The 50 Graft Test Procedure

[JJJJrS]

I cannot accept these are all because of telogen.

I would actually rather believe they are transections that didn't fit into the drill and the transected hairs will regrow in the donor as normal.

Surely this is what's happening here!

When someone counts the number of hairs from the '1' subsection, it will be more than obvious that they are not just hairs in telogen.

[Arashi]

When someone counts the number of hairs from the '1' subsection, it will be more than obvious that they are not just hairs in telogen.

By looking at that petridish I think you are going to be right. Way too many 'telogen' in the 1's section.

[JJJJrS]

By looking at that petridish I think you are going to be right. Way too many 'telogen' in the 1's section.

Now imagine if we didn't take this into account and how distorted the regeneration rate would have turned out.

[Arashi]

But does it make any difference ? Either telogen or not: simply the fact that we SEE a hair is of importance here. This will tell us how many hairs there were in donor. If it really got extracted (telogen) or just was a transection doesn't matter for that.

Next we're going to count, over time, how many hairs are left in the donor after a few months and how many hairs grew in recipient. That's all we need to know, right ?

[gc83uk]

That certainly is a possibility. But then again, according to that article 10% should be in telogen and that's pretty consistent with our find (HASCI counted 2x50 = 100, we're at 110-ish)

That's one way of looking at it

I guess it's best to count section 1 and then make some calculations.

[gc83uk]

When someone counts the number of hairs from the '1' subsection, it will be more than obvious that they are not just hairs in telogen.

Exactly......

[gc83uk]

But does it make any difference ? Either telogen or not: simply the fact that we SEE a hair is of importance here. This will tell us how many hairs there were in donor. If it really got extracted (telogen) or just was a transection doesn't matter for that.

Next we're going to count, over time, how many hairs are left in the donor after a few months and how many hairs grew in recipient. That's all we need to know, right ?

Yes it's great we will know how many hairs were in the donor.

But don't you see my point here? We ain't going to have anywhere near the number of hairs growing in the recipient that we're counting right now.

So where have they gone?

[Arashi]

No, scratch this

[Arashi]

Let's say someone has 1000 hairs transplanted. HASCI would say: 80% regrowth. Hence he'd sacrifce 200 hairs to have 1000 new once.

Now let's say that we count 400 hairs in the petridish. This means 400 hairs were present in the grafts.

Now, after a year let's say 200 will grow in recipient. This would mean that to get TRUE regrowth of 80%, we'd need to see 360 hairs in donor after a year. Right ? I think that's the way to calculate true regrowth.

[gc83uk]

No, we'll get 200 hairs in recipient. Not sure what you're point is GC, what are you saying ?

For example, let's say we counted a total of 400 hairs. After a year, 300 are left in donor and we see 200 in recipient. That's 100% regrowth, or 'doubling' right ? Sacrificied 100 hairs in donor, got 200 in recipient. Doubled.

If after a year we see 200 in donor and 200 in recipient, then there was no regrowth at all and basically the procedure is just an ordinary FUE.

If after a year we see 100 in donor and 200 in recipient, then that's a HORRIBLE FUE: James misses now 300 hairs in donor and only got 200 in recipient.

This is the way to look at it or am I missing something ?

OK well without counting section 1, I would guess there is 300 hairs in there. Complete rough guess, but works for this example. So in total we count 412 hairs in section 1 and 2....

200 hairs grow in the recipient, actually didn't they say 150 grafts extracted, 150 singles and 50 doubles? So in fact we should be expecting 250 hairs in the recipient right?

OK question for you, what are you expecting to regrow back in the donor area? 412 hairs or 250 hairs?

I think at least 250 will regenerate, but where are the other 182 hairs gone? According to Iron Man they are in telogen.

If they are in telogen which I don't believe then, none of these 182 hairs will grow back in the donor as Iron Man explained before.

However if they are merely transections, then I THINK transections grow back fine, correct me if I'm wrong here?

Even if these 182 transections do grow back, how distorting is it to know that all our previous analysis work on my photos and other photos could mostly be because of regrowing transections?

Tell me I'm wrong.

[Arashi]

OK well without counting section 1, I would guess there is 300 hairs in there. Complete rough guess, but works for this example. So in total we count 412 hairs in section 1 and 2....

200 hairs grow in the recipient, actually didn't they say 150 grafts extracted, 150 singles and 50 doubles? So in fact we should be expecting 250 hairs in the recipient right?

OK question for you, what are you expecting to regrow back in the donor area? 412 hairs or 250 hairs?

I think at least 250 will regenerate, but where are the other 182 hairs gone? According to Iron Man they are in telogen.

If they are in telogen which I don't believe then, none of these 182 hairs will grow back in the donor as Iron Man explained before.

However if they are merely transections, then I THINK transections grow back fine, correct me if I'm wrong here?

Even if these 182 transections do grow back, how distorting is it to know that all our previous analysis work on my photos and other photos could mostly be because of regrowing transections?

Tell me I'm wrong.

Will read your post now, but please see that I've scratched the part that you've quoted, it was wrong. I replaced it with another post, see above.

[JJJJrS]

Technically, many of the transections should regenerate in the donor, but we'll see.

Provided the pictures turn out well, the numbers that we will come up will give us a very good idea of what's happening.

In this case, the most important number in the end will be the multiplication rate, i.e., how many hairs we started out with vs. how many hairs we end up with.

[gc83uk]

Let's say someone has 1000 hairs transplanted. HASCI would say: 80% regrowth. Hence he'd sacrifce 200 hairs to have 1000 new once.

Now let's say that we count 400 hairs in the petridish. This means 400 hairs were present in the grafts.

Now, after a year let's say 200 will grow in recipient. This would mean that to get TRUE regrowth of 80%, we'd need to see 360 hairs in donor after a year. Right ? I think that's the way to calculate true regrowth.

Sorry I can't follow that at all.

If you count 400 hairs in the petri and only 200 grow in the recipient, then you should be less happy than having all 400 growing in the recipient. 350 would be acceptable I suppose because of telogen....

However even if 360 of the 400 regrow in the donor, what your saying here is that because you only started with 400 hairs and you've ended up receiving 200 in the recipient and only lost 40 in the donor, so your happy because you've a net gain of 160 hairs?

Any gain of hairs is great, not quite doubling though is it.

Wouldn't it be nice to have 400 hairs extracted, regrow 360 in the donor and grow 350-400 in the recipient? Why isn't that happening yet do you think?

Net gain of 310-360

[Arashi]

OK well without counting section 1, I would guess there is 300 hairs in there. Complete rough guess, but works for this example. So in total we count 412 hairs in section 1 and 2....

200 hairs grow in the recipient, actually didn't they say 150 grafts extracted, 150 singles and 50 doubles? So in fact we should be expecting 250 hairs in the recipient right?

OK question for you, what are you expecting to regrow back in the donor area? 412 hairs or 250 hairs?

I think at least 250 will regenerate, but where are the other 182 hairs gone? According to Iron Man they are in telogen.

If they are in telogen which I don't believe then, none of these 182 hairs will grow back in the donor as Iron Man explained before.

However if they are merely transections, then I THINK transections grow back fine, correct me if I'm wrong here?

Even if these 182 transections do grow back, how distorting is it to know that all our previous analysis work on my photos and other photos could mostly be because of regrowing transections?

Tell me I'm wrong.

Your point is that all previous research is invalid right ? Yeah I guess you have a point

On the other hand, we'll NOW know about true regrowth and it can be easily calculated by the ratio between sacrified hairs in donor vs new hairs in recipient.

[Arashi]

However even if 360 of the 400 regrow in the donor, what your saying here is that because you only started with 400 hairs and you've ended up receiving 200 in the recipient and only lost 40 in the donor, so your happy because you've a net gain of 160 hairs?

You've sacrificed 40 hairs in donor and got 200 in recipient. This would be great, or am I missing something ? Effectively this is 80% true regrowth.