Ovarian PRP and Red Light Therapy

If you have been told that your AMH is low, your ovaries are not responding as hoped, or your next IVF cycle may produce only a few eggs, the phrase “ovarian rejuvenation” can sound like a lifeline.

One treatment now promoted under that label is ovarian platelet-rich plasma, usually shortened to ovarian PRP. Another is red light therapy, more accurately called photobiomodulation, PBM or red light therapy. There’s also uterine PRP where the plasma is delivered directly into the uterus.

The short version: Ovarian PRP is biologically interesting but remains an invasive, experimental IVF add-on. Some studies report changes in AMH, antral follicle count or egg yield, but better-controlled research has not shown a dependable improvement in pregnancy or live birth. PBM is non-invasive and works through a different biological pathway, but fertility evidence for PBM is also early and does not yet establish improved IVF live-birth rates.

(Before we go further - a note about ‘low AMH’)

In a natural cycle, your body usually selects one follicle to mature and release one egg. IVF uses fertility hormones to encourage several follicles - and therefore several eggs - to mature during the same cycle, so AMH is useful for estimating how strongly the ovaries may respond to those medications. A low AMH may mean fewer eggs are collected during IVF, but it does not mean the one egg naturally selected that month cannot ovulate, fertilize and become a healthy pregnancy.

What is ovarian PRP?

PRP begins with a sample of the patient’s own blood. The blood is spun in a centrifuge to separate and concentrate the platelet-containing plasma. That preparation is then injected into the ovaries, usually through the vaginal wall under ultrasound guidance in a procedure somewhat similar to egg retrieval.

Platelets are best known for helping blood clot, but they also store and release signalling molecules involved in tissue repair, including platelet-derived growth factor, transforming growth factor beta and vascular endothelial growth factor.

Ovarian PRP is most often proposed for women with diminished ovarian reserve, previous poor response to stimulation, primary ovarian insufficiency, advanced reproductive age, or repeated IVF cycles producing few eggs or embryos.

The hope is that a concentrated burst of growth factors may alter the local ovarian environment, improve blood-vessel formation, influence granulosa cells and follicular signalling, or encourage some remaining follicles to progress. That theory is plausible. But plausible is not the same as proven.

The proposed mechanism

Think of PRP as delivering a concentrated package of biological messages directly into ovarian tissue.

Once platelets are activated, they release growth factors that may promote the development of new blood vessels - and influence tissue remodelling, inflammation and cell-to-cell signaling. Laboratory models have also raised the possibility of effects on PI3K/Akt and mTOR pathways involved in primordial-follicle activation.

This has led to claims that PRP might “wake up sleeping follicles.” That phrase needs careful handling. Even if PRP influences follicular recruitment, it does not prove that the procedure creates new eggs, reverses age-related chromosome changes or restores the ovary to a younger biological state.

The term ovarian rejuvenation is running ahead of the clinical evidence. A more accurate description is experimental intraovarian PRP intended to modify the ovarian tissue environment or response to stimulation.

“ESHRE’s recurrent-implantation-failure guidance concludes that the available evidence is insufficient and states that intrauterine PRP infusion is not recommended at present. The HFEA assigns a red rating for intrauterine PRP for thin/refractory endometrium and recurrent/repeated implantation failure, indicating potential safety concerns and no moderate- or high-quality evidence that it improves the chance of having a baby.”

— ESHRE

How Photobiomodulation Differs

Photobiomodulation does not inject growth factors or puncture the ovary. It uses appropriately selected red and near-infrared light delivered by an LED or laser to create a photochemical response in tissue.

One leading PBM model involves light absorption by mitochondrial chromophores, particularly cytochrome c oxidase. This may influence electron transport, mitochondrial membrane potential, nitric-oxide signalling, ATP production and downstream redox and inflammatory pathways. Light- or heat-sensitive ion channels may also contribute.

In simple terms, PRP introduces an autologous biological concentrate, while PBM applies light to influence the cells’ existing signalling and energy systems.

Does Ovarian PRP Actually Work?

Early reports often compared a woman’s results before and after PRP. Some recorded higher AMH, lower FSH, a higher antral follicle count, more mature eggs or pregnancies after treatment.

Those results naturally attracted attention. But a before-and-after study is especially vulnerable to regression to the mean: patients often seek an add-on after an unusually disappointing cycle, and a later cycle may improve even without the add-on. IVF outcomes also vary naturally from cycle to cycle.

Systematic reviews that pool mostly uncontrolled studies can therefore produce encouraging percentages without proving that PRP caused the outcomes. A pregnancy or live-birth rate after PRP tells us what happened after treatment. A higher rate than an appropriate control group is needed to show whether PRP actually helped.

The controlled trials

The PROVA randomized controlled trial studied women under 38 with a documented history of poor ovarian response. It found no significant improvement in mature eggs, blastocysts, euploid blastocysts, sustained implantation, AMH or antral follicle count after PRP.

A separate double-blind randomized trial reported a modest increase in mature eggs but no improvement in blastocyst development or live birth. Pregnancy was not better in the PRP group.

Cochrane’s 2024 review reached a cautious conclusion: evidence for intraovarian PRP was insufficient, the ovarian comparison was at high risk of bias, live birth and adverse events were not adequately reported, and the certainty of evidence was very low.

So, does PRP change laboratory markers for some women? Possibly. Does it reliably increase the chance of taking home a baby? Current evidence does not show that it does.

Is it a common add-on?

Ovarian PRP is no longer an obscure idea, but there is no reliable registry showing what percentage of IVF clinics in Europe or the United States currently offer it. It is better described as increasingly marketed and available at selected clinics, rather than standard or universally common care.

Research output has increased since 2016, with an increase in Greece, Iran, the United States and Turkey. Ovarian PRP is also visible in cross-border fertility care, particularly where women travel in search of options for poor ovarian response or diminished reserve.

The broader add-on market is common, but figures for use of all IVF add-ons must not be presented as the prevalence of ovarian PRP specifically.

Why Clinics Offer It

Women with diminished reserve or repeated poor response often have very few effective options using their own eggs. Clinicians also want to help when standard treatment has produced disappointing results. PRP uses the patient’s own blood, has a compelling regenerative-medicine story, can be incorporated into familiar ultrasound-guided procedures and has produced positive signals in observational studies.

It continues to be offered because of:

·       Patient demand influenced by testimonials and the phrase “ovarian rejuvenation.”

·       Clinical innovation before definitive trials are complete.

·       Commercial pressure in a competitive fertility market.

ESHRE notes that professionals may be motivated by a genuine wish to help, pressure from patients, and competitive or commercial factors. It also warns that add-ons are frequently offered despite limited evidence for safety and effectiveness.

The ethical dividing line is how the treatment is presented. Offering PRP within a properly regulated clinical trial, with clear consent and systematic adverse-event reporting, is very different from selling it as a proven way to rejuvenate eggs…

What European Regulators Recommend

European guidance is clear. ESHRE’s good-practice recommendations state that intraovarian PRP isnot recommended, citing the absence of reliable controlled evidence and limited safety information.

In the United Kingdom, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority gives intraovarian PRP a red rating for women with poor or diminished ovarian reserve. The HFEA states that there are potential safety concerns and no moderate- or high-quality evidence showing that it improves the chance of having a baby.

In the United States, it is important not to confuse an FDA-cleared PRP preparation device with FDA approval of ovarian PRP as a fertility treatment. Clearance of a device used to prepare PRP does not establish approval or effectiveness for ovarian injection.

Safety: It’s Not Risk-Free

Because PRP comes from the patient’s own blood, the risk of immunological rejection is low. But the blood product still has to be prepared correctly and injected through the vaginal wall into the ovaries.

Potential risks include:

·       Pelvic pain or cramping

·       Bleeding or hematoma

·       Infection

·       Ovarian trauma

·       Injury to nearby blood vessels, bowel or other pelvic structures

·       Risks related to sedation or anaesthesia

·       Contamination or variability during PRP preparation

·       Unknown effects on ovarian tissue, eggs, embryos and long-term reproductive outcomes

The HFEA has highlighted the lack of standardized preparation, administration and training requirements. It also notes that most fertility PRP studies did not truly evaluate safety; where safety was mentioned, reporting often focused on tolerability rather than systematically looking for harm.

This is one of the biggest evidence traps in the PRP conversation: “No complications were reported” is not the same as “research showed the procedure was safe.”

A Notable 2026 case report

In 2026, F&S Reports published a case involving a 45-year-old woman who developed ovarian abscesses after PRP performed for “ovarian rejuvenation.”

Her symptoms began with chills, reduced appetite and progressively worsening pelvic pain. Two weeks after the injections she presented with severe right-sided lower abdominal pain, leukocytosis and complex masses involving both ovaries. Antibiotics initially improved some laboratory findings, but disabling movement-related pelvic pain persisted.

She later developed a fever and required image-guided aspiration of bilateral collections. The aspirated fluid grew Streptococcus anginosus. After drainage and further antibiotics she recovered, with resolution of pain and return of menstruation and normal activity by four months.

This was a single case report, so it cannot tell us how often ovarian abscess occurs after PRP. It also does not prove that every episode of post-PRP pelvic soreness signals infection. The patient had pre-existing ovarian cysts and possible endometriosis, which may have influenced risk.

But it does change the safety conversation. The complication was serious, the woman was initially fine and persistent movement-related pain remained significant even when her white cell count had normalized. The authors advised a high index of suspicion for infection in patients with pelvic pain after ovarian PRP and argued that the procedure should be restricted to carefully regulated clinical trials until efficacy and safety are better established.

What actually happens during ovarian PRP?

The phrase ovarian rejuvenation can make this treatment sound rather gentle and spa-like. In reality, ovarian PRP involves drawing your blood, processing it, and then passing a needle through the vaginal wall to inject the prepared plasma directly into one or both ovaries.

The procedure varies between clinics because there is currently no universally accepted ovarian PRP protocol. Clinics differ in how much blood they collect, how the PRP is processed, whether the platelets are activated, how much is injected, how many ovarian punctures are performed and when the procedure is scheduled in relation to IVF.

Here is what a typical appointment may involve.

Before the procedure

The clinic will usually review your medical and fertility history and perform a transvaginal ultrasound to confirm that the ovaries can be seen and safely reached. Blood tests may include ovarian-reserve markers and screening for infections, anemia, clotting problems or other conditions that could affect procedural safety, although requirements differ between clinics.

Because many clinics use intravenous sedation or anaesthesia, you may receive fasting instructions and need someone to drive or accompany you home. These instructions should come directly from the treating clinic because anaesthetic policies vary.

This is also the time to tell the clinic about:

• Ovarian cysts or suspected endometriosis

• Previous pelvic infection

• Bleeding or clotting disorders

• Anticoagulants, aspirin and other medications

• Allergies and previous anaesthetic reactions

• Current pelvic pain, fever, vaginal discharge or unexplained bleeding

Step 1: Your blood is collected

Blood is drawn from a vein in your arm, just as it would be for an ordinary blood test. Published ovarian PRP protocols have used approximately 40–60 mL of blood, although clinics may collect more or less depending on their preparation system.

Step 2: The PRP is prepared

The blood is placed in a centrifuge, which spins it at high speed to separate the red blood cells from the plasma and platelets. The platelet-containing portion is then collected and may undergo further concentration or activation before injection.

Not all PRP preparations are equivalent. They may contain different platelet concentrations, different numbers of white blood cells, different anticoagulants and different activation agents. This lack of standardization is one reason results from separate PRP studies are difficult to compare.

Step 3: Sedation is administered

Most published protocols use intravenous sedation or anesthesia, although some clinics offer local anesthesia. The experience is often compared with an egg-retrieval procedure.

If sedation is used, you should not feel the needle entering the ovaries, although pelvic aching or cramping may become noticeable as the medication wears off.

Step 4: PRP is injected into the ovaries

A transvaginal ultrasound probe is inserted so the doctor can visualize the ovaries. A long needle is then guided through the vaginal wall and into the ovarian tissue - the same general route used during an IVF egg retrieval, although fluid is being injected rather than follicles being aspirated.

The amount and technique vary. Published protocols have injected approximately 1–4 mL into each ovary, sometimes through a single entry and sometimes through several punctures or injection sites within the ovarian cortex.

In one published protocol, two or three punctures were made in each ovary with a 17-gauge needle, followed by an ultrasound check for bleeding, vascular injury or free fluid in the pelvis. Another study used an 18-gauge egg-retrieval needle to deliver 1 mL into four locations in each ovary, illustrating how differently clinics perform the procedure.

The injection itself may take less than 10 minutes in some protocols, but other clinics quote approximately 15–30 minutes. With preparation, sedation and recovery, the complete appointment may take around two hours.

A laparoscopic approach through the abdomen is possible but appears to be less commonly used than the transvaginal ultrasound-guided approach.

Step 5: Recovery and discharge

Afterward, you will usually rest in a recovery area while staff check your blood pressure, pulse, pain level and recovery from sedation. Depending on the clinic and anesthetic, observation may last from approximately 15 minutes to an hour.

Some pelvic tenderness, cramping or light spotting may occur after a transvaginal ovarian procedure. The clinic should provide written instructions explaining what is expected, what medication may be used and whom to contact if symptoms develop.

You should not assume that worsening pain is simply evidence that the PRP is “working.” Increasing or movement-limiting pelvic pain, fever, chills, vomiting, increasing abdominal swelling, heavy bleeding, offensive discharge, dizziness or feeling systemically unwell warrants prompt contact with the treating clinic and may require medical assessment.

What happens next?

Clinics may repeat AMH testing, antral-follicle counts and ultrasound monitoring during the following weeks. Some schedule IVF several weeks later, while others wait two or three months; the University of Melbourne notes that ovarian PRP is commonly performed one to three months before IVF.

There is no evidence-based waiting period that has been proven optimal. A change in AMH or antral follicle count also does not necessarily mean that egg quality, embryo euploidy or live-birth probability has improved.

What does it cost?

There is no reliable national or international “average” because clinics bundle the procedure differently. Some prices include sedation, theatre fees, testing and follow-up; others quote only the PRP injection.

The following is a realistic consumer-facing guide based on advertised prices available in 2026:

As a broad guide, ovarian PRP may cost approximately $2,000 - $6,500 in the United States and around £1,300 - £3,000 or €1,250 - €3,500 in Europe, depending on the clinic, country and what is included. These are approximate advertised prices rather than a reliable medical-cost average.

Because ovarian PRP remains experimental, it is usually self-funded. The fee may not include IVF, fertility medications, travel, initial consultation, infection screening, sedation, operating-room fees, repeat PRP procedures, follow-up ultrasounds or hormone testing.

Get a Written Quotation and Ask The Following:

• Does the price include treatment of both ovaries?

• Are sedation and the anaesthetist included?

• Are blood tests, ultrasound and infection screening included?

• Are follow-up AMH tests and scans included?

• Is more than one PRP procedure being recommended?

• What happens financially if an ovary cannot be safely reached?

• Is there an additional charge if the procedure is cancelled?

• Who manages complications after hours?

• Is subsequent IVF included? It usually is not.

• Is the treatment being offered within a registered clinical trial?

• Will the clinic provide its pregnancy and live-birth outcomes with an appropriate comparison group—not simply the percentage of patients whose AMH increased?

When to seek medical advice

Some pelvic discomfort can occur after a transvaginal ovarian procedure. However, anyone with new, persistent or worsening pain after ovarian PRP should contact the clinic that performed the procedure.

Prompt medical assessment is especially important with increasing or severe pain, movement-limiting pain, fever or chills, nausea or vomiting, increasing abdominal swelling, heavy bleeding, offensive discharge, dizziness, fainting, shortness of breath or feeling systemically unwell.

An absence of fever does not by itself exclude a significant complication, as the 2026 patient was initially afebrile despite substantial pain and abnormal imaging.

What about red light therapy?

PBM has a different risk profile because transcutaneous treatment does not involve ovarian puncture, sedation or injection of a blood preparation. Its mitochondrial biology is well established across several areas of medicine, and laboratory and animal ovarian studies are encouraging.

PBM should therefore be described accurately: promising, biologically plausible and investigational for ovarian or IVF outcomes.

The absence of a needle does not remove the need for careful dosing. Wavelength, irradiance, treatment time, treatment interval, tissue depth and device design all affect the delivered dose. More light is not automatically better - that’s why an individualized protocol and ongoing follow-up is important.

So, Does Ovarian PRP Work?

The most honest answer is that we still do not know - and the best randomized evidence has not demonstrated improved euploid embryos, sustained pregnancy or live birth. Some observational studies report higher AMH, more follicles or more retrieved eggs, and one small randomized trial found a modest increase in cumulative mature eggs. But better reserve markers and additional eggs are not the same as healthier embryos or a greater chance of taking home a baby. For now, ovarian PRP should be described as an experimental fertility add-on, not a proven method of ‘ovarian rejuvenation’.

PRP and photobiomodulation are sometimes described using similar language - “regeneration,” “rejuvenation” and creating a healthier ovarian environment - but they are very different interventions. PRP uses an invasive ovarian injection to introduce a concentrated mixture of platelets and signaling molecules. Red light therapy uses red or near-infrared light to influence mitochondrial activity and cellular signalling without puncturing the ovary. Neither has been shown to create new eggs or reverse age-related aneuploidy. To understand why the environment around a developing follicle matters, read The Newly Discovered Ecosystem of Ovaries—and How Red Light Therapy May Help It Thrive and

Red Light Therapy for Low AMH: Evidence, Studies & Protocols

Tracy

This article is for education and is not personal medical advice. Ovarian PRP is an invasive fertility add-on that remains investigational. Evidence from randomized studies has not shown a clear improvement in the outcomes patients care most about, including euploid embryos, sustained pregnancy, or live birth. Decisions about ovarian PRP, IVF, low AMH, diminished ovarian reserve, or photobiomodulation should be made with a qualified fertility clinician who can consider your diagnosis, age, ovarian reserve markers, treatment history, medical conditions, and goals.

Additional resources:

1. Herlihy NS, Cakiroglu Y, Whitehead C, Reig A, Tiras B, Scott RT Jr, Seli E. Effect of intraovarian platelet-rich plasma injection on IVF outcomes in women with poor ovarian response: the PROVA randomized controlled trial. Human Reproduction. 2024;39(7):1495–1503. doi:10.1093/humrep/deae093. https://academic.oup.com/humrep/article/39/7/1495/7667973‍ ‍

2. Cakiroglu Y, Yuceturk A, Karaosmanoglu O, Kopuk SY, Korun ZEU, Herlihy N, Scott RT Jr, Tiras B, Seli E. Ovarian reserve parameters and IVF outcomes in 510 women with poor ovarian response (POR) treated with intraovarian injection of autologous platelet rich plasma (PRP). Aging (Albany NY). 2022;14(6):2513–2523. doi:10.18632/aging.203972. https://doi.org/10.18632/aging.203972

3. Fraidakis M, et al. Intraovarian Platelet-Rich Plasma Injections: Safety and Thoughts on Efficacy Based on a Single Centre Experience With 469 Women. Cureus. 2023;15:e38674. doi:10.7759/cureus.38674.

4. Fraidakis M, et al. Correction: Intraovarian Platelet-Rich Plasma Injections: Safety and Thoughts on Efficacy Based on a Single Centre Experience With 469 Women. Cureus. 2025;17(10):c371. doi:10.7759/cureus.c371. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12579745/

5. Li X, et al. The effect of ovarian injection of autologous platelet rich plasma in patients with poor ovarian response: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Frontiers in Endocrinology. 2023;14:1292168. doi:10.3389/fendo.2023.1292168. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/endocrinology/articles/10.3389/fendo.2023.1292168/full[pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih]

6. Wu L, et al. The efficacy of platelet rich plasma on women with poor ovarian response: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Platelets. 2024. doi:10.1080/09537104.2023.2292612. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09537104.2023.2292612

7. Lundin K, et al. Good practice recommendations on add-ons in reproductive medicine. Human Reproduction. 2023. https://research.regionh.dk/en/publications/good-practice-recommendations-on-add-ons-in-reproductive-medicine/

8. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. Treatment add-ons: platelet-rich plasma. https://www.hfea.gov.uk/treatments/treatment-add-ons/

9. Zhao H, Wu J, Xu Y, et al. Intra-ovarian platelet-rich plasma administration plus successive accumulated embryo transfer could be a promising strategy for poor ovarian response management: a before-after study. Journal of Ovarian Research. 2025;18:64. doi:10.1186/s13048-025-01646-x. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13048-025-01646-x[tandfonline]

10. Zamaniyan M, et al. Efficacy of intraovarian injection of autologous platelet-rich plasma in women with poor ovarian response. International Journal of Reproductive BioMedicine. 2025. https://kneopen.com/ijrm/article/view/19397/

11. Intraovarian Platelet-Rich Plasma Administration for Anovulatory Infertility: Preliminary Findings of a Prospective Cohort Study. Medicina. 2024. PMID: 39274502. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39274502/

12. Alageel AA. Unlocking ovarian rejuvenation with platelet-rich plasma: systematic review and proposed clinical framework for controlled use in poor prognosis patients undergoing in vitro fertilisation. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics. 2026;313:112. doi:10.1007/s00404-026-08338-x. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00404-026-08338-x[ncbi.nlm.nih]

13. Yahyaei A, et al. Intra-ovarian injection of platelet-rich plasma in patients with poor ovarian response. Journal of Ovarian Research. 2026. doi:10.1186/s13048-026-02012-1. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13048-026-02012-1

14. Cakiroglu Y, Saltik A, Yuceturk A, et al. Effects of intraovarian injection of autologous platelet rich plasma on ovarian reserve and IVF outcome parameters in women with primary ovarian insufficiency. Aging (Albany NY). 2020;12(11):10211–10222.

15. Intra-ovarian injection of platelet-rich plasma into ovarian tissue: a preclinical study in a rat model of primary ovarian insufficiency. Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology. 2020. PMID: 32758249. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32758249/[pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih]