I believe multimodal strategies offer a promising approach to both erectile dysfunction and Peyronie’s disease by combining complementary treatments to address different aspects of their underlying pathophysiology.

My clinical and research interest in PRP focuses on erectile dysfunction and Peyronie’s disease. In erectile dysfunction, the most relevant population is men with mild and mild-to-moderate vasculogenic ED, which we have investigated in a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. In my clinical judgment, combining daily tadalafil, low-intensity shockwave therapy and PRP currently represents the most promising multimodal strategy for selected patients with erectile dysfunction, although its superiority remains to be established in comparative trials.

In Peyronie’s disease, I incorporate PRP into the multimodal approach described in my publication, “From fibrosis to restoration: the multimodal 3Ts protocol for Peyronie’s disease.” This integrates daily tadalafil, plaque tunneling with intralesional biologics, including PRP combined with hyaluronic acid, and penile traction.

I discuss PRP after a comprehensive assessment of the patient’s condition, treatment goals and established therapeutic options. For erectile dysfunction, this includes identifying vascular risk factors, addressing reversible causes and assessing the response to conventional treatment. In my practice, I usually combine PRP with low-intensity shockwave therapy. I consider this a promising combination based on its biological rationale and my clinical experience, while explaining that its additional benefit over either treatment alone has not yet been well established. I also clarify that PRP remains investigational and that current guidelines restrict its use for ED to clinical trials.

For Peyronie’s disease, I consider the disease phase, plaque characteristics, penile deformity and erectile function. I incorporate PRP into the conservative multimodal approach described in my 3Ts protocol. Timing is individualized, with realistic expectations and a focus on penile structure, sexual function and the patient’s priorities.

We prioritize closed preparation systems, documented manufacturing quality and a standardized workflow. Minimizing handling helps reduce opportunities for contamination, while a reproducible preparation process is important for both clinical practice and research. It should be mentioned however that CE marking itself does not establish effectiveness for erectile dysfunction or Peyronie’s disease.

My key criteria therefore selecting a PRP kit for our clinical research are sterility, traceability, CE marking for the device’s intended purpose, and clear information about the resulting preparation, including platelet recovery and cellular composition. Practical simplicity also helps the team follow the protocol consistently.

For Peyronie’s disease, another consideration is the combination of PRP with hyaluronic acid. Its viscoelastic properties provide a rationale for potentially improving local retention of the injected preparation within the plaque and prolonging tissue exposure to platelet-derived mediators. This is an attractive delivery concept, although improved intraplaque retention and its clinical benefit still require confirmation.

Our research in men with mild-to-moderate erectile dysfunction has shown that PRP can produce clinically meaningful improvements in erectile function. In my current practice, I usually combine PRP with low-intensity shockwave therapy for erectile dysfunction. In Peyronie’s disease, I incorporate PRP with hyaluronic acid into my multimodal 3Ts protocol. I assess benefits through erectile function, penile curvature and length, discomfort, and the patient’s ability to have satisfactory intercourse. Because these approaches combine several interventions, I interpret improvements as outcomes of the overall treatment strategy. The independent contribution of PRP, and any differences between preparation systems, still require controlled comparative studies.

My priority is meaningful functional improvement, documented systematically and discussed with realistic expectations.

In my practice, I currently reserve platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections exclusively for Peyronie’s disease in patients who have a bothersome penile curvature. I do not specifically use it for erectile dysfunction, although I know it is also a good indication.

In my practice, PRP is reserved for patients with a bothersome curvature that prevents them from having comfortable sexual intercourse. As a first-line approach, I try to direct patients toward PRP before proposing corrective surgery.

The kit is very practical to use, and that is my main reason for choosing it. Venipuncture is easy to perform, and centrifugation is also very simple, with just one button to operate. I use the kit independently, and it fully meets my expectations.

The results vary considerably from one individual to another. Some patients respond very well and experience a very significant improvement in their curvature. Others, on the other hand, do not experience any improvement. However, I would say that a large proportion of patients achieve sufficient improvement in curvature to resume a satisfying sexual life.

There are mainly two indications. The first is Peyronie’s disease, for which we receive support from RegenLab through the PISANO PHRC study. The second is erectile dysfunction. These are the two main indications; in both cases, they relate to men’s intimate health.

That’s a very good question. The idea is really to have a comprehensive approach to patient care. Therefore, I discuss it from the very first consultations so that we can be completely transparent and ensure that patients have all the information they need to understand their therapeutic options.

Patient management should be comprehensive and truly sequential. The philosophy of our department is to be as inclusive as possible in explaining the expected benefits and, depending on the patient’s wishes, determining how far we will go in terms of medical or surgical intervention.

That’s a very good question. What I appreciate about RegenLab is the standardization of the products and the support provided, which is extremely important because we are not left on our own. I also value the scientific approach.

One of the challenges I encountered at the beginning of my training in regenerative medicine was that there was sometimes an overly commercial aspect, if I may choose my words carefully. What I appreciate about RegenLab is that we can rely on both the scientific support and the ethical commitment of the company.

As I often say, medicine is an art, but it must also be grounded in science. We need to understand the scientific basis of what we do and provide patients with the very best of current knowledge. That is part of our professional and ethical responsibility as physicians.

That is also a very good question. First and foremost, the benefit I have observed is pain reduction, particularly in Peyronie’s disease. I have also observed improvements in erectile function in patients with erectile dysfunction, as well as in patients with Peyronie’s disease who have associated erectile dysfunction.

At this stage, however, I do not measure these benefits in strictly scientific terms because I do not yet have enough long-term follow-up data, nor the scientific background required to state that the evidence fully supports my observations. This is precisely why the studies we are currently developing are so important.

Today, the main benefit lies with the patient: reassuring them that they are being supported and showing them that we are exploring every possible medical option before moving on to more invasive surgical procedures, or sometimes in combination with such procedures, which may be more durable in the long term.

PRP therefore remains an adjunctive therapy. It helps patients progress in their decision-making process and supports them throughout their treatment journey.