System comparison

Emcyte PurePRP vs ProGen PRP Eclipse

Q: Which produces more concentrated PRP, Emcyte or Eclipse?

By the published figures, Emcyte PurePRP SP states at least 6x baseline while ProGen PRP Eclipse publishes 1.8x for its standard method and 3.2x for its high-concentration method. Eclipse produces a larger output volume, 7 to 15 mL, so the two designs trade concentration against volume.

Q: Is a one-spin system worse than a two-spin system?

No. A single spin means fewer handling steps and less operator variation, which is a real advantage in a busy practice. A second spin removes platelet-poor plasma and raises concentration. They are different trades, and neither is worse in the abstract.

Q: Are both systems FDA cleared?

Both are 510(k)-cleared blood-processing devices. That clearance covers how each device processes blood. It is not a clearance of the prepared PRP to treat any condition, and no PRP therapy is FDA-approved for a specific indication, whichever system prepared it.

Q: Can I trust a comparison written by a distributor?

Check it. Every competitor figure on this page is quoted from the manufacturer's own published material and dated, so you can open the source and verify it. That is the standard we would want applied to any comparison written about the products we sell.

These are two different design philosophies. Eclipse is a one-spin system that produces a larger volume at a lower stated concentration, in 15 and 30 mL tubes. Emcyte PurePRP SP is a two-spin system that produces a smaller, more concentrated volume with a selectable leukocyte profile. Which is right depends on whether your protocol needs volume or concentration.

Disclosure: PRP Direct is an Emcyte distributor. We have a commercial interest in one of the systems on this page. That is exactly why every Eclipse figure below is quoted from the manufacturer's own published material with a link and a date, so you can check it against the source rather than take our word for it. Where the two companies publish different kinds of number, we say so instead of putting them in the same column as if they were comparable.

The published specifications

Eclipse figures are as published by ProGen PRP. Emcyte figures are manufacturer-reported. Nothing in this table is a claim about clinical results for either system.

Specification	Emcyte PurePRP SP	ProGen PRP Eclipse
Spins	2	1
Platelet concentration vs baseline	≥ 6x (stated as a minimum)	1.8x standard, 3.2x high-concentration method
Output volume	7 mL from the 60 mL kit	7 to 15 mL
Kit sizes	30 / 60 / 120 mL	15 mL and 30 mL processing tubes
Red cell removal	Hematocrit < 1% in the final PRP	Removes 99% of red blood cells
Leukocyte profile	Selectable, neutrophil-rich or neutrophil-poor	Published as 8.5% granulocytes, 86.2% mononuclear; not described as selectable
Platelet recovery	≥ ~90%	Not published
Regulatory status	Both are 510(k)-cleared blood-processing devices. Clearance covers processing, not treatment of any condition.

Eclipse specifications from the ProGen PRP Eclipse product page (progenprp.com, retrieved 2026-07-25) and the Eclipse PRP Complete Guide published by the manufacturer, which states its concentration figures as means using a 22 mL tube with 6 to 7 mL of platelet-poor plasma removed, in patients with whole-blood platelet counts from 169,000 to 356,000 per microliter. Emcyte specifications are manufacturer-reported from the PurePRP SP product documentation and instructions for use. Figures describe device output, not clinical performance.

Read the concentration numbers carefully

This is the row that decides most purchases, and it is the easiest one to misread. Eclipse publishes 1.8x for its standard method and 3.2x for its high-concentration method, stated as means under defined conditions. Emcyte publishes 6x as a floor rather than an average.

Those are honestly different numbers, and the gap between them is real rather than an artifact of how each company reports. But note what Eclipse tells you that many manufacturers do not: the tube size, the volume of platelet-poor plasma removed, and the range of donor platelet counts the mean was computed over. That is a more transparent disclosure than the industry norm, and it deserves credit.

The practical question is not which number is bigger. It is whether your protocol calls for a larger volume at lower concentration or a smaller volume at higher concentration, because that is the actual trade the two designs make.

One spin or two?

Eclipse's single spin is a genuine workflow advantage: fewer steps, less handling, less operator-to-operator variation, and faster turnaround in the room. If you run high patient volume in short appointment slots, that matters more than a spec sheet suggests.

The second spin in PurePRP SP is what removes the platelet-poor plasma and drives concentration up, at the cost of a transfer, a plasma draw-off, and a resuspension. We break down that trade in detail on single spin vs double spin.

Where each one fits

Eclipse fits aesthetic practices covering larger areas, high-throughput schedules where a single spin saves real minutes, and teams that want the simplest possible bench workflow.
PurePRP SP fits protocols where concentration per millilitre is the point, cases where the physician wants to select the leukocyte profile, and practices that also run bone marrow or adipose on the same centrifuge.
Neither fits a practice that has not decided what its protocol needs. Decide volume versus concentration first; the system follows from that, not the other way around.

Common questions

Which produces more concentrated PRP, Emcyte or Eclipse?

By the published figures, Emcyte PurePRP SP states at least 6x baseline while ProGen PRP Eclipse publishes 1.8x for its standard method and 3.2x for its high-concentration method. Eclipse produces a larger output volume, 7 to 15 mL, so the two designs trade concentration against volume.

Is a one-spin system worse than a two-spin system?

No. A single spin means fewer handling steps and less operator variation, which is a real advantage in a busy practice. A second spin removes platelet-poor plasma and raises concentration. They are different trades, and neither is worse in the abstract.

Are both systems FDA cleared?

Both are 510(k)-cleared blood-processing devices. That clearance covers how each device processes blood. It is not a clearance of the prepared PRP to treat any condition, and no PRP therapy is FDA-approved for a specific indication, whichever system prepared it.

Can I trust a comparison written by a distributor?

Check it. Every competitor figure on this page is quoted from the manufacturer's own published material and dated, so you can open the source and verify it. That is the standard we would want applied to any comparison written about the products we sell.

Want the numbers for your own protocol?

Tell us the volume and concentration your cases call for. We'll send itemized pricing on what fits, within one business day. No login wall.

Request a quote

PRP Direct is an Emcyte distributor. Competitor specifications are quoted from the manufacturers' own published materials and are their statements, not ours. All systems referenced are 510(k)-cleared blood-processing devices; clearance covers how a device processes blood and is not a clearance of the prepared PRP to treat any condition, and no PRP therapy is FDA-approved for a specific indication. Manufacturer specifications are not claims of clinical efficacy. This page is general education and is not medical advice. Product names and trademarks belong to their respective owners.

See the PurePRP SP system Compare all Emcyte systems All guides →

What these devices are cleared for

Emcyte's instructions for use define the labeled indication for the PurePRP Supraphysiologic Concentrating System as follows, quoted verbatim:

"The PurePRP^® Supraphysiologic Concentrating System is designed to be used for the safe and rapid preparation of autologous platelet rich plasma (PRP) from a small sample of blood at the patient's point of care. The PRP is mixed with autograft and allograft bone prior to application to an orthopedic site to improve bone graft handling characteristics."

The same document states: "The PRP prepared by this device has not been evaluated for any clinical indications." It also states that the safety and effectiveness of the device for in vivo indications such as bone healing and hemostasis have not been established, and that the PRP prepared by the device is not indicated for delivery to the patient's circulatory system.

Any application other than the labeled indication falls outside it. That is not unusual in this field, and it is not something PRP Direct can authorize, recommend, or direct. It rests on the independent clinical judgment of a licensed physician, exercised under their own license and their own informed-consent process. We sell equipment and publish what the manufacturer publishes about it. We do not advise on clinical application.

PRP Direct is a distributor of Emcyte point-of-care blood-processing devices. Emcyte states these systems are 510(k)-cleared as blood-processing devices; clearance covers how a device processes blood, it is not a clearance of the prepared PRP to treat any condition, and no PRP therapy is FDA-approved for a specific indication. Manufacturer specifications are reproduced as the manufacturer's statements, have not been independently verified by PRP Direct, and are not claims of clinical efficacy. Manufacturers revise specifications without notice, and the instructions for use packaged with your kit supersede anything published here. Nothing on this page is dosing, protocol, clinical, or medical advice, and nothing here should be relied upon in making a clinical decision. Product names and trademarks belong to their respective owners.