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

[534623]

There is no loyalty to one doctor from me certainly, despite what many seem to think!

Contrary to you - I'm, and I will ALWAYS be, loyal to one doctor: It's Dr. Gho.

But if I would be such a "Gho fan boy" as many claim - why, for example, not having my first HST with Dr. Gho himself?

So what's THE reason for my "loyalty"?

Because without such guys like Dr. Gho as "weapon", such little copycats like Dr Mousseigne, wouldn't exist in this field. Otherwise perhaps with a delay of 10-20 years or so ....

Wars have always been very healthy for producing new weapons - and vice versa.

[gc83uk]

I think I speak on behalf of most, but perhaps NOT all Hasci patients in these forums, that despite being tagged as 'Gho fan boys', we want the likes of Dr Mousseigne to succeed just as we want Gho to keep on succeeding and improving his technique.

There is no loyalty to one doctor from me certainly, despite what many seem to think!

[534623]

The corrections have been made.

Sure, including deleting of my last post - without any logical reason.

[Winston]

Winston: understood. I'll take it into account for my future contributions. I see that you also deleted the corrected draft I had posted on this page; does that mean that you can't edit my post on the first page of this thread? I would really appreciate to have the miscounts corrected though...

The corrections have been made.

[FearTheLoss]

I'm asking this, because the METHOD per se (simply doing this, independent in what way or which "protocol" you use) is patented:

"(a) removing hair in the anagen phase from one or more donor areas in such a way that the hair stem cells which are responsible for hair growth are still attached to the hair removed;
and
(b) bringing the hair stem cells of the hair removed into contact with a medium which contains extracellular matrix components or substitutes there; and

(c) implanting the hair of step b) in the scalp."

It doesn't matter which tools or "vehicles" you use to accomplish these patent claims - simply using this method in general is patented. And THE reason, why such an approach is patentable at all, is, in fact, because if exactly doing that would be that easy and as simple as it sounds to accomplish all this (aka "this mythos") - we would have such procedures since hair transplants exists.

IronMan why do you give a shit about this? I'm starting to think you do, indeed, work for Gho. If you are a patient truly interested in the best for the hair loss industry you would be backing this instead of trying to tear it down. You aren't in the room with Dr. Mousseigne when he operates so don't be so quick to criticize. No one wants Mathieu to leave the forum because of your behavior.

[534623]

IM, sure.
The main goal of these new techniques is to achieve (1) steady donor regeneration after FU's sane harvesting, and (2) steady regrowth in the recipient area after FU's transplantation. In other words, it aims at multiplying the donor potential as much as each patients' physiology allows it.

I'm asking this, because the METHOD per se (simply doing this, independent in what way or which "protocol" you use) is patented:

"(a) removing hair in the anagen phase from one or more donor areas in such a way that the hair stem cells which are responsible for hair growth are still attached to the hair removed;
and
(b) bringing the hair stem cells of the hair removed into contact with a medium which contains extracellular matrix components or substitutes there; and

(c) implanting the hair of step b) in the scalp."

It doesn't matter which tools or "vehicles" you use to accomplish these patent claims - simply using this method in general is patented. And THE reason, why such an approach is patentable at all, is, in fact, because if exactly doing that would be that easy and as simple as it sounds to accomplish all this (aka "this mythos") - we would have such procedures since hair transplants exists.

[JJJJrS]

It's very encouraging to see more doctors experimenting and reporting success with donor regeneration. I wish Dr. Mousseigne all the success with his efforts.

I think the key is the recipient growth. The donor looks great but the recipient is the other half of the proof. Mathieu, you said that you can't yet comment on the recipient but that there is reason to be optimistic. Is it possible to elaborate on this at all? Have you tested your technique on other patients?

Do you think it will be possible, with this technique, to extract 2500+ grafts per session or will you be limited?

I also think it's great that Dr. Mousseigne seems to be willing to share his technique and that it may be offered in North America one day.

This is all very exciting and I can't wait to hear more in the future.

[Mathieu]

Winston: understood. I'll take it into account for my future contributions. I see that you also deleted the corrected draft I had posted on this page; does that mean that you can't edit my post on the first page of this thread? I would really appreciate to have the miscounts corrected though...

[Sogeking]

Good some progress.
Thnak you Mathieu. More options. Now I'll wait patiently to see if Histogen, Aderans or Replicel manage to do something. Then maybe we can combine multiple routes. Who knows...

[Winston]

IM, I didn't know that this comment could be interpretated as "inappropriate" or offensive. I wasn't pointing at BTT (or AHLA)'s recommended doctors, but at the overall situation in the US, which is in fact quite similar to everywhere else's. That is to say a majority of HT doctors still practicing obsolete techniques, dating back from the pre-follicular transplantation era, OR practicing follicular transplantation with poor settings. I don't think any BTT doctor matches this description.

As a representative of a hair transplant clinic you are held to a higher standard than the average BTT user. Whether or not your comments were referring to "BTT" doctors is not the point, these type of comments are considered incendiary and possibly defamatory and will not be hosted on this forum. This is why they were deemed to be inappropriate.

[Mathieu]

IM, maybe unlimited (or nearly so) donor could be achieved thanks to the application or the injection of extra-cellular matrix (e.g. acell), growth factors, and other stimulating compounds straight on/into the donor area after the FU's extraction was performed. On top of my head, I remember Dr Cole and Dr Nigam alluding to such additional steps. What do you think about it?

[FearTheLoss]

Mathieu

I'm saying this for the majority of the forum here, please do not leave this forum because of a few of the members who tend to act childish. There are many of us who like to see and discuss the scientific information that you post here, like adults should.


Winston, I suggest you begin to ban members here who don't have these intentions, because we do not want to lose members like Mathieu that are our biggest contributors by their childish actions.

[Mathieu]

IM, sure.
The main goal of these new techniques is to achieve (1) steady donor regeneration after FU's sane harvesting, and (2) steady regrowth in the recipient area after FU's transplantation. In other words, it aims at multiplying the donor potential as much as each patients' physiology allows it.
I wouldn't talk about "unlimited donor" yet, because, as you already know, it seems that Dr Gho's HST causes progressive thinning of the FU's after multiple harvestings (on top of the 15-20% FU's loss). This is why I did communicate both total FU's count & hairs' count; depending on how one proceeds, one could say that the former regenerated at a 86,5% rate, while the latter regenerated at "only" a 75,5% rate. I think the hairs' count gives a more accurate picture of the amount of regeneration achieved... even though the FU's count sounds more flattering!

Arashi, it's nice to know that a patient can be operated by another leading doctor and still behave like you do. The sectarian's/soccer supporter's attitude can really distract from the actual medical perspectives. That's unfortunately an inherent part of the forums. But they also make it possible to exchange with civilized, genuine people, which is always nice & rewarding. So I may stick around a little longer

[Arashi]

Could you please be a little bit more specific about the "goals" you mentioned?

What exactly is the goal of the FUE-L technique?

Obviously he means transplanting hairs while also increasing the amount of hair on your scalp. But you get that too so I'm not sure what you're trying to say here ?

[Arashi]

Arashi, thanks, I appreciate your support.

What you call "conservative" is actually just relying on basic scientific principles. I suppose this should be the norm when it comes to medical matters.

As all of you, I hope and long for an efficient treatment. And I would rather avoid any self-deluding approach. If the FUE-L technique provides steady regrowth both in the donor & in the recipient areas, then, I'll be over the moon with this fact. For the time being, I can only assert and prove that steady donor regeneration is achieved. This is a first important step, but it will take another whole meaning if, after transplantation, the recipient regrowth is up to our expectations. All of this is in the process of being thoroughly documented, and I can tell you that I've got some reasons to be "optimistic" already.

It's such a relief to hear that someone who actually makes sense is booking result in the donor regeneration field, without posting fake photoshop pictures, stolen pictures from other doctors and what not. And regarding the pricing, I can surely understand it must be extremely frustrating if you can't pay for such treatment, but if you can beat Gho's results, I for one would be happy to cough up 17k. To me it's all about results. And to the people complaining I'd say: think about the bigger picture. More doctors researching and succeeding at this will ALWAYS mean lower pricing in the future.

All the best to you !