The 50 Graft Test Procedure

[Arashi]

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?

For sure, will do that. If anything, this case might finally be proof of the whole 'failed extraction' thing But if this ends here, then it will only look worse for HASCI then it did before: like JJJJRS said, real regrowth might even be lower because of the transected hairs and the failed extraction. I just cant imagine it all ends here. I'm very confident they're straight people at HASCI, they want to proof what they can do and if this specific test fails here, I'm hopeful we can set up something better.

[JJJJrS]

For sure, will do that. If anything, this case might finally be proof of the whole 'failed extraction' thing But if this ends here, then it will only look worse for HASCI then it did before: like JJJJRS said, real regrowth might even be lower because of the transected hairs and the failed extraction. I just cant imagine it all ends here. I'm very confident they're straight people at HASCI, they want to proof what they can do and if this specific test fails here, I'm hopeful we can set up something better.

That's the frustrating thing though. If they had just followed our instructions and did the test properly, none of this would be a big deal and we'd be focusing on the results.

By performing the test the way they did, they just added infinitely more confusion.

[Arashi]

That's the frustrating thing though. If they had just followed our instructions and did the test properly, none of this would be a big deal and we'd be focusing on the results.

By performing the test the way they did, they just added infinitely more confusion.

I agree mate. I've forwarded your instructions and they've read them before the surgery. They decided to go for 200 grafts, for whatever reason, I don't know. Maybe they figured it added more statistical significance, which it does, but it's only manageable with good photo's ...

Anyway, I still do have some hope they have some good photo's.

[Arashi]

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?

That's a good one ! They use it quite a lot, but would it explain the whole difference ? I doubt it. But again, I'll ask Kristel. Usually she has a great explanation

[gc83uk]

I agree mate. I've forwarded your instructions and they've read them before the surgery. They decided to go for 200 grafts, for whatever reason, I don't know. Maybe they figured it added more statistical significance, which it does, but it's only manageable with good photo's ...

Anyway, I still do have some hope they have some good photo's.

The only reason they would have gone with 200 over 50 would have been to help out the patient and not treat him solely as a test case. Can't think of any other reason.

You obviously not buying into my local anesthetic theory then!

[JJJJrS]

I agree mate. I've forwarded your instructions and they've read them before the surgery. They decided to go for 200 grafts, for whatever reason, I don't know. Maybe they figured it added more statistical significance, which it does, but it's only manageable with good photo's ...

Anyway, I still do have some hope they have some good photo's.

With the way the procedure was preformed, we would have had to count 500+ hairs in the donor taking into consideration transections/failed extractions. If they felt 50 grafts wasn't enough, they should have communicated that with us before. Even 100 is a lot, but that would have been much more manageable. Right now, it's just a big giant cluster****.

In any case, there's no point in speculating. I'll wait and see what they come up with.

[Arashi]

The only reason they would have gone with 200 over 50 would have been to help out the patient and not treat him solely as a test case. Can't think of any other reason.

You obviously not buying into my local anesthetic theory then!

Yeah I was exactly thinking this being the reason to increase the test to 200. Nice gesture towards James but if it compromises the whole goal of the test, ultimately it might have been a very bad move.

Yeah I do believe your anesthetic theory makes a lot of sense. They use it all over your scalp and for sure blood will come out of the pinched hole. But then again, if we just had a good pre-op photo, none of this would be an issue. Without one, it is.

[Arashi]

In any case, there's no point in speculating. I'll wait and see what they come up with.

Agreed. We're only speculating here. Usually Kristel has a very valid explanation and I'm sure we'll get one here. And am still hopeful we're getting good pre-op photo's, so let's just wait what they'll have to say.

[JJJJrS]

Yeah I was exactly thinking this being the reason to increase the test to 200. Nice gesture towards James but if it compromises the whole goal of the test, ultimately it might have been a very bad move.

In this case, I think the most important thing james cares about is verification of the procedure. didi made a good point and said they could have offered him some free grafts for his follow-up procedures.

Regardless, while the scar area was a problem, the temple points weren't even a big priority for james. The only reason we put them there in the first place was because the area was relatively hair-less.

Yeah I do believe your anesthetic theory makes a lot of sense. They use it all over your scalp and for sure blood will come out of the pinched hole. But then again, if we just had a good pre-op photo, none of this would be an issue. Without one, it is.

Exactly. You'd be able to tell exactly which points were extractions. Transections and failed extractions wouldn't matter. All you'd do is count the hairs before and after extractions.

[Arashi]

Ok, I've sent an email to Kristel, asked her how we should see the difference between number of grafts and the pinched 'extraction' sites and also explained her that all this is going to fail without better pre-op photo's. Let's see what she comes up with.

[gc83uk]

Exactly. You'd be able to tell exactly which points were extractions. Transections and failed extractions wouldn't matter. All you'd do is count the hairs before and after extractions.

The only problem with this would be we don't know what % of tranections regrow, we're assuming its 100%, but if it's less, then we're doing an injustice to the % regrowth of the genuine hairs. This matters because I don't believe there is usually that many transections in the avg case and it might have more to do with James hair configuration and hair thickness as mentioned already by Kristel.

[JJJJrS]

The only problem with this would be we don't know what % of tranections regrow, we're assuming its 100%, but if it's less, then we're doing an injustice to the % regrowth of the genuine hairs. This matters because I don't believe there is usually that many transections in the avg case and it might have more to do with James hair configuration and hair thickness as mentioned already by Kristel.

HASCI will tell us how many grafts they extracted, including how many singles, doubles, and triples were extracted.

In that case we can reference the results in the donor with those numbers and the final recipient yield. For example, we can match up the number of extraction points to the number of implantation points and see if there is a discrepancy. We can compare the number of hairs that yield in the recipient or were reported as usable by HASCI with the the number of hairs that were found in the donor before extraction.

[gc83uk]

HASCI will tell us how many grafts they extracted, including how many singles, doubles, and triples were extracted.

In that case we can reference the results in the donor with those numbers and the final recipient yield. For example, we can match up the number of extraction points to the number of implantation points and see if there is a discrepancy. We can compare the number of hairs that yield in the recipient or were reported as usable by HASCI with the the number of hairs that were found in the donor before extraction.

I'm not sure how that answers my question.

Hasci have already told us how many singles, doubles and triples were extracted. Are you expecting to hear another set of figures from Hasci?

[JJJJrS]

I'm not sure how that answers my question.

Sorry, I think I misinterpreted your question.

I don't think we'll be able to look at an extraction point and determine whether it was a transected graft without extreme attention to detail on HASCI's part. In any case, transections are a part of the procedure and if they're not regenerating, then it should naturally have a negative effect on the overall donor regeneration. I hope that addressed your original question.

[534623]

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.

I think the real regeneration rate has been, in fact, zero.

Hey man, do you actually know yourself what shit you talk here?

This...

http://www.baldtruthtalk.com/showthread.php?t=11726

...is NOT "a" test-area, this is just "a" randomly chosen area - just "a" randomly chosen area out of the whole extraction area. And in additon, you can see an area which is treated already MULTIPLE TIMES!

Sure, everybody can suddenly see ZERO regeneration...sure...

If you want to see ZERO regeneration at all, please check-out JamesBald's normal FUE donor area ...

http://www2.picturepush.com/photo/a/12643610/img/12643610.jpg

... an FUE result just after - how many normal FUE extractions?? Pfffft...

Oh, by the way - I heard that there are FUE doctors out there who can extract up to 20,000 FUE's from a patients's donor area - yeah, sure ...