Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesNarrative ReviewEurope PMCOpen access

The Use of Platelet-Rich Plasma in Wildlife Veterinary Medicine

Fuertes-Recuero M., Encinas Cerezo T., Morón-Elorza P.

Narrative Review on Chronic Wound, published in Animals (Basel) (2025) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesEvidence level of this study

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

  • Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
  • Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
  • Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
  • Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
  • Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
Read the A–D evidence level guide

This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.

Study type
Narrative Review
Journal
Animals (Basel) (2025)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
41302060
PMCID
PMC12649310
DOI
10.3390/ani15223352

Abstract (original English)

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP), an autologous blood product concentrated with platelets and their associated growth factors, has been the subject of increasing investigation in veterinary medicine. Although it is widely used in domestic species, its use in wildlife is less well-explored, despite its potential to address complicated clinical scenarios such as traumatic injuries, chronic wounds, and orthopaedic conditions, which are frequently encountered in wild animals under human care. Expanding the evidence base for PRP in non-domestic species could therefore significantly advance clinical outcomes in rehabilitation, zoo medicine, and conservation initiatives. The aim of this scoping review was to identify and describe the existing evidence on the clinical use of PRP in wildlife. This included details on protocols, outcomes, species-specific considerations, and knowledge that is still missing. A literature search was performed using the databases PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar up to August 2025. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they reported on the preparation, application, or clinical outcomes of PRP in non-domestic animal species. This included case reports, research articles, and reviews. A total of 65 studies were finally included. The data were classified by species group (e.g., reptiles, birds, mammals) and clinical application (e.g., wound healing

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
  • • This is a narrative review: it collects no new patient data and does not systematically appraise evidence quality.

Evidence level

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

How we grade evidence

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.

Related research