From Regenerative Mechanisms to Clinical Practice: Current Status, Controversies, and Future Perspectives of Platelet-Rich Plasma in Urology and Sexual Medicine

Background/Objectives: Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is an autologous blood-derived biologic enriched in platelets and bioactive mediators. In urology and sexual medicine, PRP has been promoted for erectile dysfunction (ED) and a growing range of urogenital disorders on the premise that it may support angiogenesis, neuroregeneration, immune modulation, and tissue remodeling. However, clinical uptake has outpaced high-quality evidence, while heterogeneity in PRP preparation, characterization, and delivery limits interpretability and reproducibility. This structured narrative review aims to critically integrate mechanistic, preclinical, and clinical evidence regarding PRP use in ED, Peyronie’s disease (PD), stress urinary incontinence (SUI), interstitial cystitis/bladder pain syndrome (IC/BPS), and selected emerging indications. We further aim to identify sources of heterogeneity and propose an actionable minimum reporting framework (PRP-Uro Checklist) to guide future research. Methods: A structured search of PubMed/MEDLINE was conducted for studies published between 2021 and 2025. The relevant literature on PRP use in ED, PD, SUI, IC/BPS, and related indications was included for critical narrative synthesis. Emphasis was placed on PRP classification and preparation variables, outcome measure validity, and sources of heterogeneity across studies. Results: Mechanistic and preclinical evidence supports PRP’s potential to modulate nerve repair, angiogenesis, extracellular matrix remodeling, and immune polarization through a complex secretome of growth factors, cytokines, and extracellular vesicles (EVs). Clinical evidence suggests that intracavernosal PRP may improve erectile function in selected populations, but effect size, durability, and superiority over placebo remain uncertain due to small trials, substantial placebo effects, short follow-up, and incomplete biologic characterization. Evidence for PRP in PD, SUI, and IC/BPS remains preliminary and is derived largely from small cohorts, proof-of-concept studies, or uncontrolled designs, although early findings suggest potential symptom benefit and acceptable short-term tolerability. Across indications, inconsistent PRP reporting, particularly the absence of absolute platelet dose, leukocyte quantification, activation method, and standardized treatment protocols, represents a major barrier to reproducibility and evidence synthesis. Conclusions: PRP is biologically plausible and appears broadly safe, but its role in urology and sexual medicine remains investigational and is not yet supported by guideline-level evidence. To enhance reproducibility and interpretation, we propose a Minimum PRP Reporting Checklist for Urology and Sexual Medicine Trials (PRP-Uro Checklist). Future progress requires rigorous standardized reporting, indication-specific biologic characterization, rigorously designed sham-controlled trials, clinically meaningful endpoints, and longer-term follow-up.