PiloFocus: Dr. Carlos Wesley

[HairTalk]

I've been a member of this forum on TheBaldTruth.com for a few years, as of 2014, and I've never bothered to comment hopefully on hairloss research. Not Aderans, Histogen, TrichoScience, bimatoprost, ACell, P.R.P. — nothing. Some concepts have sounded interesting, but nothing's been substantial enough over which to become seriously excited.

Dr. Carlos Wesley's PiloFocus technique, to me, seems like the next significant move forward in the treatment of hairloss. I do not know whether it will succeed in expanding donor supply, but I feel enthusiastic and hopeful about its potential — literally within the next year — to deliver scar-free transplantation (scar-free in the donor area, not including a single minor, non-hypopigmented linear scar, ~one centimeter long).

I think it also might help pioneer techniques that do increase donor supply, but I would not bait my breath over this. Overcoming donor scarring, however, is not small feat, and I commend Dr. Wesley for his inventive and effective approach.

A link to more information, including an honest and detailed video:

http://drcarloswesley.com/scarless_surgery.html

[hellouser]

If its scarless, what will be pretty cool is the fact that you'll be able to strip the entire hairline from ear to ear giving you a SIGNIFICANT amount of grafts to implant anywhere else. I'd be fine with a receding hairline around the back, but obviously NOT the front. Perhaps this would finally enable us to get to full coverage at slightly lower density?

[kobefan234]

If its scarless, what will be pretty cool is the fact that you'll be able to strip the entire hairline from ear to ear giving you a SIGNIFICANT amount of grafts to implant anywhere else. I'd be fine with a receding hairline around the back, but obviously NOT the front. Perhaps this would finally enable us to get to full coverage at slightly lower density?

what kind of haircut would be applicable ?

[FearTheLoss]

It's already been confirmed that pilofocus will have regeneration. We just don't know what percentage of hairs will regenerate yet. That being said, the treatment will already expland the entire donor area giving you much better results than traditional hair transplantation. Also, the yield is higher.

[Seuxin]

And when it will be available ? Two years ? Ten years ? And where ? Only in the US ?

[fred970]

I'm sorry FearTheLoss, but this is just a lie. Donor regeneration is still science-fiction.

FUE is 15 years old and is the current gold standard for a reason.

14 years left before pilofocus reach that status. I would have done it in a decade. Jumping on it once it's available for the public would be a mistake in my opinion.

Just like doing LASIK in the 90's would have been a mistake, as we know now that the flap never heals and a bump in your eyes can damage it and leave you screwed for life. That's why I got PRK for my myopia in 2011, and that's why I just had a FUE. Security.

Who knows what the long-term (and even short-term) downsides of this technique are.

[ss1980]

This Pilofocus is taking waay too long, it was supposed to be on the market at the end of last year and now we are half way through 2014 and still nothing.

FUE still rules

[HairTalk]

It's already been confirmed that pilofocus will have regeneration. We just don't know what percentage of hairs will regenerate yet. That being said, the treatment will already expland the entire donor area giving you much better results than traditional hair transplantation. Also, the yield is higher.

It's this sort of mindless blowhard claim-laying that leads to the baseless raising of expectations, followed by the inevitable deflation of spirits.

It has not "been confirmed that PiloFocus will have regeneration." Dr. Wesley states he is interested in exploring the potential for hair multiplication in piloscopic transplant surgery, but, as of early June, 2014, we have not been presented with any data in this regard.

It also is absurd to boast piloscopy will "[expand] the entire donor area[,] giving [...] much better results than traditional hair transplantation." On what evidence could you possibly make this statement?

Piloscopy is novel and it is exciting. It's creative, and I think we would be right to feel enthusiastic about it. We should be enthusiastic, however, about what it is, and not be fanciful about desires we have from it. Piloscopic transplantation likely will permit scar-free donor areas. That's great, and that's what we should feel glad about, right now.

I'm sorry FearTheLoss, but this is just a lie. Donor regeneration is still science-fiction.

FUE is 15 years old and is the current gold standard for a reason.

14 years left before pilofocus reach that status. I would have done it in a decade. Jumping on it once it's available for the public would be a mistake in my opinion.

[...]

Who knows what the long-term (and even short-term) downsides of this technique are.

I favor your conservative approach. Just as things can seem great on paper, but not translate into clinical results, clinical results that are new and interesting can carry with themselves unforeseen and undesirable consequences.

Personally, if piloscopy catches on, I think it can do so within three to five years. Also, personally, observing the principle behind the approach, I don't believe it will entail a lot of unforeseen danger — but, hey, again, also in my opinion, conservative is a respectable position to assume.

[mikeswick]

I'm sorry FearTheLoss, but this is just a lie. Donor regeneration is still science-fiction.

FUE is 15 years old and is the current gold standard for a reason.

14 years left before pilofocus reach that status. I would have done it in a decade. Jumping on it once it's available for the public would be a mistake in my opinion.

Just like doing LASIK in the 90's would have been a mistake, as we know now that the flap never heals and a bump in your eyes can damage it and leave you screwed for life. That's why I got PRK for my myopia in 2011, and that's why I just had a FUE. Security.

Who knows what the long-term (and even short-term) downsides of this technique are.

no ur just a ***** who prolly freaks out after drinking 1 day old milk

[sdsurfin]

no ur just a ***** who prolly freaks out after drinking 1 day old milk

When I contacted Dr. Wesley about maybe implanting DP spheroids into pilofocus donor sites, he didn't seem to give off the impression that pilofocus is gonna give a lot of regeneration. I think if anything it might be so precise that maybe you dont lose all of those follicles, but I doubt it's substantial enough to make a difference. what is clear from what he says is that regeneration is not at all a main goal. he is trying to make a more scarless procedure- bottom line. this is not a cure for baldness, but is pretty cool nonetheless if surgery is what you are after. personally i think HTs just make someone who is obviously balding look slightly less wack, but still obviously balding. Id rather shave it all off and look clean and badass.

[joachim]

although i think that pilofocus is indeed a cool approach and a nice addition to the current FUE methods, i'm on the other hand not really impressed. there's probably not going to be any regeneration at all (why should it? based on what theory? ACell only?).
i had so much hope in pilofocus last year because it was SO EXTREMELY hyped up by artista and even spencer, but in the end it's nothing spectacular.
and it's naive to think that pilofocus will be available worldwide. 9 of 10 current FUE docs will stick to their method. why should they be interested in learning something new? they even have to buy the equipment and licenses from Dr. wesley.
will they get more profit out of this? i don't think so. so if there's not more money to earn, i don't see doctors adopting this. only a few doctors are eager to always work with the latest technology but most of them don't give a shit at all. hell, there are still a LOT hair transplant docs who are offering strip procedures ONLY because there's no reason for them to try something different. as long as there are customers who pay for the strip procedures, there's no motivation to switch.
it's sad but that's the cruel reality.
however, if pilofocus is a big deal, then everybody still has the possibility to book the treatment at wesley's clinic. so, worldwide availability is not a must.

[baldymcgee]

I'm sorry FearTheLoss, but this is just a lie. Donor regeneration is still science-fiction.

FUE is 15 years old and is the current gold standard for a reason.

14 years left before pilofocus reach that status. I would have done it in a decade. Jumping on it once it's available for the public would be a mistake in my opinion.

Just like doing LASIK in the 90's would have been a mistake, as we know now that the flap never heals and a bump in your eyes can damage it and leave you screwed for life. That's why I got PRK for my myopia in 2011, and that's why I just had a FUE. Security.

Who knows what the long-term (and even short-term) downsides of this technique are.

You're right, and I don't think that anyone disagrees with you.

But just as we needed doctors to work on FUE and patients to take that risk (otherwise we'd still only have strip), we need people to move on new techniques like Pilofocus.

Personally I think that the complete absence of scars and the reduction in transection could be a *huge* step in the right direction.

Now the good Dr. Wesley just needs to make this procedure available to the general public

[FearTheLoss]

It's this sort of mindless blowhard claim-laying that leads to the baseless raising of expectations, followed by the inevitable deflation of spirits.

It has not "been confirmed that PiloFocus will have regeneration." Dr. Wesley states he is interested in exploring the potential for hair multiplication in piloscopic transplant surgery, but, as of early June, 2014, we have not been presented with any data in this regard.

It also is absurd to boast piloscopy will "[expand] the entire donor area[,] giving [...] much better results than traditional hair transplantation." On what evidence could you possibly make this statement?

Piloscopy is novel and it is exciting. It's creative, and I think we would be right to feel enthusiastic about it. We should be enthusiastic, however, about what it is, and not be fanciful about desires we have from it. Piloscopic transplantation likely will permit scar-free donor areas. That's great, and that's what we should feel glad about, right now.



I favor your conservative approach. Just as things can seem great on paper, but not translate into clinical results, clinical results that are new and interesting can carry with themselves unforeseen and undesirable consequences.

Personally, if piloscopy catches on, I think it can do so within three to five years. Also, personally, observing the principle behind the approach, I don't believe it will entail a lot of unforeseen danger — but, hey, again, also in my opinion, conservative is a respectable position to assume.

You obviously haven't read any of the old pilofocus threads, and clearly have no idea of acell potential. Dr cole knows it regenerates hairs, but he can't get consistent results and claims because the acell leaks from fue when on the OUTSIDE. If acell were to be packed on the inside where it cannot leak, then the problem would be solved. Also, artista has seen the presentation none of us were allowed to see and he said no doubt it will have regeneration, it's just uncertain how high or low of a percentage we will see consistently.

[joachim]

You obviously haven't read any of the old pilofocus threads, and clearly have no idea of acell potential. Dr cole knows it regenerates hairs, but he can't get consistent results and claims because the acell leaks from fue when on the OUTSIDE. If acell were to be packed on the inside where it cannot leak, then the problem would be solved. Also, artista has seen the presentation none of us were allowed to see and he said no doubt it will have regeneration, it's just uncertain how high or low of a percentage we will see consistently.

are you serious? this is the biggest problem, that ACell leaks out of the FUE punches? dr. cole said that?

i can't believe this, but i would like to. i can imagine MANY ways to keep the ACell inside the punches. and also many other clever people (doctors, engineers, etc.) could find a solution to that.

e.g. there is a gel which closes wounds in organs during surgery.
there are lots of glue-like stuff like this which would be probably suitable for this.
and even if ACell has to be applied every fu**** day after surgery via needles or mesoguns or whatever, to regenerate donor, we would definitely find a solution if we put all brainpower together.

so why are we not fully concentrating on finding a method then?

[FearTheLoss]

are you serious? this is the biggest problem, that ACell leaks out of the FUE punches? dr. cole said that?

i can't believe this, but i would like to. i can imagine MANY ways to keep the ACell inside the punches. and also many other clever people (doctors, engineers, etc.) could find a solution to that.

e.g. there is a gel which closes wounds in organs during surgery.
there are lots of glue-like stuff like this which would be probably suitable for this.
and even if ACell has to be applied every fu**** day after surgery via needles or mesoguns or whatever, to regenerate donor, we would definitely find a solution if we put all brainpower together.

so why are we not fully concentrating on finding a method then?

We are. Dr Wesley is running clinical trials soon for it.