a case study of DONOR REGENERATION with the FUE-L Technique by Dr B. MOUSSEIGNE

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Mathieu
    Member
    • Mar 2013
    • 41

    a case study of DONOR REGENERATION with the FUE-L Technique by Dr B. MOUSSEIGNE

    Dear BTT members & users,

    as announced in a previous thread (http://www.baldtruthtalk.com/showthread.php?t=11777), I'll gladly share with you proof of effective donor regeneration. Please bear in mind this is just a "teaser" exclusively meant for you, and that we'll provide higher quality documentation in the future (both for medical & commercial purpose).
    That being said, I think the following documents should suffice to support our main claim: we do achieve steady donor regeneration thanks to our FUE-L technique. More details about this new technique will be revealed soon, so please be patient and don't misjudge us for not disclosing everything immediately



    About the patient:

    - 30 yo male
    - No medicinal treatment (e.g. finasteride, minoxidil, etc.)
    - No previous surgical experience
    - Diffuse pattern of hairloss with a slightly receding hairline (NWD2).
    - Hair characteristics: black colour, under-average caliber, wavy texture (but regular subcutaneous refractive angles).
    - No specific skin condition

    Dr Mousseigne qualifies him as a fairly average patient; his thin hair caliber being compensated by a high skin/hair contrast.



    About the procedure:

    this test was performed in early April 2013. Other similar tests have been done earlier this year and in late 2012.

    I decided to analyze and document a restricted perimeter of the whole test area, which included 100 Follicular Units (FU) before the extractions began. I thought this rather large sample would give everybody here a good idea of our technique's efficiency.

    Three different steps of the procedure have been precisely analyzed:
    - pre-op
    - immediately post-op
    - 12 days post-op

    Each of these steps comes with an annotated macro picture, a chart, and synthetic comments.

    If you deem it necessary, I will also be able to provide pictures from the +4 day & +6 day marks. I'll just need a little additional time to annotate and analyze them.



    Once again, this study case works as a proof for donor regeneration after FU's extractions. We are not publishing pictures of the recipient area, because it would be too early to notice signs of regrowth anyway. Soon we'll share complete study cases with high standard documentation (including macro polarized shots & overall professional settings).
    Thanks for both your interest and understanding.
  • Mathieu
    Member
    • Mar 2013
    • 41

    #2


    The analyzed perimeter includes 100 Follicular Units (FU). In the chart below, each FU and its type (1 hair, 2 hairs, 3 hairs, 4 hairs) are listed as accurately as the image allowed me to be.





    h = hair(s)
    FU = Follicular Unit



    Follicular Units' breakdown:
    FU 1 hair = 17% (17)
    FU 2 hairs = 68% (68)
    FU 3 hairs = 13% (13)
    FU 4 hairs = 2% (2)

    These 100 Follicular Units (FU) contain a total of 200 hairs (h).
    That gives a h/FU ratio of 2.0, which matches average caucasian characteristics.

    Comment

    • gc83uk
      Senior Member
      • Nov 2011
      • 1340

      #3
      Hello Mathieu

      Thank you for taking the time! When can we expect to see the post op photo?

      Can you tell me what size needles you're using to extract?

      Thanks

      Comment

      • Mathieu
        Member
        • Mar 2013
        • 41

        #4


        The picture was taken immediately after the Follicular Units' extraction.
        For further details, please check out the chart below.






        h = hair(s)
        FU = Follicular Unit
        / = the FU was left untouched


        Over a total of 100 Follicular Units within the test area:
        -60 were harvested
        -40 were left untouched

        Which equals a graft harvesting as high as 60% of all the FU within the test area.

        With traditional FUE (# FUE-L), it is recommended not to harvest more than 30% of FU of a given area, following a specific harvesting pattern, so the patient won't suffer from visible scarring (i.e. sum of hypopigmented dots) and/or donor depletion.
        With traditional FUE, 60% FU harvesting would most likely cause the aforementioned problems.


        Further details:

        FU 1 hair = approx. 3,3% of the attempted removals (2/60) ; 50% succesful removal rate (1/2 h)
        FU 2 hairs = approx. 73,3% of the attempted removals (44/60) ; 80,7% succesful removal rate (71/88 h)
        FU 3 hairs = 20% of the attempted removals (12/60) ; 75% successful removal rate (27/36 h)
        FU 4 hairs = approx. 3,3% of the attempted removals (2/60) ; 87,5% successful removal rate (7/8 h)

        total of hairs available in the 60 FU = 134
        total of hairs successfully removed = 106
        total of hairs transected = 28


        Summary:

        60% of the Follicular Units available in the test area were harvested, which is twice the amount recommended with traditional FUE (in order to avoid donor depletion or excessive visible scarring); if no donor regeneration would occur in the test area, a lack of hair could definitely be observed at the end of the healing phase. We'll see if that actually occured with our next picture (taken 12 days post-op).

        Over 134 hairs available for removal's attempt, 106 were successfully harvested, which equals an average successful rate of 79,1%, all FU's types combined.
        We will observe the evolution of the transected hairs on the next picture, taken 12 days post-op.

        With 106 hairs successfully harvested from 52 FU (the other 8 FU - n 17, 23, 35, 54, 67, 81, 94, 99 - were fully transected and no hair was harvested), the average transplanting ratio is 2,01 h/FU, which relates to the average ratio for traditional follicular units transplants (1,8-2,4 h/FU, with variations below or above this range, depending on the type of recipient area; e.g. lower ratio on the hairline, higher ratio on the posterior parts). Once transplanted, and if the growth rate is good, these grafts should produce regular density, as observed with traditional follicular unit transplants (i.e. FUT & FU
        Last edited by Winston; 05-02-2013, 03:35 PM. Reason: Correction requested.

        Comment

        • 534623
          Senior Member
          • Oct 2011
          • 1865

          #5
          Originally posted by Mathieu

          Once again, this study case works as a proof for donor regeneration ...
          I always thought that "donor regeneration" is just a mythos?

          All of a sudden it's so "cool & easy" ...

          Comment

          • Mathieu
            Member
            • Mar 2013
            • 41

            #6
            Originally posted by gc83uk
            Hello Mathieu

            Thank you for taking the time! When can we expect to see the post op photo?

            Can you tell me what size needles you're using to extract?

            Thanks

            Hi gc83uk, I'm posting the different steps progressively, instead of putting everything into one big bulky message. So if you want to link one of the specific steps in another conversation, you'll be able to do so.
            The third one (12 days post-op) will be published in just a few minutes.

            Regarding the exact instruments used for the procedure, I can't disclose them yet. But I'll give you a hint: it's smaller than regular FUE's punches.


            Originally posted by 534623
            I always thought that "donor regeneration" is just a mythos?

            All of a sudden it's so "cool & easy" ...
            Hello IM, did my posts give the impression that donor regeneration is a "cool & easy" thing? If so, I misrepresentated my thoughts.

            Comment

            • gc83uk
              Senior Member
              • Nov 2011
              • 1340

              #7
              Originally posted by Mathieu
              Hi gc83uk, I'm posting the different steps progressively, instead of putting everything into one big bulky message. So if you want to link one of the specific steps in another conversation, you'll be able to do so.
              The third one (12 days post-op) will be published in just a few minutes.

              Regarding the exact instruments used for the procedure, I can't disclose them yet. But I'll give you a hint: it's smaller than regular FUE's punches.




              Hello IM, did my posts give the impression that donor regeneration is a "cool & easy" thing? If so, I misrepresentated my thoughts.
              OK, is it also smaller than what you were using back in e.g 2007, 0.75 punch?

              When can we expect you to disclose more details and what is the reason for the current secrecy?

              Comment

              • FearTheLoss
                Senior Member
                • Dec 2012
                • 1589

                #8
                Thank you very much for posting these. It's nice to have someone come on here and post information the way you do so precisely.

                Again, and I think I'm saying this for the whole Bald Truth Talk community, we appreciate your efforts.

                FTL

                Comment

                • 534623
                  Senior Member
                  • Oct 2011
                  • 1865

                  #9
                  Originally posted by Mathieu

                  Regarding the exact instruments used for the procedure, I can't disclose them yet. But I'll give you a hint: it's smaller than regular FUE's punches.
                  Let me guess ...

                  In one of your photos I can see "FUE-L".
                  "L" for "longitudinal" FUE? FUE is always a "longitudinal" extraction. Thus, the question is rather: What needle size is used to extract grafts longitudinal?

                  If the needle is smaller as with normal FUE extractions for INTACT follicles - in this case, it's not "FUE" anymore, because "FUE" is defined as extraction of INTACT follicles/follicular units.

                  Comment

                  • Mathieu
                    Member
                    • Mar 2013
                    • 41

                    #10
                    gc83UK, 0,75-1,0mm is widely considered as the typical FUE punch range. You can therefore deduce that our current instrument is smaller than that.
                    We will unveil our "secrets" soon. But first, we would like to gather more documented results and also to fix a couple of administrative details (nothing illegal, don't worry! ).

                    Comment

                    • gc83uk
                      Senior Member
                      • Nov 2011
                      • 1340

                      #11
                      Originally posted by Mathieu
                      gc83UK, 0,75-1,0mm is widely considered as the typical FUE punch range. You can therefore deduce that our current instrument is smaller than that.
                      We will unveil our "secrets" soon. But first, we would like to gather more documented results and also to fix a couple of administrative details (nothing illegal, don't worry! ).
                      OK, I'm assuming it's somewhere between 0.5 to 0.7mm, impressive that it was able to extract a 4FU (#85) in full.

                      Perhaps you would be able to tell us how labour intensive this procedure is compared to regular FUE?

                      Also, do you have a picture of the extracted grafts or the grafts in the petri?

                      Comment

                      • Mathieu
                        Member
                        • Mar 2013
                        • 41

                        #12


                        The picture above was taken 12 days after the procedure. Please note that the doctor had to shave again the test area, hence the presence of tiny hair debris all over the area (beware, they could mislead you when trying to identify FU exiting the scalp).




                        Please wait a little before I publish the associated chart & analysis. After a quadruple check, there seems to be a miscount.

                        Ah, if only I had IronMan's IQ...

                        Comment

                        • youngin
                          Senior Member
                          • Nov 2010
                          • 338

                          #13
                          Originally posted by Mathieu
                          Ah, if only I had IronMan's IQ...
                          LOL. Someone has been watching the troll

                          Comment

                          • hellouser
                            Senior Member
                            • May 2012
                            • 4423

                            #14
                            Originally posted by mathieu
                            ah, if only i had ironman's iq...
                            lol, zing!

                            Comment

                            • Mathieu
                              Member
                              • Mar 2013
                              • 41

                              #15
                              [I'm reposting the 12 days post-op picture, so Winston can erase my previous post for more clarity. Thanks.]





                              The picture above was taken 12 days after the procedure. Please note that the doctor had to shave again the test area, hence the presence of tiny hair debris all over the area (beware, they could mislead you when trying to identify FU exiting the scalp).




                              h = hair(s)
                              n/a = transected Follicular Unit, no hair was harvested from it


                              Reminder: the test area included 100 FU. 60 FU were harvested, and 40 FU were left untouched.

                              Over the 8 fully transected FU containing a total of 16 hairs (n 17, 23, 35, 54, 67, 81, 94, 99 ; see previous post), 7 FU fully regrew; only 1 fully transected FU showed partial regrowth (n99, 1/2 hairs). That is because the transection was performed at a very superficial level, and no true damage was inflicted to the FU's structure.
                              -> 15/16 hairs regrew, which equals a survival rate of 93,75%.


                              Details of the 52 FU after their successful removal:

                              - 7 FU (13,5%) didn't regrow in the donor (n 14, 34, 38, 61, 71, 83, 90) = 0/11 hairs
                              - 15 FU (28,8%) partially regrew in the donor = 21/36 hairs
                              - 30 FU (57,7%) fully regrew = 59/59 hairs

                              -> 86,5% of the extracted FU did regenerate to various degrees, between 0 and 12 days post-op.
                              -> 75,5% of the extracted hairs (80/106) did regenerate, between 0 and 12 days post-op.

                              Comment

                              Working...