Not All PRP Is Equal: Why We Use ACP Max (and Why We Don’t Use PRF)
Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has become a go-to option for many tendon and joint problems, but how the PRP is made matters as much as what it is. Different kits produce very different products—varying in platelet dose, white-blood-cell (WBC) content, red-cell contamination, and volume delivered. Those differences can change how patients feel after an injection and, ultimately, outcomes. Don’t worry about sounding professional. Sound like you. There are over 1.5 billion websites out there, but your story is what’s going to separate this one from the rest. If you read the words back and don’t hear your own voice in your head, that’s a good sign you still have more work to do.
The big lever: platelet concentration (dose really matters)
Platelets are the “pharmacy” of your blood: once activated, they release growth factors that help drive tissue repair. In PRP, our aim is to concentrate platelets well above your personal baseline while keeping irritants (like neutrophils and red cells) low. That balance—high platelets, low inflammatory baggage—isn’t guaranteed with every kit.
Clinical evidence continues to show PRP can improve pain and function for osteoarthritis and soft-tissue conditions, but results are inconsistent when preparation methods vary. Standardising toward higher platelet doses with low neutrophils is a sensible way to reduce that variability.
Why we chose ACP Max
We use ACP Max because it reliably delivers a high platelet dose while minimising neutrophils in a small, injectable volume:
Higher platelet concentration: ACP Max uses a double-spin, buffy-coat method and larger draws (30–90 mL) to produce up to ~12× baseline platelet concentration—far higher than many single-spin, low-volume kits.
Neutrophil-poor output: The protocol depletes red cells and granulocytes (including neutrophils), which are linked to post-injection flare and inflammation.
Efficient dose in less volume: Compared with another low-leukocyte device, ACP Max delivered a similar absolute platelet number in smaller volume and with fewer WBCs—useful when you want concentrated effect without joint overfilling. (Manufacturer comparative bench data.)
Bottom line: with ACP Max we can dial in a high platelet dose with low neutrophils and practical injectate volume—three levers that matter to patients.
“Can’t other systems do this too?”
Some can get part of the way there, but consistently achieving very high platelet concentration and keeping neutrophils low and maintaining a small final volume is technically hard. Many widely used single-spin kits top out around modest concentrations or bring more WBCs along for the ride. That’s why we prefer a double-spin, buffy-coat approach like ACP Max for MSK injections.
Why WBC (especially neutrophils) content matters
Neutrophils carry proteases and reactive oxygen species that can irritate tissue and are associated with stronger post-injection flares. Several clinical and basic-science papers—and our clinic experience—favour leukocyte-poor PRP for intra-articular use. ACP Max’s leukocyte-reduced profile supports that aim.
What this means for patients
More dose in less fluid: helpful in tight joints (e.g., knees with synovitis) where volume tolerance is limited.
Lower inflammatory “drag”: less neutrophil content may mean fewer flares for sensitive joints.
Reproducibility: double-spin protocols are easier to standardise across patients and visits.
PRF: why we don’t use it for MSK injections here
Platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) is not PRP. It’s prepared without anticoagulant, rapidly forming a fibrin clot that traps platelets and leukocytes for slow release of factors. That makes PRF great as a solid or gel scaffold in dental and some surgical fields—but it creates practical and biological issues for joint and tendon injections.
Key limitations for MSK injections:
Clotting & handling: Because it clots by design, PRF must be prepared and delivered extremely quickly; injectability through small needles (or into small spaces) is inconsistent. That’s a poor fit for precise, image-guided MSK work.
Variable composition: PRF typically contains more leukocytes than leukocyte-poor PRP, and composition varies widely by tube, spin, and timing—hard to standardise dose.
Evidence base in MSK is early: PRF’s strongest body of evidence is in oral/maxillofacial surgery. MSK data are emerging but comparatively limited and heterogeneous, with methodology all over the map. For clinical consistency, PRP currently has the more mature evidence base for joints and tendons.
We’re pro-science, not anti-innovation. If high-quality trials show PRF offers clear advantages for MSK injections, we’ll update our practice. Right now, it doesn’t beat a well-made, leukocyte-poor, high-dose PRP in the settings we treat.
How we do it at The Move Clinic
ACP Max PRP prepared under ultrasound-guided workflows to target the right tissue with the right dose.
Transparent reporting: we record baseline counts when needed and document volumes, spins, and target structures so your treatment is reproducible. (Consistency is care.)
Patient-specific plans: PRP is one tool. We combine it with load management, rehab, and—when appropriate—adjuncts like hyaluronan.
The takeaway
PRP isn’t a single product—it’s a spectrum. If you want the best chance of a smooth injection and a meaningful response, prioritise platelet dose and low-neutrophil content delivered in an appropriate volume. That’s why we’ve standardised on ACP Max for our musculoskeletal work.