Intracavernosal injection of autologous platelet concentrates for managing erectile dysfunction: a meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials on platelet-rich plasma and platelet-rich fibrin matrix
In brief
Platelet-rich plasma improves erectile function scores six months after injection
A meta-analysis of six randomized trials (179 men receiving PRP/PRFM vs 180 placebo) found that platelet-rich plasma raised International Index of Erectile Function scores at six months and increased the proportion achieving a clinically meaningful improvement, while pain scores were lower. Sexual satisfaction, Doppler blood flow and safety were similar, and benefits appeared stronger for PRP than PRFM, but the evidence is limited by small sample size and protocol variability.
- Journal
- Asian journal of andrology (Q1)
- Published
- 28 July 2026
- Study design
- Systematic review / meta-analysis of RCTs
- Evidence level
- Level 1, High (CEBM 1a)
- Authors
- Missy Savira, Ponco Birowo, Nur Rasyid, Eric Chung, Widi Atmoko
- PMID
- 42522255
- DOI
- 10.4103/aja202588
Why clinicians should know about it
- Picked for Urology (top studies of the week, 2 August 2026): Platelet concentrates improve erectile dysfunction versus placebo
Abstract
Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and platelet-rich fibrin matrix (PRFM) have gained interest in the last few years as a regenerative therapy for erectile dysfunction (ED). The present study aimed to systematically investigate the efficacy and safety of PRP/PRFM compared to a placebo for the management of ED. Adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, we systematically searched PubMed and Scopus from the database inception to February 2025. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) score, sexual and overall satisfaction, peak systolic velocity (PSV) and end-diastolic velocity (EDV), and the complication rate of PRP/PRFM compared to placebo for men with ED were included. We included six RCTs, comprising 179 patients in the PRP/PRFM group and 180 in the placebo group. There was a notable variability in PRP/PRFM injection protocols. The analysis found that PRP/PRFM is associated with higher IIEF scores at ≥6 months of follow-up compared to placebo. Significant differences were also observed in the percentage of subjects attaining minimal clinically important differences of IIEF-Erectile Function from the first-month follow-up and in the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores post-injection, favoring the PRP/PRFM group. In contrast, sexual and overall satisfaction, PSV, and EDV were comparable. In the subgroup analysis, significant differences in IIEF scores compared to the placebo at the end of follow-up were noted only in the PRP group but not in the PRFM group. In conclusion, PRP and PRFM are well-tolerated, but PRP may yield superior results over PRFM compared to placebo, particularly after 6 months post-treatment. However, the results should be interpreted with caution due to small sample size, heterogeneity in protocols, and indirect comparison between PRP and PRFM. Further well-designed clinical trials are warranted.
Abstract as published, via PubMed.
For healthcare professionals. The summary is generated by AI from the published abstract, and the evidence level is assigned automatically from the study design on the Oxford CEBM hierarchy. Neither is medical advice. Read the full paper before changing practice.