HST invivo extracts complete follicle with bulb, as can be seen in their Petri dish of 200 grafts sample, Dr. Nigam's In-Vivo does not extracts complete follicle but partial follicle without bulb as per the pics of his partial follicle extracted in Vivo are posted on his thread of NW7 case in TBT.
HST claims that they break the stemcell portion at the donor and because they soak their extracted follicle in preservation medium they claim that they can multiply follice, which he doubts is true.
At Dr. Nigam's, he extracts partial follicle at the level of dermal papilla so that even the partial follicle has some portion of dermal papilla, which has capacity to regenerate into a complete follicle
At Dr. Nigam's, he has access to progenitor stemcells from lab,growth factors to boost the partial follicle growth.
Also why he modified the technique to In-Vivo from In-Vitro is to avoid total extraction of graft. They both have their role depends on case to case
However both great techniques of Gho's HST and Nigam's SHD are scarless. There is no wastage of grafts with Dr. Nigam's SHD..as you can see with HST 200 grafts test they had to throw away 50 grafts.
HST claims donor regeneration of 80% while Dr. Nigam's claims regeneration of 100%. However recipient regeneration claim by both is same. Also the price is cheaper due to the location probably.
Finally unfortunately Dr. Umar, Dr. Rassman and Dr Rahal doubt HST saying that they extract one follicle out of 2 follicles and implant at the recipient.
After all I respect both surgeons Dr. Gho and Dr. Nigam and believe that they are trying hard to bring FUE and Hair doubling to another level. Im just a messenger guys so take it easy on me.
Leave a comment: