Comparison between PRP and PRFM on FTSG healing profile: Macroscopic, microscopic and ELISA evaluation

Mirta Hediyati Reksodiputro, Alida Roswita Harahap, Nurjati Chairani Siregar, Safarina Golfiani Malik, Jenny Bashirudin, Muhammad Thaufiq Siddiq Boesoirie, Dini Widiarni Widodo, Sandi Iljanto, Dondin Sajuthi, Lugyanti Sukrisman, Mikhael Yosia

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

1 Citation (Scopus)


Background: Studies had shown the benefit of PRFM and PRP in wound healing but their use in skin graft healing was rarely studied. This study aims to compare the use of PRP and PRFM in accelerating wound healing process of skin full-thickness skin graft (FTSG). Materials and methods: Five pigs were used to look at the wound healing effect of PRP and PRFM usage prior to FTSG implantation. Subsequent punch biopsies were then conducted on the 1st, 3rd, 7th, 14th, and 30th day to obtain samples for macroscopic (skin color), extracellular matrix (collagen), microscopic (PMN, macrophage, and fibroblast), and ELISA (TGFβ1 and PDGF) analysis to determine the level of wound healing activity. ImageJ software was used to photograph for macroscopic and extracellular matrix analysis. Results: Macroscopic, extracellular matrix, and ELISA evaluation show no significant difference in FTSG survival rates for all treatment groups. Microscopic examination showed an increase in PMN, macrophage, and fibroblast levels with PRFM application showing higher increases in all observed microscopic variables compared to PRP and control. Conclusion: This study observed that both PRFM and PRP as autologous platelet preparation accelerate wound healing in FTSG, with PRFM being superior due to the higher number of PMN, macrophage, and fibroblast.

Original languageEnglish
Article number102350
JournalAnnals of Medicine and Surgery
Publication statusPublished - Jun 2021


  • FTSG
  • PRFM
  • PRP
  • Wound healing


Dive into the research topics of 'Comparison between PRP and PRFM on FTSG healing profile: Macroscopic, microscopic and ELISA evaluation'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this