own blood plasma rather than a synthetic filler, foreign biologic or implant, which removes the risk of an allergic or immune reaction to the substance itself. The scalp is also a forgiving area to inject, with a good blood supply and no major deep structures at risk from a superficial injection technique. That said, autologous and low-risk are not the same as risk-free: any injection into the scalp carries the ordinary, usually minor, risks of a needle procedure, and the use of a centrifuge and openly handled blood product introduces its own handling and sterility considerations if a clinic is not meticulous. The more clinically important risk to understand honestly is not physical harm but disappointment: because response to PRP varies so much between individuals, a sizeable share of patients complete a full course and see little or no measurable change, and that non-response is the single most common outcome to weigh against the physical risks below.
For one to two days after injections.
Small bruises at injection points.
A significant share of patients see little change; response cannot be predicted.
Sterile technique makes it uncommon.
Recovery from a PRP session is minimal and does not resemble recovery from a surgical procedure. Most patients return to normal activities, including work, the same day, since the only intervention is a series of injections into the scalp following a blood draw from the arm. Expect some scalp tenderness and a tight or mildly bruised feeling where the needle entered, and a generally mildly irritated rather than painful scalp for the first day or two. Visible redness and small puncture-point marks are common in the hours afterwards and usually settle within a day. There is no incision, no stitches and no restriction on driving or light exercise beyond avoiding heavy sweating for a day or two. The main recovery instructions are about protecting the scalp surface: avoiding washing or styling products for roughly the first twelve to twenty-four hours, and avoiding direct sun exposure on the treated scalp for a short period while it settles.
Day 1
Blood draw, preparation and injections; no washing for 12-24 hours.
Days 2-3
Mild tenderness; avoid heavy sweating and hair products for two days.
Months 1-3
Typically three sessions four weeks apart.
Months 4-6
Density judged at six months; maintenance every four to six months if effective.
Reduced shedding is often noticed after the first session; density changes, if they occur, appear at three to six months. Effects last about six months and need maintenance sessions every four to six months.
PRP is rarely priced, or sold, as a single session, because a single treatment is not expected to produce a lasting result. What most patients are actually pricing is a course — typically three sessions spaced about four weeks apart — followed by ongoing maintenance sessions every four to six months if the course shows a response worth continuing. Clinics quoting an unusually low per-session price may expect to recoup it across a longer package, while a quoted course price should specify exactly how many sessions are included, what preparation method and platelet concentration it delivers, and whether maintenance sessions are priced separately or bundled in.
Why quotes for the same procedure differ, so you can compare packages fairly.
Options to weigh before deciding, surgical and non-surgical.
The medications with the strongest evidence for pattern hair loss.
The only way to add hair to bald areas.
Home devices with modest evidence for thickening hair.
Ask the same questions at every consultation so you can compare answers.
Platelet-rich plasma has been studied for androgenetic alopecia in a reasonable number of randomised controlled trials, which puts it in a different evidence category from many scalp treatments sold on confidence alone. Several of these trials compare PRP injections against a placebo injection of saline, in some cases using a split-scalp design where one side receives PRP and the other receives saline so each patient acts as their own control. Multiple systematic reviews and meta-analyses that pool this trial data have concluded that PRP produces a statistically significant increase in hair density and hair count compared with placebo at three to six months of follow-up, in patients with early-to-moderate pattern hair loss.
At the same time, “statistically significant” is not the same as “large” or “reliable for any given individual.” The magnitude of improvement reported across trials varies considerably, and reviewers consistently flag the overall body of evidence as being of low to moderate methodological quality. The reasons are structural rather than a matter of one or two poorly run studies. Individual trials typically enrol small numbers of patients, often well under a hundred, which limits how precisely any effect size can be estimated. Most trials follow patients for only three to six months, with very few extending past a year. Outcome measures also differ: some studies count hairs per square centimetre using standardised photography, others rely on patient or investigator global assessment scales, and a few use patient-reported satisfaction, a softer and more subjective endpoint.
It is also true that not every trial finds a benefit. A meaningful minority of randomised studies report no statistically significant difference between PRP and placebo, and some of the positive studies have been criticised for incomplete blinding of the assessors, since swelling or minor bruising at injection sites can make it obvious which side of the scalp received the active treatment. Taken together, the fair summary for this page is that PRP has more supportive trial evidence than many adjunct hair-loss treatments, specifically for early-to-moderate androgenetic alopecia, but the evidence describes a modest, inconsistent, short-to-medium-term effect rather than a dependable, large or lasting one, and no trial has shown it to regrow hair where follicles are no longer present.
PRP is used in two quite different contexts that are easy to conflate: as a standalone treatment for thinning native hair, discussed throughout the rest of this page, and as an adjunct administered around the time of a hair transplant. In the transplant context, PRP is typically injected into the recipient area before or after graft placement, sometimes into the donor strip or extraction sites, and occasionally used to bathe or store grafts before implantation. The rationale is mechanistically more direct than in standalone use: freshly transplanted follicular units are temporarily cut off from their blood supply and are vulnerable in the days after surgery, a period during which some transplanted hairs are shed in a process called shock loss before regrowing months later. Growth factors delivered close to this vulnerable tissue may support the grafts through this window and encourage faster revascularisation.
Some studies, including trials specifically looking at PRP used alongside transplantation, report modestly faster hair regrowth, improved graft density at follow-up, or reduced shedding in the PRP-treated group compared with transplant alone. This is a more plausible and somewhat better-supported use case than PRP as a sole treatment, because the growth factors are acting on tissue that has just been surgically relocated and is biologically primed to respond to supportive signals. Even so, the supporting evidence here shares the same limitations as the standalone literature: relatively small trials and inconsistent protocols for how and when PRP is administered during surgery.
What PRP cannot do in either context is substitute for the transplant itself. A transplant works by surgically relocating a patient’s own donor follicles, usually from the back and sides of the scalp where hair is genetically resistant to balding, into areas where follicles have been lost. PRP has no follicles to work with in those bald recipient areas before the transplant happens; it cannot create new hair-producing structures, only support ones that are already present or have just been surgically placed. Framed honestly, PRP during or after a transplant is a reasonable, low-risk adjunct with a plausible rationale and some supportive data, not a step that changes whether a patient is a transplant candidate.
Because PRP works, if it works at all, by stimulating follicles that are still alive but shrinking, the single clearest predictor of a disappointing outcome is simply not having living follicles left to stimulate. Patients with advanced, long-standing male-pattern baldness — typically described on the Norwood-Hamilton scale as stage five and above, where large areas of the crown and front are smooth and shiny — or advanced Ludwig-stage female pattern loss with extensive diffuse thinning down to visible scalp, have usually lost most or all of the miniaturised hairs that PRP depends on. In these areas, growth factors have nothing left to act on, and no credible clinical trial has shown PRP producing meaningful regrowth on skin that no longer has follicular units in it.
A second group who should not expect results are patients with scarring, or cicatricial, forms of alopecia — conditions such as lichen planopilaris, frontal fibrosing alopecia, discoid lupus erythematosus and central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia. These conditions destroy the follicle itself and replace it with scar tissue; there is no viable follicle for any growth factor, topical medication or transplant to work with in truly scarred skin, and PRP has no established role in reversing established scarring alopecia. These conditions also typically need dermatological diagnosis and disease-specific treatment, often to stop active progression, rather than a cosmetic injection series.
Autoimmune alopecia areata, and its more extensive forms alopecia totalis and alopecia universalis, is a third category worth separating out. The mechanism of hair loss here is an immune attack on otherwise structurally intact follicles rather than androgen-driven miniaturisation, and while some small studies have explored PRP in alopecia areata, the evidence is considerably thinner and more mixed than for pattern hair loss, and it is not considered standard treatment for this condition. Finally, anyone with a platelet disorder, a significant bleeding disorder, or who is taking therapeutic anticoagulant medication should not receive PRP at all, regardless of hair-loss pattern, since the procedure depends on normal platelet function and a reasonable clotting response at the injection sites.
One of the most consistent features across PRP protocols, despite all their other variation, is that nobody treats it as a single-visit procedure. A realistic course is typically three sessions, spaced about four weeks apart, which allows each round of growth-factor exposure to act across a meaningful portion of the hair cycle before the next session. Some clinics extend this to four sessions, or space sessions slightly differently, but the underlying idea is the same: a single injection session is not expected to produce a durable result on its own.
After the initial course, most protocols call for an assessment around the four-to-six month mark, using photographs taken under consistent lighting and, ideally, some form of standardised hair count or density measurement, to judge whether the course produced a measurable change worth continuing. If there has been a worthwhile response, PRP is not a one-off intervention from this point onward: because its effect on the hair cycle appears to fade once growth-factor stimulation stops, maintenance sessions roughly every four to six months are the typical recommendation for as long as the patient wants to sustain the benefit, which in practice means PRP functions as an ongoing therapy similar in commitment to continuing a daily minoxidil application or oral finasteride, rather than a treatment with a defined endpoint.
This has two practical implications worth being direct about. First, the total cost and time commitment of PRP should be calculated across years, not across one course, since stopping maintenance sessions is expected to let any gained density drift back toward where it would have been without treatment. Second, there is no strong trial evidence establishing an optimal number of sessions or an ideal maintenance interval; the three-sessions-then-maintain pattern used by most clinics is a reasonable, moderately evidence-informed convention rather than a figure derived from head-to-head dosing trials. Patients should be wary of proposals for substantially more sessions than this being presented as necessary for a good result, since this is not supported by stronger evidence than the standard three-session course and increases cost without a clearly demonstrated benefit.
Because PRP sits in a genuine grey zone of modest, inconsistent evidence, it is also an easy treatment to oversell, and a few patterns in how it is marketed are worth treating as warning signs rather than reassurance. The clearest is any language describing PRP as a cure for baldness, a way to permanently regrow hair, or a guarantee of a specific result regardless of how advanced the hair loss is. No controlled trial has demonstrated permanent regrowth from PRP, and response varies enough between individuals that no responsible clinician can promise a specific outcome in advance.
A related red flag is a clinic offering PRP for scalp that is already fully bald and shiny, with no visible fine or miniaturised hairs, as though it will restore hair there. As covered above, PRP has nothing to stimulate in truly bald skin, so a willingness to sell it for that indication says more about the clinic’s incentives than about the treatment. Watch similarly for PRP being marketed as an alternative or upgrade to minoxidil and finasteride rather than as a complement to them; medical therapy remains the better-evidenced first-line option for pattern hair loss.
Unproven or poorly regulated additions bundled into a PRP package are another signal worth scrutinising: terms like “exosome therapy,” “stem cell enhanced PRP,” or proprietary “growth factor concentrate” add-ons are sometimes layered onto standard PRP at extra cost, with far less clinical trial support, and in some jurisdictions without clear regulatory approval for this use. Equally telling is a consultation that moves straight to selling a large, multi-session, multi-year package with an upfront discount or a time-limited offer, without first assessing the pattern and stage of hair loss or discussing realistic odds of response. None of this means PRP is a scam; it means the honest version of this treatment is modest, probabilistic and clearly described, and marketing that avoids all three of those qualities deserves extra scrutiny.
Topical minoxidil and oral finasteride remain, by a clear margin, the treatments with the strongest and longest-standing evidence base for androgenetic alopecia, and any honest discussion of PRP has to start from that fact rather than treat PRP as competing with them on equal footing. Minoxidil, applied directly to the scalp, has decades of trial data and regulatory approval behind it and is thought to work partly by prolonging the growth phase of hair follicles and improving scalp blood flow. Finasteride, taken orally, works by reducing the conversion of testosterone to dihydrotestosterone, the hormone most directly implicated in male pattern hair loss, and has a similarly long track record in men; finasteride is generally avoided in women who are or may become pregnant.
Where PRP fits into this picture, based on the current evidence, is as a potential add-on rather than a replacement. A number of trials have specifically tested PRP combined with minoxidil, or PRP combined with microneedling and topical medication, against medication alone, and several report a greater improvement in the combined-treatment group than with medication by itself. This is a reasonable and increasingly common way clinicians frame PRP: not as a stand-alone cure, but as a supplementary measure layered onto an already evidence-based medical regimen, for patients who want to pursue every reasonable option, who have plateaued on medication alone, or who are using PRP alongside a transplant. It is worth being clear, though, that the evidence for PRP’s added benefit on top of medication is still thinner and less consistent than the evidence for the medications themselves.
The least evidence-based path, by contrast, is stopping effective medical therapy in order to rely on PRP alone. For patients who cannot or choose not to use minoxidil or finasteride, PRP remains a reasonable option to discuss, with the clear understanding that it is working with a weaker evidence base on its own than it has in combination with medical therapy.
Reviews of clinical trials show a modest, statistically significant increase in hair count for pattern hair loss in many but not all patients, with best results in early thinning. It is not a cure and needs maintenance.
No. It can slow thinning and thicken existing hair but cannot regrow hair where follicles are gone. It is often used alongside a transplant.
Yes, PRP is commonly combined with minoxidil or finasteride, which remain the treatments with the strongest evidence.
No. PRP can only act on hair follicles that are still present, even if miniaturised and producing fine, short hairs. On scalp that has been smooth and hair-free for years, the follicles themselves have typically been lost, leaving nothing for growth factors to stimulate. No controlled trial has shown PRP regrowing hair in truly bald areas. A hair transplant, which relocates follicles from donor areas, is the only option that adds hair where none currently grows.
Most protocols use an initial course of three sessions spaced about four weeks apart, followed by a reassessment around four to six months later using photographs and, ideally, a hair count. If that course shows a worthwhile response, ongoing maintenance sessions roughly every four to six months are typically recommended to sustain it.
Yes, and this is one of its more established uses. PRP is often injected into the recipient area, donor area, or used to store grafts around the time of surgery, with the aim of supporting newly transplanted follicles through the vulnerable days after transplantation and potentially reducing shock loss. It does not change how much donor hair is needed or substitute for the transplant itself.
Alongside them, not instead. Topical minoxidil and oral finasteride have a much longer and stronger evidence base for androgenetic alopecia than PRP does on its own, and several trials suggest combining PRP with ongoing medical therapy outperforms either alone. Stopping effective medication to rely on PRP by itself is not supported by current evidence.
PRP has been studied in both men with androgenetic alopecia and women with pattern or diffuse thinning, with broadly similar trial findings: modest, inconsistent improvements in density for some patients with early-to-moderate loss. It does not require the hormonal medications that are more restricted in women, such as finasteride. The same limits apply, however: it will not regrow hair where follicles are gone.
If the initial course of around three sessions produces a worthwhile result at the four-to-six-month assessment, most clinicians recommend maintenance sessions roughly every four to six months to sustain it. There is no strong trial evidence pinpointing an exact ideal interval. Without ongoing maintenance, any gains are expected to gradually fade as the underlying pattern hair loss continues.
Reduced shedding is sometimes reported within the first few weeks, but any genuine change in hair density takes longer to become visible, since hair growth is a slow biological process. Most protocols assess density changes at three to six months, using consistent photography or a hair count rather than a quick visual impression.
Most patients describe it as mildly uncomfortable rather than painful. A numbing cream is usually applied to the scalp before the injections, and the blood draw itself feels like a routine blood test. Some tenderness, tightness or small bruises at the injection sites are common for a day or two afterwards.
PRP is prepared and delivered differently from one clinic to another: centrifuge speed and spin cycles affect platelet concentration, some protocols use leukocyte-rich formulations and others leukocyte-poor, some activate the platelets before injection and others do not, and injection depth, spacing and session frequency all vary. Because no single protocol is used as a standard, two clinics describing "PRP for hair loss" may be delivering meaningfully different treatments.
A significant share of patients complete a full course of PRP and see little or no measurable change, and this cannot be reliably predicted beforehand. If an assessment at four to six months shows no worthwhile improvement, most clinicians would not recommend continuing with maintenance sessions. Options at that point typically shift toward medical therapy, a transplant, or accepting that PRP was not effective for that individual.
The evidence is much thinner here than for androgenetic hair loss. Alopecia areata and its more extensive forms involve an immune attack on otherwise intact follicles, a different mechanism from androgen-driven miniaturisation, and while some small studies have explored PRP for this condition, it is not considered a standard or well-established treatment for it.
No, microneedling is an optional addition, not a requirement. Some protocols combine microneedling of the scalp with PRP injections on the theory that the controlled micro-injury may improve how the growth factors are absorbed, and some trials suggest a modest added benefit. It also adds some scalp irritation.
Leukocyte-rich PRP retains more white blood cells during preparation, while leukocyte-poor PRP removes most of them; which is used depends on the centrifugation protocol. Some researchers suggest leukocytes may increase inflammatory signalling, but trials in hair loss have not consistently shown one type to be clearly superior for scalp injections.
PRP should not be given to anyone with a platelet or significant bleeding disorder, or who is taking therapeutic anticoagulant medication, since the procedure depends on normal platelet function and a reasonable clotting response at the injection sites. It should also be avoided over an actively infected or inflamed scalp.
NHS2024Regulator
International Society of Hair Restoration Surgery2024Professional society
Consultation request
Tell us the procedure and destination you are considering. We forward your request to the verified clinic you select.