HISTORY of gc83uk's former slick bald recipient area

[gc83uk]

All in all, I don't know what to think of all this. What I am 100% sure of, and willing to bet a huge chunk of money on, is that at least in your case regrowth is less than half of what HASCI claims it is. Yet, there's still the possibility that you have SOME regrowth. Mwamba claimed he could get 20-30% regrowth himself, even before visiting Nigams. It could have happened in your case too. From all this, it's pretty much impossible to tell. Could be some regrowth, could be none. But it's nowhere near the 80% HASCI claims it is.

I think most people think the same way. I'm certain that there is an element of regrowth, net gain of hair, but I don't think I have 80-85% regrowth, which I have said myself numerous times here.

If I had only had say 80% regrowth, then I would have expected to lose 1000 grafts in my donor permanently. I don't know what 1000 grafts taken out of my donor would look like, we'll never know that.

It's quite surprising to hear Mwamba say he can already get 20-30% regrowth, do we know how he is achieving that? Even Cole reckons he can get 50% regrowth, so if these guys are doing it then why can't Gho to a point.

[Arashi]

I think most people think the same way. I'm certain that there is an element of regrowth, net gain of hair, but I don't think I have 85% regrowth, which I have said myself numerous times here.

It's quite surprising to hear Mwamba say he can already get 20-30% regrowth, do we know how he is achieving that? Even Cole reckons he can get 50% regrowth, so if these guys are doing it then why can't Gho to a point.

It's really hard to judge things with the naked eye. But just going by the naked eye, your donor does look a bit better than I'd expect it to be. Maybe that's the 20-30% regrowth. But again, it's really hard to judge. I just can't imagine that everything Gho published in that paper was complete nonsense. I do think there must be some truth in it and that regrowth does happen in some cases. So, sometimes I think: what if there's indeed some truth in Gho's claims and that regrowth does happen, but only when the technician was lucky and the graft got bisected at the correct place. So, if there's a correct place to bisect it, then doing it under a microscope like Nigams does, might be the solution to get much better numbers. That's actually what I hope But who knows man ... We'll have to see about that. Tomorrow he's going to start on Thane from what I understood, let's hope something will come out of that !

[gc83uk]

1.22*4900*0.97-300 = 5498.66 hairs, which is pretty close to my 5000 figure. The 10% difference might be explained that indeed that area's closer to your hairline are denser.

The 5000 figure you used previously in another thread implied that I had 5000 grafts and that equaled 5000 hairs, which I why I said the 5000 hair thing was BS especially in that context.

However in the above context its a different story, because you're using 4600 grafts in the above calculation which is a more honest assessment.

It could also be calculated as:
1.4 * 4900 * 0.97 = 6654 hairs

Vs FUE

1.8 * 4900 * 0.80 = 7056 hairs

hehe

[Arashi]

The 5000 figure you used previously in another thread implied that I had 5000 grafts and that equaled 5000 hairs, which I why I said the 5000 hair thing was BS especially in that context.

However in the above context its a different story, because you're using 4600 grafts in the above calculation which is a more honest assessment.

It could also be calculated as:
1.4 * 4900 * 0.97 = 6654 hairs

Vs FUE

1.8 * 4900 * 0.80 = 7056 hairs

hehe

I totally agree that if there's a doctor who only gets 80% graft survival with FUE, then HASCI is a much better choice !! But is 80% for FUE still an average ? I thought it was much closer to 100% nowadays too.

[gc83uk]

It's really hard to judge things with the naked eye. But just going by the naked eye, your donor does look a bit better than I'd expect it to be. Maybe that's the 20-30% regrowth. But again, it's really hard to judge. I just can't imagine that everything Gho published in that paper was complete nonsense. I do think there must be some truth in it and that regrowth does happen in some cases. So, sometimes I think: what if there's indeed some truth in Gho's claims and that regrowth does happen, but only when the technician was lucky and the graft got bisected at the correct place. So, if there's a correct place to bisect it, then doing it under a microscope like Nigams does, might be the solution to get much better numbers. That's actually what I hope But who knows man ... We'll have to see about that. Tomorrow he's going to start on Thane from what I understood, let's hope something will come out of that !

Exactly, at the end of the day it's all good. Least we have this stuff to concentrate on, if I were born another 10 years earlier I would be seriously unhappy with my options.

[gc83uk]

I totally agree that if there's a doctor who only gets 80% graft survival with FUE, then HASCI is a much better choice !! But is 80% for FUE still an average ? I thought it was much closer to 100% nowadays too.

I can't answer this, I'm not sure anyone can with any certainty, but for the reasons I have already stated there must be some truth to that 80% figure. Anyway good talking with you, I need to get off this dam computer. Laters

[Arashi]

I can't answer this, I'm not sure anyone can with any certainty, but for the reasons I have already stated there must be some truth to that 80% figure. Anyway good talking with you, I need to get off this dam computer. Laters

If you look at it that way, then even if HASCI would have 0 regrowth, that would still be 25% better than FUE. And I'm sure there are FUE butchers out there who won't even get to 80%. But again, I haven't seen any data on this, I always thought the better FUE doctors would get close to 100% survival too, but who knows ..

[JJJJrS]

Haven't followed the whole conversation but will go back and read things later.

gc, I think your results are fantastic and should improve even more in the following months as your last procedure grows in. Starting with a bald scalp and ending up with natural-looking coverage of the entire area is huge progress. There's hardly any sign of a procedure, beyond some minor donor thinning, which is incredible.

All in all, I don't know what to think of all this. What I am 100% sure of, and willing to bet a huge chunk of money on, is that at least in your case regrowth is less than half of what HASCI claims it is. Yet, there's still the possibility that you have SOME regrowth. Mwamba claimed he could get 20-30% regrowth himself, even before visiting Nigams. It could have happened in your case too. From all this, it's pretty much impossible to tell. Could be some regrowth, could be none. But it's nowhere near the 80% HASCI claims it is.

This is basically how I feel. I'm certain the true regeneration rate is not even close to 85%, like HASCI claims, but I'm not willing to discount the possibility that there's some donor regrowth happening. Looking at gc's latest pictures subjectively makes a case for that.

It's quite surprising to hear Mwamba say he can already get 20-30% regrowth, do we know how he is achieving that? Even Cole reckons he can get 50% regrowth, so if these guys are doing it then why can't Gho to a point.

I'm skeptical about that. Everybody in the hair transplant industry knows about the demand for donor regeneration and scarless procedures. I think that motivates some of these doctors to make these bold claims, without any evidence.

That's what frustrates me the most actually. If you really believe you're getting donor regeneration, document the case properly and prove your claims. It's much easier to do than actually multiplying hair! The fact that nobody has been able to do something as simple as that, HASCI included, keeps me skeptical.

[Arashi]

Haven't followed the whole conversation but will go back and read things later.

In summary we had a lot of dicussion on the size of Gc's recipient. It turned out I was looking at the wrong boundaries and his recipient indeed seems to be around 100 cm2. In the end Gaz and I both agreed that there should be about 6000 hairs in recipient, Gaz thinks it actually might be a bit higher, I think it might be a bit lower (I think it might be closer to 5300, including that extra region, Gaz think it might be up to 7000). So let's say we're talking about a 5300-7000 range here. That's pretty much all the discussion in a nut shell

[Arashi]

Actually, it's quite possible that it's closer to 6000 than 5300 because of higher densities towards regions touching his original hair. So honestly that would make a case to say that it seems there was at least a bit regrowth. It's hard to tell at this point, but I'm most certainly not ruling out that possibility. It's just a naked eye assertion: Does it seem plausible that he has lost a bit less than those 6000 hairs in donor ? Who knows. It certainly could be the case. If a good FUE doctor could transplant 2.5 hair/graft, then he'd lost 2400 grafts. But Gaz did make the case that even most FUE doctors won't get to the 2.5, which seems a valid point. So maybe you could then compare it to a 3000 FUE result. And that does seem a bit much for his donor loss, right ? But again, it's al extremely difficult to tell.

[Arashi]

But thinking of this, if I had to put my money on the line for a prediction, I'd say 25-30% regrowth. That seems most plausible to me, taking everything we now know into consideration. I calculated a maximum number of 38% via that other analysis. so I think it should be somewhere in the 0-38% range. But just trusting my naked eye and looking at his donor, it seems unlikely that he's lost really 6000 hairs in donor. So that would open the door for a bit regrowth, maybe 25-30%.

[cocacola]

I would like to highlight that even 30% regrowth is an expansion of donor by 1.42 times.

40%=1.66
50%=2
60%=2.5
70%=3.33
85%=6.66

This is theoretical application of infinite geometric series. The assumption here is that the % of donor that regrew could be reused again multiple times as long as it regrows. Therefore if you had a total 3000 grafts available with 30% regrowth you would get 4200 via hst.

In my opinion, that may be biased, gc donor looks good. Certainly didnt loose 6000 (+/-1000) hairs. Try to picture what is 6000 hairs.

However, i strongly believe that 85% is highly unlikely because then you would have 6.66 times the available donor. That would allow nw7-nw2 transformations that we never saw.

For me, this is positive stuff.

[JJJJrS]

In summary we had a lot of dicussion on the size of Gc's recipient. It turned out I was looking at the wrong boundaries and his recipient indeed seems to be around 100 cm2. In the end Gaz and I both agreed that there should be about 6000 hairs in recipient, Gaz thinks it actually might be a bit higher, I think it might be a bit lower (I think it might be closer to 5300, including that extra region, Gaz think it might be up to 7000). So let's say we're talking about a 5300-7000 range here. That's pretty much all the discussion in a nut shell

Thanks for the summary Arashi. Saves me a lot of reading

Actually, it's quite possible that it's closer to 6000 than 5300 because of higher densities towards regions touching his original hair. So honestly that would make a case to say that it seems there was at least a bit regrowth. It's hard to tell at this point, but I'm most certainly not ruling out that possibility. It's just a naked eye assertion: Does it seem plausible that he has lost a bit less than those 6000 hairs in donor ? Who knows. It certainly could be the case. If a good FUE doctor could transplant 2.5 hair/graft, then he'd lost 2400 grafts. But Gaz did make the case that even most FUE doctors won't get to the 2.5, which seems a valid point. So maybe you could then compare it to a 3000 FUE result. And that does seem a bit much for his donor loss, right ? But again, it's al extremely difficult to tell.

It's tough to make any broad conclusions at this point.

We do know that gc's case would not be possible with traditional hair transplants. If we neglect donor regeneration entirely for a second, the lack of scarring is amazing. That alone is a huge development.

In terms of the hairs per graft issue, we've seen from the failed 50 graft tests and from patients' recipients that multi-hair grafts, particularly 3-hair units, are difficult for HASCI to deal with. I'm confident that there's less hairs per graft for HST then there is for traditional hair transplants, which are not restricted to tiny 0.6 mm needles. Of course, for traditional hair transplants, the scarring is a huge issue, so there's a trade-off there. This is probably why some people find HASCI's results thin.

Can't really comment on the yield issue between HST and FUE. I think something like that most probably depends on the skill of the surgeon. I always though HASCI's thinner grafts would be more vulnerable and difficult to deal with but I don't know too much about the benefit of the "preservation medium," that HASCI promotes either. Some type of comparison study would be nice but I doubt it'll ever happen.

But thinking of this, if I had to put my money on the line for a prediction, I'd say 25-30% regrowth. That seems most plausible to me, taking everything we now know into consideration. I calculated a maximum number of 38% via that other analysis. so I think it should be somewhere in the 0-38% range. But just trusting my naked eye and looking at his donor, it seems unlikely that he's lost really 6000 hairs in donor. So that would open the door for a bit regrowth, maybe 25-30%.

Your numbers seem fairly reasonable and there's certainly a strong possibility that donor regeneration is in that range.

It's hard to make estimates though with a procedure of this size. This is why I kept pushing for proper documentation of a 50 graft test, which would give us some real, tangible numbers to work with, but of course, that looks unlikely to happen now.

[JJJJrS]

I would like to highlight that even 30% regrowth is an expansion of donor by 1.42 times.

40%=1.66
50%=2
60%=2.5
70%=3.33
85%=6.66

This is theoretical application of infinite geometric series. The assumption here is that the % of donor that regrew could be reused again multiple times as long as it regrows. Therefore if you had a total 3000 grafts available with 30% regrowth you would get 4200 via hst.

In my opinion, that may be biased, gc donor looks good. Certainly didnt loose 6000 (+/-1000) hairs. Try to picture what is 6000 hairs.

However, i strongly believe that 85% is highly unlikely because then you would have 6.66 times the available donor. That would allow nw7-nw2 transformations that we never saw.

For me, this is positive stuff.

Good post cocacola.

You're right that 30% donor regeneration is still a big deal. Any consistent level of donor regeneration is huge. Once you prove that hairs can be multiplied, it's easier to work on the bisection/extraction methods to improve consistency. Theoretically, if you can create new hairs, then the possibilities down the road are endless.

If I were HASCI and I were getting 30% regeneration and no visible scarring, then I would definitely document that properly and show it to the world. But I think a couple of things prevent them from doing that. The first is that they promise every patient, in their contract, a minimum of 85% donor regeneration or their money back. Obviously, anything less than 85% could put their business in trouble... The second reason they're probably not interested in something like that, is their struggles with multi-hair grafts which contradict their claims that there are no issues with 3-hair grafts for HST and that the average patient gets ≥2 hairs/graft.

[greatjob!]

I totally agree that if there's a doctor who only gets 80% graft survival with FUE, then HASCI is a much better choice !! But is 80% for FUE still an average ? I thought it was much closer to 100% nowadays too.

For doctors who don't perform fue that often I think their yield is pretty variable, but the top fue exclusive surgeons like Hakan, Erdogan, Mwamba, Feriduni, Bisanga and Lorenzo are all getting pretty close to 100% yield.