a case study of DONOR REGENERATION with the FUE-L Technique by Dr B. MOUSSEIGNE

[FearTheLoss]

Mathieu, is there going to be any posts of the recipient numbers? and when can we expect Dr. Mousseigne to publish his research and make this procedure public?

Thanks,

FTL

[Mathieu]

Good some progress.
Thnak you Mathieu. More options. Now I'll wait patiently to see if Histogen, Aderans or Replicel manage to do something. Then maybe we can combine multiple routes. Who knows...

Sogeking, even though a regenerative donor would definitely increase the psychological comfort of undergoing surgery, it won't change the fact that it's still a surgery. As such, it could require your repeated commitment over time if hair loss keeps progressing. So, if you can maintain your hair in its current state, and if you're okay to wait until Histogen and the likes are released, then you'll be better off any type of surgery. Just stay informed and reassess your options when more new products/techniques hit the market.

It's very encouraging to see more doctors experimenting and reporting success with donor regeneration. I wish Dr. Mousseigne all the success with his efforts.
I think the key is the recipient growth. The donor looks great but the recipient is the other half of the proof. Mathieu, you said that you can't yet comment on the recipient but that there is reason to be optimistic. Is it possible to elaborate on this at all? Have you tested your technique on other patients?
Do you think it will be possible, with this technique, to extract 2500+ grafts per session or will you be limited?
I also think it's great that Dr. Mousseigne seems to be willing to share his technique and that it may be offered in North America one day.
This is all very exciting and I can't wait to hear more in the future.

Thanks JJJJrS, you're one of the good guys. I appreciate the time & effort you've put in studying some results of your fellow patients, and also your overall moderation. It's too rare to be unnoticed (and unappreciated).

I of course 100% agree with your statement regarding the recipient results. It would be pointless to achieve donor regeneration without getting steady regrowth of the transplanted hairs on the recipient area.
I said I have reasons to be optimistic because the first patients who were operated with the current protocol of the FUE-L technique are noticing regrowth in their recipient area. One patient got several small tests done around November 2012, but he isn't in Paris at the moment; Dr Mousseigne might be able to welcome him for a consult in early June; however, this case hadn't been scientifically documented, so it won't serve as publishing content for the forums. More recent cases should do the trick though. And other series of tests are about to be performed: 4 french patients (including myself) and most likely one british patient, in the next 4-6 weeks. These ones should benefit from excellent documentation, both in the donor and in the recipient areas.

Until the doctor has performed larger session (virtually, he could already transplant 1500+ FU in one day, but that would be ethically questionable, as the leap will be very big with the tests he's currently doing, and a cautious medical approach would rather suggest to proceed step by step, and not too much at a time), I can't tell you whether it will be possible or not to do 2500 FU transplants or more at once. Smart donor management may give us such possibilities, depending on the patients' characteristics (i.e. FU density + harvestable surface).

As I said before, it would be a pity for the patients to have only a handful of doctors offering this technique; that's why I feel Dr Mousseigne should collaborate as much as possible with other fellow doctors to make the FUE-L a new standard of care, be it in Europe or elsewhere in the world. I will personally activate my network of contacts in this industry to give this project the adequate direction.

I'm asking this, because the METHOD per se (simply doing this, independent in what way or which "protocol" you use) is patented:

"(a) removing hair in the anagen phase from one or more donor areas in such a way that the hair stem cells which are responsible for hair growth are still attached to the hair removed;
and
(b) bringing the hair stem cells of the hair removed into contact with a medium which contains extracellular matrix components or substitutes there; and

(c) implanting the hair of step b) in the scalp."

It doesn't matter which tools or "vehicles" you use to accomplish these patent claims - simply using this method in general is patented. And THE reason, why such an approach is patentable at all, is, in fact, because if exactly doing that would be that easy and as simple as it sounds to accomplish all this (aka "this mythos") - we would have such procedures since hair transplants exists.

IronMan, thanks for your inputs.

Although, as another user already emphasized, all grafts removed with modern (or even with obsolete) techniques are then transplanted with enough connective tissues containing various types of stemcells. That's basically why the hair regrow once transplanted in the recipient sites.
Regarding the medium storage, you have no clue of what Dr Mousseigne is using. It could include "extracellular matrix components" or not. I don't think I have an obligation to give you the answer here and now.
But, yes, Dr Mousseigne does definitely implant the extracted hair in the patient's scalp. What else would he do with it otherwise? Make a buzz-cut wig perhaps?

More seriously, what you describe - minus the ecm medium - is an indistinct type of hair transplant. It matches the principle behind both outdated or state-of-the-art techniques. The ecm medium's addition has also been used by quite a few other doctors in the field (ex: Dr Cooley, Dr Cole, Dr Mwamba, Dr Hitzig, Dr Jones, etc.). So if Dr Gho follows your advice, he might spend more time dealing with trials' documents than with HSI research

The corrections have been made.

Thank you, Winston. But a couple of letters are missing at the end of the message ("FUT & FUE).". Too bad that the bold/italic/underline didn't make it past the correction, but at least the message's content is correct now.

I think I speak on behalf of most, but perhaps NOT all Hasci patients in these forums, that despite being tagged as 'Gho fan boys', we want the likes of Dr Mousseigne to succeed just as we want Gho to keep on succeeding and improving his technique.

There is no loyalty to one doctor from me certainly, despite what many seem to think!

gc83uk, thanks, I appreciate your open-mindedness. That being said, I can understand if a patient manifests some loyalty to the doctor who brought him satisfactory results. But this loyalty shouldn't equal automatically slagging off other doctors; that's the "sectarian/soccer supporter's mindset" that I mentioned before, which is detrimental to the scientific point of view that everybody here should defend & vouch for.
In more practical terms: the world is big enough, and unfortunately there are enough baldies in it, for several doctors to co-exist and to compete healthily (if required).

Contrary to you - I'm, and I will ALWAYS be, loyal to one doctor: It's Dr. Gho.
But if I would be such a "Gho fan boy" as many claim - why, for example, not having my first HST with Dr. Gho himself?
So what's THE reason for my "loyalty"?

Because without such guys like Dr. Gho as "weapon", such little copycats like Dr Mousseigne, wouldn't exist in this field. Otherwise perhaps with a delay of 10-20 years or so ....
Wars have always been very healthy for producing new weapons - and vice versa.

The bold part is a derogatory statement. You don't know what Dr Mousseigne is doing, nor how he is exactly doing it, so you would be well-inspired to show some more respect, especially as I haven't shown any signs of hostility against the physician you pretend to (clumsily) defend.

Dear Mathieu,

I`m sorry for my poor english, but I would just say, as many has already mentioned, dont pay attention to everyone in here. There are too many people in here who is boiling over with critics and questions. In a way I honour them for that because it is important in a buisiness where there is just to many dishonest people and companies, but there is a time for everything. If someone has something new to share, then I would prefer If we wait until they have published everything that they have promised to publish (relative to time). Then we can take a deeper look and question it. Or else everything is just based on hypothetical individual thoughts, and that just makes this forum even more "untidy".

I`m looking forward to hear more from the research and not least about pricing on this treatment. I have also contacted Dr. Mousseigne by mail, but I have not gotten any back.

Dear Tacola, your english may be "poor" (even though I don't think so), but you speak words of wisdom. My initial posts were only meant to share with fellow patients the news that another option could rise soon. I hope it will. Time will tell.
Dr Mousseigne has been busy these past days with family business. He told me that he had received several emails, and that he would answer in detail asap. Thanks for contacting him anyway.

Mathieu, is there going to be any posts of the recipient numbers? and when can we expect Dr. Mousseigne to publish his research and make this procedure public?

Thanks,

FTL

FearTheLoss, thanks for your continued interest. To be honest, I don't think there will be recipient numbers in relation with this same patient, because the effort of documentation for the recipient area wasn't efficient enough ... -_-"
I can't announce yet a firm release date. In fact, the technique seems to be operational already, but Dr Mousseigne hasn't used it yet for larger sessions. From a strictly technical point of view, he could perform larger sessions right away (+/- 1500 FU/day). It'll only be a matter of months anyway before it's made public... if all the tests render satisfactory data.

[FearTheLoss]

any update on this?

[Mathieu]

Hi FearTheLoss,

thanks for your continued interest.

A 50 grafts test will be conducted this next wednesday. Do you want me to publish the documentation on the forum?
This time, there will be both donor & recipient analysis. Pictures will be taken with a reflex camera and a Proscope.
The patient is a senior member of the french-speaking forum, and has already undergone 2 FUE procedures.

[Mathieu]

I should also add that another french patient who received a FUE-L test (on Feb. 11th 2013) is currently experiencing regrowth.
He hasn't shared the pics yet, but you'll find his testimony by googling "hairlossforum norlan"; pics of donor generation are available in his personal thread, from page 3 on.

[Arashi]

Hi FearTheLoss,

thanks for your continued interest.

A 50 grafts test will be conducted this next wednesday. Do you want me to publish the documentation on the forum?
This time, there will be both donor & recipient analysis. Pictures will be taken with a reflex camera and a Proscope.
The patient is a senior member of the french-speaking forum, and has already undergone 2 FUE procedures.

Hi Mathieu,

This would be most interesting. But after the deception of HASCI's 50 grafts test so far (with very mediocre pre-op photo's), please: either shoot and post usuable pre-op (and post-op) photo's, which show exactly and clearly how many hairs each graft had, or don't bother at all ... Sorry if I sound a bit sour but really, please spare us the deception if you're not serious about this.

[Arashi]

To clarify, this is NOT what we want: http://www4.picturepush.com/photo/a/...g/13188017.jpg
This is fine though: http://www2.picturepush.com/photo/a/...g/13188025.jpg although preferably even sharper photo's/higher resolution and microscopic ones.

[Mathieu]

Hello Arashi,


it's ok.

The same camera which shot the pics in page 1 & page 2 of this thread will be used again. I'm not sure it can do better than before, but it was already enough to provide accurate counting.

We'll also use two different microscopic devices, producing pics such as:









(courtesy of my scalp)


Will that meet your expectations?

[garethbale]

Bloody hell Arashi, I can't tell the difference between those shots and why the second is superior to the first. Can you clarify?

Also, what was wrong with Hasci's photos?

[Mathieu]

Also, what was wrong with Hasci's photos?

Gareth,

you can follow the discussion here: http://www.baldtruthtalk.com/showthr...172#post126172