The 50 Graft Test Procedure

[gc83uk]

What I think is your photo is more accurate, I've been going through your photo and adding extra circles to mine, only because mine might be easier to use for later analysis.

It's giving me a ****ing headache though. lol. I've only seen about 3 circles in yours which I didn't agree with and I'm up to about 280 circles now. So I reckon it's about 300ish if I had to guess.

I give up for now!

[JJJJrS]

What do you think, GC ? Like said I encircled 310, but you encircled some which I didn't, so there are even more POSSIBLE extraction sites.

When I look at my own picture, I've probably encircled a few which aren't really extraction sites, but to me it seems there must be at LEAST 250. While HASCI only extracted 200 grafts. What do you guys (except Didi, lol) think ? Shall I ask Kristel about this ? Or do any of you guys have a logical explanation here ?

I think most of those are failed extractions (i.e., transections) and they simply discarded those grafts.

Overall, I think HASCI made things far more complicated by extracting so many. The whole point of this procedure was to give us a proof of concept but honestly, after everything I've seen so far, I have absolutely no idea how they expected this was going to prove anything. It's especially frustrating when we gave them detailed instructions and they proceeded to ignore practically all of these points.

[Arashi]

I think most of those are failed extractions (i.e., transections) and they simply discarded those grafts.

Overall, I think HASCI made things far more complicated by extracting so many. The whole point of this procedure was to give us a proof of concept but honestly, after everything I've seen so far, I have absolutely no idea how they expected this was going to prove anything. It's especially frustrating when we gave them detailed instructions and they proceeded to ignore practically all of these points.

Especially combined with what indeed must be failed extractions and we don't even know if there were 1's or 2's, which ones were failed and which ones are not, it's going to be next to impossible.

Of course, IF they got us a good pre-op picture, then there would still be hope, albeit it's going to be a hell of a job. So although I totally agree to what you just said, I'm not going to give up just yet, there is still some hope.

[Arashi]

Because, really, a good pre-op picture is all we really need. Then the failed extractions dont even matter, cause they're supposed to grow back anyway.

[Arashi]

But unfortunately it will also mean that if we don't get a good pre-op picture, then this just all ends here. Because due to the discrepancy between the number of grafts and the extraction sites, we have no way of telling what was in the 'failed extraction' sites and the puzzle just can't be solved anymore.

[JJJJrS]

Especially combined with what indeed must be failed extractions and we don't even know if there were 1's or 2's, which ones were failed and which ones are not, it's going to be next to impossible.

Of course, IF they got us a good pre-op picture, then there would still be hope, albeit it's going to be a hell of a job. So although I totally agree to what you just said, I'm not going to give up just yet, there is still some hope.

I'll wait to see if james or HASCI can provide any more pictures. After that, I'll review all the evidence and see what I can come up with. I'll try my best but at this point, it doesn't look promising.

james photos aren't even that bad but there's just way too many extraction points spread over too large of an area. It makes it really hard to capture everything one photo and just as hard to analyze. It doesn't even look like we have a good before photo.

[gc83uk]

I think most of those are failed extractions (i.e., transections) and they simply discarded those grafts.

Overall, I think HASCI made things far more complicated by extracting so many. The whole point of this procedure was to give us a proof of concept but honestly, after everything I've seen so far, I have absolutely no idea how they expected this was going to prove anything. It's especially frustrating when we gave them detailed instructions and they proceeded to ignore practically all of these points.

Precisely!

When these completely transected FUs regrow in the donor, there will be at least 50 of them. Again this is another reason which skews the results badly.

When we originally thought we only had to count the number of hairs in the petri dish, how wrong!!! We also need to know how many hairs were in these 50 completely transected grafts.

Or even better the before photo where we can physically count all the hairs in those 300+ extraction sites. That will be almost impossible unfortunately.

But I would bet there is 400 hairs in the petri and about 100 hairs that were extracted and simply not used at all.

Put it another way, if we get 250 hairs regrowing out of those 300 extraction sites, then we have 0% regrowth, agree?

[JJJJrS]

Because, really, a good pre-op picture is all we really need. Then the failed extractions dont even matter, cause they're supposed to grow back anyway.

Yes, exactly.

I tried to stress how important this was before the procedure.

Based on all this, my conclusion now is that gc's regeneration rate is significantly lower than ~65% I came up with, which didn't take any of this into account. If they're getting this many transections/failed extractions with a simple, proof-of-concept procedure, I imagine it must be even higher for standard procedures where time is an issue.

[gc83uk]

Yes, exactly.

I tried to stress how important this was before the procedure.

Based on all this, my conclusion now is that gc's regeneration rate is significantly lower than ~65% I came up with, which didn't take any of this into account. If they're getting this many transections/failed extractions with a simple, proof-of-concept procedure, I imagine it must be even higher for standard procedures where time is an issue.

My only hope here is that each case differs dramatically and with my hairs being thinner I had less transections.

[Arashi]

My only hope here is that each case differs dramatically and with my hairs being thinner I had less transections.

Well, I think your case IS very different. Remember when we talked about the failed extraction thing ? We now see that James has quite a few. I had many as well. Then, you said you were going to count, which you did, and concluded that in your case there were almost no failed extraction. If I remember correctly they even showed you the failed ones, right ?

[Arashi]

Anyway, unfortunately this all means that if we don't get a good pre-op picture, then this just all ends here. Because due to the discrepancy between the number of grafts and the extraction sites, we have no way of telling what was in the 'failed extraction' sites and the puzzle just can't be solved anymore.

[JJJJrS]

My only hope here is that each case differs dramatically and with my hairs being thinner I had less transections.

The most important thing is the final aesthetic outcome. In your case, your donor looks in great shape and things are starting to fill up in the recipient. So I really wouldn't worry about it.

I'm just focusing on it from a statistical and technical standpoint.

We counted around 400-450 hairs in the petri dish. Add another 50 grafts corresponding to the failed extractions, which probably means adding ~100 hairs to the total hair count, and you have an enormous influence on the perceived donor regeneration rate.

All of these hairs by the way, were just to extract 250 usable hairs!

[gc83uk]

Well, I think your case IS very different. Remember when we talked about the failed extraction thing ? We now see that James has quite a few. I had many as well. Then, you said you were going to count, which you did, and concluded that in your case there were almost no failed extraction. If I remember correctly they even showed you the failed ones, right ?

Correct, there was just 1 graft unusable from memory.

BUT

I counted more drills then extractions. I put this down to a multitude of reasons. Pressing the drill right before actually drilling etc, but I do think some drills are made where nothing comes out, just a bloody mess and the graft stays in the donor. This is just my take anyway.

[gc83uk]

Anyway, unfortunately this all means that if we don't get a good pre-op picture, then this just all ends here. Because due to the discrepancy between the number of grafts and the extraction sites, we have no way of telling what was in the 'failed extraction' sites and the puzzle just can't be solved anymore.

Seeing as your firing emails back and to with Kristel, I don't think it would do much harm to email her that we have all counted over 300 extractions, but only 203 grafts were extracted, so why the extra 100 holes in the donor?

[gc83uk]

Hang on a minute, I've had an epiphany.

The local local anesthetic. How many times do they shove that big ****ing needle in your donor? That would cause plenty of holes/bloody spots right?