How does Dr. Wesley's Scarless Pilofocus work?

[Ted]

Edit..............

[534623]

Such a device could drastically improve the survival rates and yield of FUE procedures.

Indeed, this point is also mentioned in the patent - but you will be surprised when a read on which (old) principles the improvement is based (read below)...

So the questions I have are:

1. How labour intensive/seamless is the extraction process? Is there any chance that the instrumentation could increase the number of grafts that can be extracted by FUE in a session?

It appears that all this just depends on how fast the user is able to move the devices (endoscope including all the other attached devices) beneath the patient's skin as well as depending on the follicle structrue beneath a patient's skin which varies from patient to patient. And NO - you can't "increase" a certain follicle number for extractions within a given ("safe") donor area. This point is also mentioned in the patent. That means, everything is basically the same as with traditional FUE - the difference is only that you extract the follicles from beneath the skin instead of from above the skin's surface. So you can't "increase" a certain number of follicles you have.

2. At some point, the instrument has to penetrate the skin. In addition, if I understand things correctly, the instrument has to be able to traverse under the skin. What type of trauma/scarring will this cause?

This is snippet from the patent:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
[0013]
Without cutting or altering the overlying skin surface, the design described herein enables a precisely-controlled extraction/harvest of desired tissue that accounts for the borders of the desired tissue, the angle and direction of the tissue (e.g. hair follicle) as it is positioned beneath the skin surface, and the depth of penetration of the desired tissue all while effectively avoiding inclusion of undesirable surrounding tissue in the harvest or injuring vital vessels or nerve plexes in the process.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
THAT is the claim I highly doubt ...

3. Spencer had eluded to possible donor regeneration. This is the most exciting part to me.

"Donor regeneration" can't happen with this technique, because the main focus of this technique is:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
[0011] The technique described herein allows for:

1) the isolation of an intact hair follicle with maximal tissue (both dermal and subcutaneous) surrounding the stem cell-containing portion of the follicle without traumatizing the overlying skin surface;

[0192] … Further, for hair follicle harvesting for subsequent transplantation, the system can described herein can include a larger amount of vital tissue structure around the hair follicle during extraction, which will enhance follicle viability and survival.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

According to these patent claims, a main focus of this technique is also to remove MAXIMAL TISSUE around the hair follicles, to enhance follicle viability and survival. In simple words - to get rather very "chubby" FUT grafts and NOT extremely "skinny" (HST) grafts.

[Zao]

Spencer brought FUE to the U.S and Europe which changed the hair transplant industry forever and if he is getting behind this, then this is a huge innovation. There is no question about it.

I don't think it would even matter if he brought Wesley and Gho together, since I have a feeling that Spencer sees much more potential with this technique. He has been talking about Gho on TBT since I've been listening and he has never spoken with the same kind of confidence that he did about Woods' FUE and now Wesley's new technique. This is a big deal!

[Follicle Death Row]

Won't be much of a problem creating the cavity. The layers are well defined and they should be able to get in there pretty easily. Have a look at dissection videos on youtube. Visualising the follicles is actually not that hard.

[JJJJrS]

I don't know how well this method will work in practice but it does sound very interesting in theory. The idea of extracting the grafts beneath the skin and with the instruments described is very interesting. If you can 1. ensure no/minimal visible scarring and 2. "unblind" the FUE extraction process, like Dr. Wesley claims, then the benefits are huge, especially if it's going to be shared with the hair restoration community. Although the attention has been on scarlessness, unblinding the FUE process is equally as important in my opinion. Such a device could drastically improve the survival rates and yield of FUE procedures.

So the questions I have are:

1. How labour intensive/seamless is the extraction process? Is there any chance that the instrumentation could increase the number of grafts that can be extracted by FUE in a session?

2. At some point, the instrument has to penetrate the skin. In addition, if I understand things correctly, the instrument has to be able to traverse under the skin. What type of trauma/scarring will this cause?

3. Spencer had eluded to possible donor regeneration. This is the most exciting part to me. Technically, such instruments should be compatible with partial follicular extractions, as described by Gho and in academic literatue. In fact, it could drastically improve the practicality of the techniques by unblinding the extraction process. Is there any more information on this, i.e., has Dr. Wesley tested this out? I think it would be great if Spencer could get Dr. Wesley in touch with Dr. Gho. Both would benefit from this.

[john2399]

Ops - I forgot to mention the most important part ...

Here is what I think about Dr. Wesley's work:

http://www3.picturepush.com/photo/a/...-Box/focus.gif

lol thats a good one

[534623]

I have NO DOUBTS about most of the claims - but the thingy in red is still a big questionmark...

Ops - I forgot to mention the most important part ...

Here is what I think about Dr. Wesley's work:

http://www3.picturepush.com/photo/a/12796331/1024/Picture-Box/focus.gif

[534623]

Plastic surgeons routinely detach skin from it's underlying stuctures in facial cosmetic surgery with no problems what so ever. If it's a non issue for someone's face, then i highly doubt it will be a problem for the back of a head; even more so when you consider the area is obscured with hair.

Sure, you're right - they do similar procedures every day. BUT to the best of my knowledge, even these rather "harmless" procedures cause very often unpredictable complications and damage - shit happens EVERY DAY in the hands of plastic surgeons -you just can't read about all these (true) stories, because all these "plastic surgeons" try always to avoid -in advance and mostly with lots of money involved- these stories to appear in public.

Anyway - here are the good news and the last patent claim:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
[0193] "Other advantages of the system described herein include

- the reduction or elimination of residual scarring,
- elimination of the need for a patient to shave their head in preparation for the procedure,
- reduction of recovery time and discomfort,
- decrease in the incidence of infection, and
- decreased trauma to the underlying vasculature.

Further, this procedure is available and appropriate for a larger patient population, as patients with same-color hair and skin, curly hair, and those who do not wish to shave their heads are now candidates for hair follicle harvesting."
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

I have NO DOUBTS about most of the claims - but the thingy in red is still a big questionmark...

[The Alchemist]

UPDATE
At the moment, I stopped reading, because I got even more headaches...

Anyway, IF I'm not completely wrong - everything sounds so far like creating a huge, bloody "massacre" under the skin to get the follicles/FU's from below the skin; because there is, of course, ALWAYS cutting necessary through the whole donor area to 1) separate the tissue layers (to always get a big enough "cavity" for all the needed tools which must "tunnel" below the skin/between tissue layers) and finally 2) cutting out the follicles/grafts from below the skin.

For example, to get a big enough cavity enlarged under the skin for all the needed tools under the skin:

"[0104] For example, the enlarged visual cavity may be created by

- humidified insufflation,
- external traction,
- or balloon expansion."

So I wonder what degree of "trauma" just this action causes blow the skin - besides all the necessary cutting steps.

On the other hand, maybe everything "just sounds more dramatic" than it is ...

Plastic surgeons routinely detach skin from it's underlying stuctures in facial cosmetic surgery with no problems what so ever. If it's a non issue for someone's face, then i highly doubt it will be a problem for the back of a head; even more so when you consider the area is obscured with hair.

Will be interesting to see the results from his trials.

[534623]

Okay, at the moment I'm "studing" Dr. Wesley's patent in detail, and as far as I can ascertain - seems I was right with my first thoughts ...

UPDATE
At the moment, I stopped reading, because I got even more headaches...

Anyway, IF I'm not completely wrong - everything sounds so far like creating a huge, bloody "massacre" under the skin to get the follicles/FU's from below the skin; because there is, of course, ALWAYS cutting necessary through the whole donor area to 1) separate the tissue layers (to always get a big enough "cavity" for all the needed tools which must "tunnel" below the skin/between tissue layers) and finally 2) cutting out the follicles/grafts from below the skin.

For example, to get a big enough cavity enlarged under the skin for all the needed tools under the skin:

"[0104] For example, the enlarged visual cavity may be created by

- humidified insufflation,
- external traction,
- or balloon expansion."

So I wonder what degree of "trauma" just this action causes blow the skin - besides all the necessary cutting steps.

On the other hand, maybe everything "just sounds more dramatic" than it is ...

[534623]

I didn't read all patent claims in detail (so I'm not 100&#37; sure) - but THAT'S what I understand how this approach should (basically) work:

Okay, at the moment I'm "studing" Dr. Wesley's patent in detail, and as far as I can ascertain - seems I was right with my first thoughts ...

http://www.baldtruthtalk.com/showpost.php?p=119177&postcount=85

For example, this is basically the "main approach" or "main idea" or "main difference", contrary to traditional FUE:

"20. The system of claim 14, wherein the extraction module is configured to subcutaneously extract a hair follicle."

That means, everything happens basically from BELOW the skin.

Furthermore, as you can read in the quote above, the extraction of the follicles/grafts happens "subcutaneously". That means in the layer below the dermis, which contains all the bigger blood vessels and nerves (which are also connected to ALL hair follicles in the whole donor area!) - what caused my first "headaches" after reading that ...

Now I try to figure out how Dr. Wesley tries to overcome these and some other "hurdles" with this (pretty interesting) approach ...

[topcat]

Sure this might be the next best thing since sliced bread but just as many have learned if you read history you don’t want to be the first to try something and you want to see a body of work showing results that warrant the excitement I see in this thread.

So yeah if it works great but more often than not it's about making money from your patented device and yes people that own the patents would love to share the technology with everyone the more the better that's why they own the patent.

Desperation often results in not liking to have to read or deal with reality.

[Jasari]

It has the potential to be as fast as FUT. I think Spencer mentioned that Dr Wesley said he would be able to get the same amount of grafts as FUT. Seems like a great system. Have assisstants load the hairs into Choi implanter pens as you go and just knock that shit out in no time

In that regard due to the ease of use it should be cheaper than FUE and hopefully on par with FUT - If the cost is something ridiculous like $7 per graft then it really won't be too big of a step forward.

[hellouser]

With all do respect, there is no point to hammering your opinion of where we should be in terms of a "cure", since this is where we are, and to be so negative about such a huge leap is just a waste of all of our time. Let's stay focused on the positives shall we. This type of negativity is getting so old.

This could be a wonderful treatment if it works well. If it's not good enough for you, then I guess you'll just have to figure something else out. It's unacceptable to all of us that there in no cure in 2013, why do you think we are on this forum?

I didnt say the procedure is unacceptable, or least meant that, I am trying to paint the picture that this only being available NOW while all other solutions are not, is unacceptable. I'm an NW3 myself so I could definitely get an HT or HST, but thats not important in the grand scheme of things since there are MANY men that have been CHEATED with the long-overdue proper treatment.

And no, this isnt a huge leap. Aderans being released today would be a huge step.

This is just incremental, nothing more, a bandaid to a much larger problem.

[PayDay]

That sounds good, but still unacceptable in 2013. Full out cure should have been a reality at least a decade ago.

That said, Gho should use this technique and increase the number of grafts per session for complete reversal. If even half the grafts regenerate out of 8,000, then we still have another 4,000 to use for a combined 12,000 grafts. That alone is ALMOST complete coverage for a full NW7

Average balding around is between 250-300cm2. For decent density, at 50 grafts/cm2, you need 15,000 grafts. At 250cm2, 12,500 grafts.

Its a damn shame Gho isnt doing much lessen the need for 7 visits over a span of 5+ years to get complete reversal with his HST method.

Regardless and I'll repeat, unacceptable in 2013.... ALL of todays methods and findings. Cure should have been here A LONG TIME AGO. To boast about these small incremental improvements is to fall privy to naivety and ignorance.

With all do respect, there is no point to hammering your opinion of where we should be in terms of a "cure", since this is where we are, and to be so negative about such a huge leap is just a waste of all of our time. Let's stay focused on the positives shall we. This type of negativity is getting so old.

This could be a wonderful treatment if it works well. If it's not good enough for you, then I guess you'll just have to figure something else out. It's unacceptable to all of us that there in no cure in 2013, why do you think we are on this forum?