Therapeutic Potential Of Autologous Serum Versus Platelets Rich Plasm Eye Drops In The Treatment Of Dry Eye Diseases
Published 2026
- 44th Congress of the ESCRS
Reference: POCOR416
| Type: Free paper
| DOI:
10.82333/4gxx-pz26
Authors:
A/Prof. Warda Ali* 1
1Cornea and Refractive Surgery,Alshif aTrust Eye Hospital, Rawalpindi,Rawalpindi,Pakistan
Purpose
To compare the efficacy and safety of Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP) and Autologous Serum (AS) eye drops in improving clinical signs, tear film parameters, and symptom severity in patients with Dry Eye Disease.
Setting
This study was conducted at the Department of Cornea and Refractive Surgery, Alshifa Trust Eye Hospital. Rawalpindi
Methods
This prospective comparative interventional study was conducted over a period of 2 years.
A total of 40 patients were included, with n = 20 receiving PRP and n = 20 receiving AS. Mean age was 26.55 years (SE 3.47) in the PRP group and 26.11 years (SE 3.63) in the AS group, with no significant difference between groups (Mann–Whitney U test, p = 0.921). The proportion of female participants was similar (Fisher’s exact test, p = 1.00), indicating comparable demographic characteristics between the two groups.
Results
Baseline demographic characteristics were comparable between groups (mean age: 26.55 ± 3.47 years PRP vs 26.11 ± 3.63 years AS; p = 0.921; gender distribution p = 1.00).
At 6 months, both groups demonstrated significant improvement from baseline in Schirmer test, TBUT, corneal and conjunctival staining, and OSDI scores (all p < 0.0001). Ocular surface signs—including bulbar hyperemia, fluorescein staining, inferior tarsal conjunctival injection, and ocular redness—also improved significantly within both groups (p ≤ 0.002). Between-group comparisons at 6 months revealed no significant differences in clinical or symptomatic outcomes (p > 0.05).
Conclusions
Both PRP and Autologous Serum demonstrated significant improvement in clinical signs and symptom scores in Dry Eye Disease. The magnitude of improvement was comparable between groups, suggesting similar therapeutic efficacy. These findings support the use of both modalities as effective regenerative treatment options for moderate to severe Dry Eye Disease.