ACell, a Current Review of Applications in Hair Transplant Surgery

[plopp]

Ok some people here doubt that plucked hairs actually survive and are dht resistant. We all know that the most important thing is the follicle right.

Then just look at this picture and search where exactly the "follicle" is and you got your answer if you compare the fotos of plucked hairs with this picture :-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Skin.jpg

Enjoy ^^

Nice one Rich

One thing that bothers me though in terms of dht resistance is that the dermal papilla, which is waht actually controls hair growth (as is my understanding), is derived from the recipient. The plucked hair - correct me if I'm wrong - only contain the root sheath (i.e. epithelial cells). I'm no MPB expert, but it seems to me that the dermal papilla if anything should be the DHT sensitive part of the follicle.

Nevertheless, even if dht resistance turns out to be a problem, I think autoplucking can find its way as a repair procedure (let's just hope the scar issue gets resolved..)

[RichardDawkins]

When your plucked hair grows, it grows from the FULL material of the dht resitant here itself. The hair itself creates its surrounding as you know the cells are formed then.

Cause even if this hair actually connects to a DP, the DP will take this genetic material especially when its dormant. The DP is actually capable of stimulate other cells to develop hair follicles. Thats why sometimes autocloned hairs come up.

But the key is the material from the hair which connects to the dp. The material around the hair itself has to be sufficiant enough to create another follicle, thats why thie technique right now is tedious.

And those autocloning hairs are nothing other the somethings direct copies of the follicles where the hair was plucked.

You see how strong the genetic material around the hair is it also contains the information " Is my origin a single hair follicle or a multi hair follicle"

[plopp]

Have I understood it right if you say that the dp in the recipient is an exact replica of those in the donor? Any sources? Cooley has shown pics before demonstrating a certain degree of recipient dominance, so I'm not sure that's entirely true.

[RichardDawkins]

Do you refer to the 2007 fact sheet? Well i can almost clearly say, that those autocloned hairs are an indicator for the new born follicle from donor material. Because if you see like this

"How possible is it, that one single plucked hair could create or animate other follicles or cells to create other hairs in an area where DHT is "deadly" for hairs"

Another possible aspect could be, when you lance the skin in the recipient are, you cause damage and at this point when tissue gets repaired it "accidentally" uses cell material from the donor area.

Both explainations could show why the hairs Dr Hitzig plucked years ago, are still cycling.

Also its high likely that the moment you pluck the hair, different cell material is still present also DP material and this is transplanted in the recipient area.

And thanks to acell as an enhancement its pretty quick "multiplying"

But all this doesnt change the fact that a lot of efficancy has to be done to make this technique faster and les labor intensive.

[Gary Hitzig MD]

Autocloning

Remember guys that Dr. Kim showed well before me that if you cut out a complete hair (FU) then transect it below the bulb, and then transplant both "pieces" to the same person (in his case his arm), he grew 2 hairs.
This is what started me on the road to "Autocloning". Other studies showed that rat whisker hair would do the same whereas body hair (on rodents) would not. When you try laser hair removal of body hair it is not a problem; however beard laser hair removal just doesn't work well at all. I postulated that beard hair is like weeds- they are stonger than body hair. This proved itself to be true in the early trials. Despite this, there was something missing to help stabilize the "take" in autocloning. ACell seems to be that missing puzzle piece.
Richard has really got it in terms of understanding that we are nearing the answer but need to improve the method. Your suggestions help fuel our ideas.

[RichardDawkins]

Thanks for the Feedback Dr Hitzig, its sometimes good to get a backup when people really starting to crawl under my skin in terms of the overly negative thinking"

I have some questions, hope you answer them.

1) Do you have plans for going one step beyond like performing FUE with the twist to "transsect" hairs that they will grow back in the donor area and also in the recipient area (this could solve the time and tedious problem to some point)

2) Have you ever tried different states of hair characteristics during the plucking session like

- wet hair vs dry hair
- medium trimmed hair
- tweeze them clockwise
- tweeze them counter clockwise
- curl them around the tweezer like spaghettis and then pull the tweezer southward
- etc
- reprogrammed NeoGraft machine ( i dont think its beneficial to FUE but could be for plucking) which could perform the plucking part consitently

I am just thinking abou those things because more often its just a little detail nobody has accounted so far which decides the important factors

[HairTalk]

Thanks for the Feedback Dr Hitzig, its sometimes good to get a backup when people really starting to crawl under my skin in terms of the overly negative thinking"

I have some questions, hope you answer them.

1) Do you have plans for going one step beyond like performing FUE with the twist to "transsect" hairs that they will grow back in the donor area and also in the recipient area (this could solve the time and tedious problem to some point)

2) Have you ever tried different states of hair characteristics during the plucking session like

- wet hair vs dry hair
- medium trimmed hair
- tweeze them clockwise
- tweeze them counter clockwise
- curl them around the tweezer like spaghettis and then pull the tweezer southward
- etc
- reprogrammed NeoGraft machine ( i dont think its beneficial to FUE but could be for plucking) which could perform the plucking part consitently

I am just thinking abou those things because more often its just a little detail nobody has accounted so far which decides the important factors

What difference do you feel the nature of the plucking might make with regard to the procedure? It's what's at the end of the hair shaft that's of concern, and I fail to see how "twisting clockwise" vs. doing so counter-clockwise — or curling the hair, or trimming it, or wetting it — would have any bearing on the result.

[RichardDawkins]

You didnt understand my posting right? The yield rate right now when it comes to usable plucked hairs is maybe 60% and this number has to increase you know to make it more time efficient.

And so its highly obvious that you have to search for different approaches to get to the point where you can say "Thats working better then the rest"

I see you are not a researcher right. If you would consider just a little time to think about hairs you would know that not all hairs grow the same way and therefore you have to find a Semi-working technique.

OF Course the main point is the material at the end of the hair BUT you have to get this material in the first place and for this you have to find THE WORKING technique.

Instead of making fun of my ideas you can come up with some of your own, where you think they will suit better.

My ideas are ONLY opinions and ideas. You know when it comes to plucking you can actually think outside the box because no precious donor is destroyed here.

Trimming the hair as a test is very simple law of PHYSICS you know, the longer something the harder it gets to concentrate your force on one single area. And its highly likely that if you have long hair, the plucking force will end before the critical point and therefore you only got a plucked hair without material

To be honest your posting did really made me angry because you spill out only empty phrases but dont give some ideas out yourself. Just think for one second what you can do with hairs and that there are different ways to pluck hairs.

I try to give away any food for progresion, nothing more. this is better then just keep sitting here and do nothing

[HairTalk]

You didnt understand my posting right? The yield rate right now when it comes to usable plucked hairs is maybe 60% and this number has to increase you know to make it more time efficient.

And so its highly obvious that you have to search for different approaches to get to the point where you can say "Thats working better then the rest"

I see you are not a researcher right. If you would consider just a little time to think about hairs you would know that not all hairs grow the same way and therefore you have to find a Semi-working technique.

OF Course the main point is the material at the end of the hair BUT you have to get this material in the first place and for this you have to find THE WORKING technique.

Instead of making fun of my ideas you can come up with some of your own, where you think they will suit better.

My ideas are ONLY opinions and ideas. You know when it comes to plucking you can actually think outside the box because no precious donor is destroyed here.

Trimming the hair as a test is very simple law of PHYSICS you know, the longer something the harder it gets to concentrate your force on one single area. And its highly likely that if you have long hair, the plucking force will end before the critical point and therefore you only got a plucked hair without material

To be honest your posting did really made me angry because you spill out only empty phrases but dont give some ideas out yourself. Just think for one second what you can do with hairs and that there are different ways to pluck hairs.

I try to give away any food for progresion, nothing more. this is better then just keep sitting here and do nothing

Take a breath, Punky Brewster — you have as little idea to who I am or what I do as I do to your position. No one made fun of you: you were asked to explain why you feel your propositions could improve yield, and you've yet to do so. Science and research aren't based upon people's trying out random things because what they're doing isn't working very well; one experiments based on one's knowledge, reasoning how a particular application may lead to improvement.

You suggested several techniques for how to harvest plucked hairs, but they all seem to me to be blindly shooting into a vacuum. Do you have a theory for why wetting hair could help increase yield? For why clockwise or counter-clockwise pulling might do so? For why trimming might? How about we have people sit out in the sun for fourteen minutes before pulling out the hairs? It might sound absurd, but, hey, we're trying stuff out, right? One does what one feels might make sense; one doesn't engage in an inexhaustible laundry-list of ideas enthusiastically supposing, "You never know."

To trimming, you mention the difficulty of concentration of force, but this holds only if one is plucking out a hair by grasping it at the terminus of the shaft. Regardless of the hair's length, this would be a foolish approach, and one instead would grasp the piece closer to its base; thus, the overall length of the hair should not have an effect on the success of its being pulled with plenty of the follicle still stuck (by the way, I don't think it would be a good idea to remove actually every bit of said follicle — a method for doing so already exists: it's called F.U.E., and it typically doesn't lead to re-growth in the donor area).

No, I haven't any proposals of how to approach this situation. I'm also not eager to say things just for the sakes of hearing them leave my mouth and of feeling important. "Something" is not necessarily better than "nothing" — I lament the ridiculous fallacy that it is; something we feel, based on what we know, might work, and that won't be harmful to try out, is.

Your post has yet to anger me. If mine upset you, I'll refrain from apologizing, as I did nothing wrong, so shouldn't bend to coax your too-fragile ego. You want to make "contributions" to science? Step one: don't be so damned delicate as to take umbrage if a person does something other than fawn over your generosity of suggestions.

[RichardDawkins]

Hello Iron.Man2

The lenght can in fact alter the experience. if you pluck long hairs, sometimes they just BREAK or there is not enough force to pluck it correctly.

As i said before everything plausible which alters hair charateristics should be tried, wet hair can easily be plucked in large groups.

I think with your expose to sunlight you actually meant to get this scalp in a warm area that those pores gets wider. This idea occured to me but then i realised that after plucking f your to slow the programmed cell death starts to act and a warm surrounding aways enhanced this. But it was a good idea

You see thats its all about to discuss things in relation to their plausible methods which could actually work.

As i said before not all follicles grew in the same direction so clockwise and counter clockwise could make a difference from case to case.

Science is of course based on accidents, just look at Penicilin, this was an accident, like many other inventions.

If my ideas are like shooting in a vacuum well then thats your opinion, i say some people have to give it a try.

Trimming the hairs is to get a better force point of grabbing them, if you would have take a closer look at the pictures where the technique is shown, you would have seen that the tweezer is very close to the scalp to get a better force.

If thats a laundry list for you, well knock yourself out buddy

Your answer or idea " I dont think its a good idea to pluck the whole follicle" shows me that you didnt really understand what hair plucking is about. The hair in the donor area just grew back normaly after some time without "waste" of donor material.

You dont pluck out a WHOLE follicle. you pluck a hair with all the genetic material in the surrounding tissue, thats the differende. A FUE just stances out the whole "Follicle" but the plucking not.

Wrong, even FUE under some cicumstances can lead to donor regrow, when the follicle or the information is still intact or semi intact o a certain degree.

If you dont have any proposals, you should begin to think of some. I dont feel important its the other way around, iam only interested in a solution, everything else i couldnt care less.

Something is always better then nothing. A small scar reduction is way better for a repair patient then nothing.

Also, a few years ago nobody would have considered plucked hairs to work like a normal hair transplant (people like you?) but then some people just went one step beyond and thats the most important thing.

Is my ego fragile? Depends on situation but not under normal circumstances, and yes iam pissed off when some people register themselve in a forum this month and their first postings are a mouth full

I dont ask for an apology i ask for some thinking to solve the problem.

[HairTalk]

Hello Iron.Man2

The lenght can in fact alter the experience. if you pluck long hairs, sometimes they just BREAK or there is not enough force to pluck it correctly.

As I said, this makes sense only if you are grasping the shaft of the hair near its terminus.

I think with your expose to sunlight you actually meant to get this scalp in a warm area that those pores gets wider.

I'm unsure whether you're being sarcastic, but, if you aren't, clearly that statement was rhetorical (to illustrate the frivolity of trying random things) and not a suggested point on which to experiment.

Science is of course based on accidents, just look at Penicilin, this was an accident, like many other inventions.

Garbage. Utter garbage. The overwhelming majority of science and research are based on people's experimenting with things they know in relation to those they wish to find out. The fortuity of someone's making a mistake and discovering a bacterial colony a weekend later, which happens to be of remarkable clinical relevance, does not stand as testament that medicine more or less is a very long serious of dumb-luck findings.

If my ideas are like shooting in a vacuum well then thats your opinion, i say some people have to give it a try.

Of course, it is my opinion.

Trimming the hairs is to get a better force point of grabbing them, if you would have take a closer look at the pictures where the technique is shown, you would have seen that the tweezer is very close to the scalp to get a better force.

I feel you're going in a circle and trying to drag me along: One would grasp the hair-shaft at (or close to) its base; thus, the length above that point would be irrelevant. Sure, it might be easier for a person to navigate a shorter hair, but that doesn't imply the result of plucking out a short hair would be better than that achieved by taking out a long one. With F.U.E., one is cutting follicles out of the scalp. Many surgeous prefer to shave the donor area, to make life easier for themselves; others go ahead and make extractions from an unshaved area. The length the hair extends beyond the scalp remains inconsequential to what occurs beneath, as it isn't a portion of the shaft with which the doctor interacts.

If you dont have any proposals, you should begin to think of some.

Why? I'm not involved with this research.

Something is always better then nothing. A small scar reduction is way better for a repair patient then nothing.

We're talking about two completely different things. I'm unsure whether this is a matter of your misinterpreting what I said, or simply manipulating it into something on which you can make the comment you wish to. I'm not suggesting small positive results are not better than no positive results; I'm saying simply "doing something" is not better than doing nothing at all. When you act, you must do so from deliberation and with direction. Else, you may be wasting time, energy, and money; worse, you may inflict harm (and, no, I don't think plucking trimmed hairs will inflict harm...).

[RichardDawkins]

So if you think you are not involved in research, why do you keep posting here

Utter Garbage is IMHO a little bit over the top when it comes to serious discussions, with such approaches you keep disqualifying yourself from any discussion.

Its funny , you refuse to think about things to improve a technique because in your iwn words "iam not involved in the research" but on the other hand you say everything is utter garbage. Dont you think you contradict yourself here

I didnt say the whole field of medicine is based on luck or coincidences but there are remarkable things which happen due to accidents. You know Propecia is such an example, i think it wasnt considered as a hairloss helping drug in the first place.

Acell is another example its purpose is not hair regeneration.

Iam not talking about FUE iam talking about plucking and there could be serious differences in between length or hair.

Well but in this case we obviously have the goal right in front of our face "Expanded to infinite Donor" but now we have to go from the Finish line to the start to see what works best and what doesnt work.

Doing something related to hair plucking is always better then just look at this and do nothing. So you say :

"Dont do anything out of the box or even think about it" But what should be done then? The more information one thing has (it doesnt matter if they may seem stupid or not) the better it is for others.

Oh and that some things can make a huge difference, just look at the situation if you would have a tick bite.

There is a huge difference if you pull this thing out clockwise or counterclockwise.

[HairTalk]

So if you think you are not involved in research, why do you keep posting here

That's a dumb question: I'm posting because I'm interested in this subject. Neither this thread nor this forum is reserved for researchers; thus both my presence and yours (unless you actually are involved with the work being done in this area, beyond spinning a few "suggestions" on the Internet).

I believe this particular conversation has run its course, thus I'll remove myself from it, here. If you say something of interest to me, and I wish to, I of course shall respond; in the interim, good-bye.

[RichardDawkins]

Knock yourself out, my criticism towards is more of the nature

"Fresh registered, not interested in thinking about something to improve some other thing but instead attack other peoples ideas"

An maybe "strange" idea is better then no idea, i called it MacGyverisms

Oh but to answer another of your questions, i personally highly doubt that Histogen can regrow hair on scar tissue or if it could, i think its cosmetically NOT significant.

For scar revision you will always need hair transplants to get a cosmetically significant result.

But as always, i hope iam just wrong and it will work on scar tissue as well, but right now with my "strange and stupid garbage" ideas i doubt it

PS: There is no such thing as a dumb question, but thats a common mistake at message boards

[Gary Hitzig MD]

Try not to argue--we all have the same goal

I think transecting the hairs in an FUE procedure would help simplify regrowth (using ACell) but it might affect the hair result being transplanted. I need to give it some thought.
As far as plucking goes, I have tried every type of scenario to increase my useable yield. What I found was that you want the beard hairs to be at least 10 days growth so the girth of the hairs will support the plucking and not fracture. Fracturing occurs more easily than you might imagine so twisting has not worked although I have tried it.
The key to successful plucking as I see it is using the correct plucking instrument (sanded down cross-cut needle driver and snapping the hairs in their growth direction with the corrct force to overcome resistance-much easier said than done.
I am always open to new ideas as many come from patients.
Try not to argue--we all have the same goal
As always, thank you for your input!
GH