HST-Density in The Recipient Area...

[gc83uk]

I'm counting total hairs which gives the aesthetic look of a full head of head rather than the technical crap. If it looks dense, its dense.

What? Technical crap?

I asked a pretty good question I thought!

The avg number of hairs in the recipient cannot be 70 - 90 hairs, you must be talking about the FU's right? Each FU or graft has approx 2.5 hairs.

Otherwise if the avg number of hairs was say 70 like you said, then I'd only need 35 grafts/fus placed in the recipient to get about 70 hairs. See what I mean?

[hellouser]

What? Technical crap?

I asked a pretty good question I thought!

The avg number of hairs in the recipient cannot be 70 - 90 hairs, you must be talking about the FU's right? Each FU or graft has approx 2.5 hairs.

Otherwise if the avg number of hairs was say 70 like you said, then I'd only need 35 grafts/fus placed in the recipient to get about 70 hairs. See what I mean?

Well no I'm not downplaying your question. Its just what to me is whats more important; hairs or FU? If 60 hairs gives me a normal density look, I wont care how many FU are implanted into the recipient area.

However, this raises an interesting question to me:

Gho does about 35 grafts per cm2 per session. If each graft has around 2.5 hairs, that means 70+ hairs per cm2 which to me, would give you a normal looking head of hair. But if thats the case, why would anyone want to go EVEN denser as its not really all that necessary? I mean considering that my hair is thinning, I would only need about 10-15 grafts per cm2 to get my hair to look good in the thinning arears as it would give it 25 or more hairs per cm2 than I already have, which would be a lot!

35 grafts at 2.5 hairs per graft for a total of 70 hairs per cm on a slick bald area should look pretty good. Thats essentially a 6x6 density as I've mocked up in the diagram. Not too shabby.

[534623]

What? Technical crap?

I asked a pretty good question I thought!

The avg number of hairs in the recipient cannot be 70 - 90 hairs, you must be talking about the FU's right? Each FU or graft has approx 2.5 hairs.

Otherwise if the avg number of hairs was say 70 like you said, then I'd only need 35 grafts/fus placed in the recipient to get about 70 hairs. See what I mean?

I can see what you mean...

"Some variance is to be expected due to the lack of uniform density in the donor area."


"The FGs almost appear to be a single, larger unit, but upon close examination they could also be 2 FUs very close together."

Such grafts, as described in this paper, how do normal FUE docs extract such grafts or if e.g. the hairs of a 4-hair graft emerge the skin's surface in a row and spaced appart? What punch size is needed? lol

Btw - you CAN'T compare donor area (especially in the middle of the occiput) density with densities above the ears or on top of your head or in the front area! In the front area, the density is ALWAYS lower than in the donor area (people who don't have AGA).

[gc83uk]

Well no I'm not downplaying your question. Its just what to me is whats more important; hairs or FU? If 60 hairs gives me a normal density look, I wont care how many FU are implanted into the recipient area.

However, this raises an interesting question to me:

Gho does about 35 grafts per cm2 per session. If each graft has around 2.5 hairs, that means 70+ hairs per cm2 which to me, would give you a normal looking head of hair. But if thats the case, why would anyone want to go EVEN denser as its not really all that necessary? I mean considering that my hair is thinning, I would only need about 10-15 grafts per cm2 to get my hair to look good in the thinning arears as it would give it 25 or more hairs per cm2 than I already have, which would be a lot!

35 grafts at 2.5 hairs per graft for a total of 70 hairs per cm on a slick bald area should look pretty good. Thats essentially a 6x6 density as I've mocked up in the diagram. Not too shabby.

I have to disagree, for example H&W can put 70 fu's in your recipient. So if we assume thats 2.5 hairs each, then that would be 175 hairs per sq cm.

I personally don't think that many is necessary, but 35 grafts on a slick bald scalp is definitely not going to give me the coverage I would like. I think 50 grafts per cm2 is the optimal number for me and probably the most Gho will do for me.

[gc83uk]

I can see what you mean...
"The FGs almost appear to be a single, larger unit, but upon close examination they could also be 2 FUs very close together."

Such grafts, as described in this paper, how do normal FUE docs extract such grafts or if e.g. the hairs of a 4-hair graft emerge the skin's surface in a row and spaced appart? What punch size is needed? lol

Btw - you CAN'T compare donor area (especially in the middle of the occiput) density with densities above the ears or on top of your head or in the front area! In the front area, the density is ALWAYS lower than in the donor area (people who don't have AGA).

Thanks I.M

[534623]

"...would require an enormous number of grafts (6,000-20,000), which is simply impossible to obtain [from the donor area]."

Sure, with traditional HT's...
With Gho's technique, you CAN definitely expand the number significantly - and without a big loss! And in my opinion, a combination between the normal HST technique (pre-making of implantation holes) and Dr. Gho's future HSI technique (implantation of the extracted grafts with syringes) will make a lot possible, if necessary or wanted...

[clarence]

Gho does about 35 grafts per cm2 per session. If each graft has around 2.5 hairs, that means 70+ hairs per cm2 which to me, would give you a normal looking head of hair. But if thats the case, why would anyone want to go EVEN denser as its not really all that necessary?

Whoaa, whoaa! Try looking at it from a receding guy's perspective... Well, the receding guy, he really likes the density of his current hair line. 100 % density there, no thinning. He could

A) accept his high hairline and keep all of that density for an indefinite time... or

B) he could place grafts in front of his entire natural hair, get rid of some forehead. Option B will be more tempting for him, if it can give him the density of his current hair line. Otherwise for him it's a question of why would anyone even want to go lower? Right?

[hellouser]

Whoaa, whoaa! Try looking at it from a receding guy's perspective... Well, the receding guy, he really likes the density of his current hair line. 100 % density there, no thinning. He could

A) accept his high hairline and keep all of that density for an indefinite time... or

B) he could place grafts in front of his entire natural hair, get rid of some forehead. Option B will be more tempting for him, if it can give him the density of his current hair line. Otherwise for him it's a question of why would anyone even want to go lower? Right?

Well I'm that guy with the receding hairline (but with thinning) and to me 70 hairs per cm2 is quite a lot, thats roughly 8 x 9 hairs, I'd be pretty happy with that... (though to be fair, at this point i'd be happy with anything).

I do agree more is better but there is a boundary as to when so much isnt necessary.

[clarence]

Well I'm that guy with the receding hairline (but with thinning) and to me 70 hairs per cm2 is quite a lot, thats roughly 8 x 9 hairs, I'd be pretty happy with that... (though to be fair, at this point i'd be happy with anything).

Yeah but what if you were a seven-head but not thinning. Take that as a rhetorical question.

[hellouser]

Yeah but what if you were a seven-head but not thinning. Take that as a rhetorical question.

Whats a 7-head?

*Edit - Nevermind, urbandictionary answered it for me.

[534623]

A better way to do this would be to use Adobe Illustrator and make a 1cm square with a thin outline at 0.1pt thickness, then make a grid out of dots spaced evenly to get an idea of how many hairs should be within a 1cm square.

Here's a quick diagram I made that shows this;

I know what you mean. But you simply can’t compare a faultless computer work with a real graft implant situation.

The first aim in this thread was actually just to answer (myself) the following question:

When I use my handheld USB video-microscope and if I take photos with no distance to the object (skin, a flat hard surface etc etc) – how big is actually the size/area in my photos? How can I figure it out?

To get an even more precise answer, now I tried the following:

This time I simply used MS word to draw a precise 1cm² square, as well as the proper (initially estimated) size in it, which my USB micro is using when I take 640x480 resolution photos. I used the thinnest possible line thickness, so that when I print it out, I’m still able to see the lines on the paper. And there is still a problem:

We are talking here about MAGNIFICATION and MICROSCOPE! So of course even the thinnest lines still appear “thick” or “fat” in such photos!

Anyway, here are my new (more accurate) results…


In the next step,
I simply cut out the blue/grey area with a sharp blade...


As you can see, and as in my first tests speculated, when I use the microscope on a softer skin surface, of course, I have to set the magnification wheel somewhat higher (x60 instead of x57) than when I use it for a really hard surface. I tested this several times at different skin surfaces – always the same result.

Conclusion
The areas of my USB microscope, when I use it on a skin surface, like the scalp, is accordingly anywhere just between 0.23 and 0.25 cm². That’s just around a quarter (25&#37 of a full 1 cm² (100%)!
That means, the area in this photo, for example,…


…is definitely not more than ~0,25 cm²!

[didi]

can you measure density of your donor area applying the same method, now that you got perfect square of .25cm2 it should be easy to do counting,

[534623]

can you measure density of your donor area applying the same method, now that you got perfect square of .25cm2 it should be easy to do counting,

Hair StemCell Transplantation - Donor-Regrowth - Day-7 - Part-1

http://youtu.be/__MiKNf-0Ks

Hair StemCell Transplantation - Donor-Regrowth - Day-7 - Part-2

http://youtu.be/4Ti0oJBHgKU

Tell me the density in all different areas. Simply everything what you count (when you stop the video) x4 = density per 1cm². Thanks in advance.

[didi]

You have about 60 FUs per cm2, my estimate, it actually works in your favour as you dont need too many grafts on top to match your sides and back donor,

if you can get 40-45 all over your bald areas that would be sweet as

[534623]

You have about 60 FUs per cm2 ...

That is, I think – correct. BUT…

Basically, both videos (Part-1 and Part-2) show my donor area 7 days after HST. The pic below shows how I did it and what YOU actually can see in these 2 videos…

The motion of the video-microscope starts always from my ear(side):

RIGHT ear, then up and down towards the occiput = video PART 1
LEFT ear, then up and down towards the occiput = video PART 2

So, of course, there are differences when you count GRAFTS in such photos!
For example…

This screenshot of my part-2 video shows, in this scene (randomly chosen), my occipital area; this area has in all humans the HIGHEST density! So in this scene, for example, I count around 20 GRAFTS. 20 x 4 = around 80 GRAFTS per cm²!

That means, concerning Caucasian like me, Dr. Jimenez in his paper (see previous posts) is basically right, when he is saying:

“In the occipital (donor) scalp [itself] the number of follicular units per square centimeter ranges between 65 and 85 …”

But, of course, these numbers simply change from patient to patient - and AGE.