Dr Nigam, my own experience

[534623]

IM

Where in Germany do you live?

Who says that I live in Germany?
Just because I speak German (usually) - it doesn't mean that I live in "Germany".

[garethbale]

Who says that I live in Germany?
Just because I speak German (usually) - it doesn't mean that I live in "Germany".

Bloody hell. Keep your hair on. I was only enquiring

[caddarik79]

Nope. Things just don't add up there. I strongly believe regrowth is way lower than 80% and hence it's better to be cautious and use donor wisely. I'm going to wait for gc83uk's documentation first, hopefully that will finally yield the data and numbers we all have been wanting to see for years.

And in the mean time it's going to be extremely interesting to see how Tom's case develops. I'm still very skeptical regarding dr Nigams, but who know, it just might work

seriously? I remember reading an email of Deborah assuring to GC that it is 15-20% loss maximum

And what if nothing more positive than Gho comes out of Nigam and any other?
GC might reach a 6000 grafts when other surgeons were only saying 2000... triple of the result expected!!!! it gives one good point to Gho...

[caddarik79]

I've just booked mine today for December 2013.

btw - Very hot weather these days and can't wait to shave down my head again - because this year it's suddenly very warm also in my front area ...

IM, are you sure and convinced about the 80-85% regeneration?
I am thinking about a second to have an overall satisfying coverage and maybe have three years of tranquility and then enjoy a better treatment maybe, progress never goes backwards...after all.

I would then take care of my hairs with good shampoos, vitamin B cures, spirulina and maybe some 3 months aminexil every semester

[hellouser]

Bloody hell. Keep your hair on. I was only enquiring

He lives in the Fourth Reich.

[534623]

IM, are you sure and convinced about the 80-85% regeneration?

Absolutely. I have seen that in gc's case and in my own case (documented by JJJrS), and in around 5 month, I have more accurate data in my personal case.

gc, for example, is just "a" case. That means, in his case, even everything is very positive, it's difficult to judge accurately "the" regeneration rate, because gc had all his procedures so far very very close to each other (just 6-9 month between the procedures), and this, perhaps, could also influence things - or maybe just in one or the other patient - I don't know.

In simple words, even in a "worst-case" scenario, you CAN get and expect at least (minimum) twice as much from your donor area with HST, than with traditional techniques and without any noticable "thinning" - without any doubts.

[FearTheLoss]

Absolutely. I have seen that in gc's case and in my own case (documented by JJJrS), and in around 5 month, I have more accurate data in my personal case.

gc, for example, is just "a" case. That means, in his case, even everything is very positive, it's difficult to judge accurately "the" regeneration rate, because gc had all his procedures so far very very close to each other (just 6-9 month between the procedures), and this, perhaps, could also influence things - or maybe just in one or the other patient - I don't know.

In simple words, even in a "worst-case" scenario, you CAN get and expect at least (minimum) twice as much from your donor area with HST, than with traditional techniques and without any noticable "thinning" - without any doubts.

Ironman, I am going to have a procedure with Gho because I think, right now, it's definitely the best thing we have available...but I just don't understand why they shouldn't be able to "cure" any nw6 with their said 80% regeneration rate?

According to Dr. Yates, on average a patient should be able to get 7000-8000 grafts from their donor through FUE, on average....so even if the HST regeneration rate were 50%...shouldn't the average patient be able to get 10,500-12,000 grafts or more?

This all just seems a little fishy to me, because when I emailed Novia Mozart about this, she said she has put 6000 grafts on a nw6 so far...but we all know 6000 grafts isn't close to enough for decent density or full coverage.

[534623]

According to Dr. Yates, on average a patient should be able to get 7000-8000 grafts from their donor through FUE, on average....so even if the HST regeneration rate were 50%...shouldn't the average patient be able to get 10,500-12,000 grafts or more?

Really? Try to find 10 "average" in the hair transplant section, and post the links to "average" ...

If you have problems to find any "average" at all - let me know ...

In any case, what's really relevant is what works for YOU and what exactly HT doctors (including HSI doctors) can get from YOUR donor area - and not any other patient or from any fictitious numbers ...

The last part includes also "donor regeneration rates". That means, which regeneration rate did YOU got after the 1st, after the 2nd, after the 3rd treatment and so on? That's it what's really relevant - for YOU!

[sausage]

This all just seems a little fishy to me, because when I emailed Novia Mozart about this, she said she has put 6000 grafts on a nw6 so far...but we all know 6000 grafts isn't close to enough for decent density or full coverage.

as long as it is average density and the hairline is partially receded then from HT examples I have seen 6000 grafts should do the job.

[FearTheLoss]

Really? Try to find 10 "average" in the hair transplant section, and post the links to "average" ...

If you have problems to find any "average" at all - let me know ...

In any case, what's really relevant is what works for YOU and what exactly HT doctors (including HSI doctors) can get from YOUR donor area - and not any other patient or from any fictitious numbers ...

The last part includes also "donor regeneration rates". That means, which regeneration rate did YOU got after the 1st, after the 2nd, after the 3rd treatment and so on? That's it what's really relevant - for YOU!

Okay, so the regeneration rate for the first surgery is 80%+ but then it typically drops after each procedure?

[JJJJrS]

Absolutely. I have seen that in gc's case and in my own case (documented by JJJrS), and in around 5 month, I have more accurate data in my personal case.

I definitely didn't document 80% regeneration of hairs in the donor and I know you didn't either. From what I've seen it's much less than that. Frankly, there is zero evidence of this 80-85% figure HASCI likes to throw around and of course, they'd rather avoid this issue than set up a simple test to conclusively prove their claims. Interesting, isn't it?

[Boldy]

I definitely didn't document 80% regeneration of hairs in the donor and I know you didn't either. From what I've seen it's much less than that. Frankly, there is zero evidence of this 80-85% figure HASCI likes to throw around and of course, they'd rather avoid this issue than set up a simple test to conclusively prove their claims. Interesting, isn't it?

what percentage do you think it was in your case? 50%? +-, if so, still not bad compared with normal fue's depletion.

[Arashi]

what percentage do you think it was in your case? 50%? +-, if so, still not bad compared with normal fue's depletion.

In gc's case the effective regeneration rate was 65%, but this was excluding the failed extractions and without monitoring recipient. True regeneration rate thus was (way ?) lower. Without a doubt, HASCI offers currently the best HT in the world. However, if regeneration is for example 40%, that would mean that you still should be very careful using your donor and not for example do the hairline+temples twice to increase density, which I initially planned to do. Even HASCI adviced me not to do that, and that makes a lot of sense if regeneration is for example 40%.

Like said, I don't think HASCI is lying about the 80-85% regeneration rate, but that this rather is a best case scenario and that the median is possibly way lower.

[gc83uk]

In gc's case the effective regeneration rate was 65%, but this was excluding the failed extractions and without monitoring recipient. True regeneration rate thus was (way ?) lower. Without a doubt, HASCI offers currently the best HT in the world. However, if regeneration is for example 40%, that would mean that you still should be very careful using your donor and not for example do the hairline+temples twice to increase density, which I initially planned to do. Even HASCI adviced me not to do that, and that makes a lot of sense if regeneration is for example 40%.

Like said, I don't think HASCI is lying about the 80-85% regeneration rate, but that this rather is a best case scenario and that results vary (widely) from patient to patient.

My take on all this is that the 85% that HASCI talk about is not NET regeneration of hairs, but 85% regeneration of grafts, whether partial or full. What does this mean? Well if a 1 hair graft regrows out of what was once a 2 hair graft then they call this regeneration, albeit that is only 50% net regeneration of the hairs.

Many of the 2 hair grafts which were extracted also regenerated as 2 hair grafts, 100% net regeneration of hair, this we shouldn't forget.

I agree with the 65% figure in the statistical analysis by JJJJrS, but I don't tend to believe there were many failed extractions if any. Probably an unpopular opinion, but nevertheless it's what I believe.

So I believe the real figure is approx 65%.

The failed extraction theory will be the easiest of tests to prove, simply counting all the bloody spots on in the donor area, I only do 700ish extractions per day over two days, so counting 700 extraction sites that evening should be a piece of piss.

[Arashi]

seriously? I remember reading an email of Deborah assuring to GC that it is 15-20% loss maximum

And what if nothing more positive than Gho comes out of Nigam and any other?
GC might reach a 6000 grafts when other surgeons were only saying 2000... triple of the result expected!!!! it gives one good point to Gho...

In the 2 '50 graft tests' they've done, we saw that they mainly transplanted single hair grafts, even while the 2nd patient had very average, normal caucasian hair. If they transplant on average 1.3 hair/graft, then that's half of what other clinic's transplant. Hence 6000 hasci grafts would equal 3000 regular grafts.

Furthermore there are lots of things pointing to lower regeneration rate. For example the gc testcase, the fact that after 15 years of doing business they can't show us 1 single patient who had 10k+ grafts, the fact that none of the celebrities went for more than 3 HST's and that they even advice a max of 3 HST's if you want to be able to shave your hair short. I know that all this isn't conclusive 'evidence', but it's all we have. Hopefully that will change in a few months when gc is going to fully document his next HST.