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

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • garethbale
    Senior Member
    • Apr 2012
    • 605

    Mathieu where are you mate?

    Comment

    • brunobald
      Senior Member
      • Jul 2013
      • 172

      Quailty documentation and positive results!

      The proof will be in the recipent growth as many have pointed out already.

      Also for conclusive proof, an ideal test would be a Slick NW7 with excellent donor hair bordering a totally slick area. Then you could take pics of both the donor and recipient site side by side in the same sample photo.

      Comment

      • Arashi
        Senior Member
        • Aug 2012
        • 3888

        Mathieu, an update please ?

        Comment

        • Arashi
          Senior Member
          • Aug 2012
          • 3888

          Mathieu, please come back mate ! You've been the only doctor (rep) so far that I trust. You've shown us you don't like to speculate and not promise us the world. Your ways of documentating have been outstanding. I hope all goes well and you soon have an update for us !

          Comment

          • clandestine
            Senior Member
            • Aug 2011
            • 2005

            Someone should forward this thread to Dr. Mwamba.

            Comment

            • caddarik79
              Senior Member
              • Feb 2013
              • 496

              Maybe he just needs more time to come back with a very well strong documented file.

              I leave it a chance, they just don't want to have the same like with Gho.


              + I did send it a couple of months ago to Dr Mwamba, to wake him up about competition and cutting edge.

              We won't accept hair moving anymore, we need hair multiplication.

              Comment

              • hellouser
                Senior Member
                • May 2012
                • 4423

                Originally posted by caddarik79
                Maybe he just needs more time to come back with a very well strong documented file.

                I leave it a chance, they just don't want to have the same like with Gho.


                + I did send it a couple of months ago to Dr Mwamba, to wake him up about competition and cutting edge.

                We won't accept hair moving anymore, we need hair multiplication.
                Thats the attitude we need to have.

                Comment

                • 534623
                  Senior Member
                  • Oct 2011
                  • 1865

                  Originally posted by garethbale

                  Mathieu where are you mate?
                  He disappeared ...

                  ...as well as all the FUE-L hairs Dr. Mousseigne implanted into patients recipient sites.

                  Comment

                  • Wnt
                    Junior Member
                    • Sep 2014
                    • 13

                    What happened with FUE-L? It is almost 2 years since this was advertised and time enough to know about recipient growth

                    Comment

                    • Arashi
                      Senior Member
                      • Aug 2012
                      • 3888

                      Originally posted by Wnt
                      What happened with FUE-L? It is almost 2 years since this was advertised and time enough to know about recipient growth
                      Yeah they obviously gave up on it. I mailed Matthieu a couple times, he stopped replying, I guess they figured out that all this 'donor regeneration' has been nonsense after all. It was first HASCI who came up with this scam. Then Dr Nigam, the master of scam artists jumped too onto it and inspired by their claims of successes, others like Dr Mousseigne started investigating. Then it turned out Dr Nigam was a scammer, then we found out the truth about HASCI and then Mousseigne just stopped responding ...

                      Donor regeneration, a few years ago this seemed so promising. Quite sad it turned out to be all a lie ...

                      Comment

                      • clarence
                        Senior Member
                        • Sep 2012
                        • 278

                        Originally posted by Arashi
                        Yeah they obviously gave up on it. I mailed Matthieu a couple times, he stopped replying, I guess they figured out that all this 'donor regeneration' has been nonsense after all. It was first HASCI who came up with this scam. Then Dr Nigam, the master of scam artists jumped too onto it and inspired by their claims of successes, others like Dr Mousseigne started investigating. Then it turned out Dr Nigam was a scammer, then we found out the truth about HASCI and then Mousseigne just stopped responding ...

                        Donor regeneration, a few years ago this seemed so promising. Quite sad it turned out to be all a lie ...
                        It's at least very promising for Dr. Cole and Chuck,... whose recent low profile about Dr. Cole's "regeneration" success is very disappointing.... The 50% regeneration, I believe, was reported already way before he started trying out Amniofix some four months ago.

                        Comment

                        • ss1980
                          Member
                          • Apr 2011
                          • 67

                          There is only Dr Cole left but even he dropped regeneration rate from 60% to 40% and now it would be awesome if he could actually PROVE that he can get 40% ...still HUGE achievement but dont think it will happen

                          Comment

                          • HairTalk
                            Senior Member
                            • Feb 2011
                            • 253

                            Originally posted by Mathieu


                            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
                            This isn't a research study not even a pilot. Please share your publication reference. Please also post a discussion of your findings, including the theories there-behind.

                            Thank you very much.

                            Comment

                            Working...