Table 2.

Studies on acne scar treatments with PRP.

Author(s)	Study Type	Number of Patients	Interventions	Duration and Frequency	Key Findings
Asif et al. [319]	Placebo-controlled, split-face study	50	Micro-needling + PRP vs. Micro-needling alone	Three monthly treatments	62.2% improvement with PRP combination vs. 45.84% in the control group.
Nofal et al. [320]	Randomised, single-blinded, controlled trial	45	PRP injections vs. TCA CROSS technique vs. Micro-needling + PRP	Treatment every 2 weeks for 6 weeks	Significant improvement in all groups compared to baseline, but no difference between the groups at 14 weeks.
Ibrahim et al. [321]	Randomised, comparative trial	90	Micro-needling vs. PRP injections vs. Micro-needling alternating with PRP	Up to six sessions, every 2–4 weeks	Greatest improvement was in the micro-needling + PRP group, followed by PRP alone. Highest patient satisfaction in the combination group.
El-Domyati et al. [245]	Randomised, single-blinded, split-face trial	24	Micro-needling + PRP vs. micro-needling + TCA 15% vs. micro-needling alone	Treatments every 2 weeks, total of six sessions	At 3 months, combination groups showed higher mean scar improvement than micro-needling alone. No significant difference between combination treatments.
Ibrahim et al. [322]	Prospective, single-blinded, split-face clinical trial	35	Micro-needling + PRP vs. micro-needling	Treatments every 3 weeks, total of four treatments	No significant difference between the two groups.
Chawla et al. [317]	Prospective, comparative, split-face trial	27	Micro-needling + PRP vs. micro-needling + topical vitamin C 15%	Treatment every 4 weeks, total of four treatments	At 4 months, the PRP and micro-needling group’s satisfaction rate was higher than that of the micro-needling in association with topical vitamin C group’s. The percentage of patients included in the poor response category was lower in the PRP combination group (22.2%) than in the vitamin C combination group (37%).
Faghihi et al. [323]	Randomised, single-blinded, split-face trial	16	CO2 laser + PRP vs. CO2 laser	Two monthly treatments	Trend toward improved response with PRP. More erythema and oedema in the PRP group.
Lee et al. [324]	Randomised, split-face trial	14	CO2 laser + PRP vs. CO2 laser	Two monthly treatments	Faster improvement of laser-induced erythema in PRP group. Shorter mean duration of erythema, oedema, and crusting with PRP.
Gawdat et al. [316]	Randomised, split-face, single-blinded, placebo-controlled study	30	CO2 laser + PRP (topical/intradermal) vs. CO2 laser	Three monthly sessions	Significant improvement in skin smoothness with PRP. Shorter duration of adverse effects with PRP.
Kar and Raj [325]	Randomised, split-face trial	30	CO2 laser + PRP vs. CO2 laser	Three monthly sessions	No significant difference in scar scores between PRP and control. Less redness, pain, and swelling with PRP.
Min et al. [326]	Prospective, randomised, single-blinded, split-face trial	25	CO2 laser + PRP vs. CO2 laser	Two monthly sessions	Greater improvements and patient satisfaction with PRP. Significantly lower side effects with PRP.
Zhu et al. [327]	Clinical study	22	Erbium laser + topical PRP	Three treatments 1–2 months apart	Moderate clinical improvement post-treatment: 68% of patients rated it as excellent or markedly improved. 91% were satisfied or very satisfied.