OBJECTIVE: To describe and analyze a new protocol for the extraction of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) for use in clinical practice and compare this technique with methods that have been previously described in the medical literature. METHODS: We extracted PRP from 20 volunteers using four different protocols (single spin at 1600 ×g, single spin at 600 ×g, double spin at 300 and 700 ×g, and double spin at 600 and 900 ×g). In another group of 12 individuals, we extracted PRP with our new technique (named ‘turn down-turn up') consisting of a double spin (200 ×g and 1600 ×g) closed system using standard laboratory equipment (including an ordinary benchtop centrifuge), where the blood remained in the same tube during all processes, reducing the risk of contamination. Platelet counts adjusted to baseline values were compared using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). RESULTS: Using the four previously described protocols (mentioned above), we obtained concentrations of platelets that were 1.15-, 2.07-, 2.18-, and 3.19-fold greater than the baseline concentration, respectively. With the turn down-turn up technique, we obtained a platelet count that was 4.17-fold (95% confidence interval (CI): 3.09 to 5.25) greater than the baseline platelet count ( p =0.063 compared with the double spin at 600 and 900 ×g method). The total cost of the disposable materials used in the extraction process was less than US$10.00 per individual. CONCLUSION: In the present study, we described a simple and safe method for obtaining PRP using low-cost devices.

Aim: To evaluate the use of a multitarget platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injection approach for the treatment of chronic low back pain (LBP). Materials & Methods: Forty-six patients with more than 12 weeks of LBP who failed conservative treatments were injected with PRP into the facet joints, intervertebral discs, epidural space and/or paravertebral muscles. Visual analog pain scale and Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire scores were measured at baseline and predefined intervals. Results: Mean visual analog pain scale was reduced from 8.48 to 5.17 and mean Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire from 18.0 to 10.98 at 12 weeks (p < 0.001). These statistically significant improvements were sustained over 52 weeks. No adverse effects were observed. Conclusion: Our PRP approach demonstrated clinically favorable results and may be a promising treatment for chronic LBP.

Objective: To describe and analyze a new protocol for the extraction of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) for use in clinical practice and compare this technique with methods that have been previously described in the medical literature.Methods: Sixteen blood samples from healthy volunteers were collected. PRP was prepared using our new double-spin technique, consisting of successive centrifugation of blood samples with two different spins, without opening the container. Descriptive analysis of cell counts in baseline and PRP samples was undertaken. Comparison between cell and platelet count in baseline and PRP samples, as well as the statistical analysis, were done.Results: The mean platelet concentration ratio was 3.47 (SD: 0.85; 95% CI: 3.01-3.92; range: 2.48-5.71). The baseline whole blood platelet count correlated positively to the PRP platelet count (rP = 0.56; 95% CI: 0.09-0.88; P = 0.023). The PRP was enriched for lymphocytes and monocytes but presented significantly lower counts of neutrophils and eosinophils in comparison to baseline.Conclusion: Results show a safe and easily reproducible method to obtain PRP for use in clinical daily practice.