Dr. Cole regeneration

[FearTheLoss]

Dr. Cole has been claiming on average 50% regeneration. When are we going to see some proof of this? When is this going to be mainstream? 35YrsAfter, could we get some info on this? What did Dr. Cole say to setting up a website with case studies?

FTL

[hellouser]

I think I saw a video clip on Youtube with Dr. Cole explaining the ACELL method where it was packed into extraction sites of follicles. IIRC, he said the main problem with ACELL not working as well as it should is due to leakage.

Now... I wonder how that affects Dr. Wesley's Pilofocus method? Would he apply ACELL from underneath (internally) as well while Dr. Cole applies externally, on top of the scalp?

I'm really curious... we should get before and after photos documented by Dr. Cole and see these claims.

[FearTheLoss]

I think I saw a video clip on Youtube with Dr. Cole explaining the ACELL method where it was packed into extraction sites of follicles. IIRC, he said the main problem with ACELL not working as well as it should is due to leakage.

Now... I wonder how that affects Dr. Wesley's Pilofocus method? Would he apply ACELL from underneath (internally) as well while Dr. Cole applies externally, on top of the scalp?

I'm really curious... we should get before and after photos documented by Dr. Cole and see these claims.

Exactly what I was thinking. There are numerous doctors claiming regeneration of all sorts, but we haven't even seen any sufficient proof to show that regeneration is even a possibility at all. I don't care if it's 30% or 90%, I want to see that it is possible. Dr. Mwamba says he has been getting 30% regen as well with Acell...when are we going to see some proof and why aren't doctors sharing information together within the IAHRS to improve on this and find a viable cure via surgery.

[hellouser]

Exactly what I was thinking. There are numerous doctors claiming regeneration of all sorts, but we haven't even seen any sufficient proof to show that regeneration is even a possibility at all. I don't care if it's 30% or 90%, I want to see that it is possible. Dr. Mwamba says he has been getting 30% regen as well with Acell...when are we going to see some proof and why aren't doctors sharing information together within the IAHRS to improve on this and find a viable cure via surgery.

+effing1

I dont think any of us would have much of an issue if the cure meant surgeries so as long as the eventually outcome was full coverage. Regeneration should be a top priority for these docs to execute, document and for us to DEMAND THAT.

[FearTheLoss]

+effing1

I dont think any of us would have much of an issue if the cure meant surgeries so as long as the eventually outcome was full coverage. Regeneration should be a top priority for these docs to execute, document and for us to DEMAND THAT.

I agree, how are top docs like Cole claiming regeneration but yet it's not a major topic of discussion at the conferences? It should be THE NUMBER ONE priority if they know it's possible. At least Dr. Wesley is taking this seriously. I just wish we knew what initial anecdotal evidence he has, as in, what percent was he seeing. Does Artista consider 30% breathtaking or does he consider 75% breathtaking?

35YrsAfter said he was going to talk to doctor Cole monday about releasing regeneration information and showing us proof and we haven't heard anything.

I comment doctor Cole for all of the work he does, as I think he is a caring doctor and one of the best in the world, but we need to see some proof of this and not just claims.

[0ptimist]

I commend Dr. Cole for experimenting as well. However, I will remain suspicious of his claims until he produces some proof. Dr. Cole has been critical of the claims of others such as Dr. Cooley (plucking claims) and Histogen. I think skepticism is always healthy. But, it seems to me he has not held himself to the same standards concerning his claim of regeneration.

[hirsute]

Just asking

I completely understand that people on this forum consider regeneration to be unsubstantiated claims, but wouldn't 50% regeneration be a type of baldness panacea? If it takes about 1,500 grafts per Norwood class to get good coverage then a NW7 would need around 10,500 grafts. So, if you could get 50% regeneration with the first and each subsequent surgery (assuming 6,000 grafts for the first), that could be over 10,500 grafts in total. Is this line of thinking correct? Please enlighten me.

[hellouser]

I completely understand that people on this forum consider regeneration to be unsubstantiated claims, but wouldn't 50% regeneration be a type of baldness panacea? If it takes about 1,500 grafts per Norwood class to get good coverage then a NW7 would need around 10,500 grafts. So, if you could get 50% regeneration with the first and each subsequent surgery (assuming 6,000 grafts for the first), that could be over 10,500 grafts in total. Is this line of thinking correct? Please enlighten me.

Yes, your thinking is absolutely correct. This is exactly the kind of thinking I had with Dr. Gho's procedure however nobody has seen anyone get that many grafts eventhough Dr. Gho claims 85% regeneration.

I'm hoping Dr. Wesley's method with Pilofocus and ACELL will provide our desired results.

[534623]

I'm hoping Dr. Wesley's method with Pilofocus and ACELL will provide our desired results.

Stop dreaming...

I found him to be bright and personable. I enjoyed his presentation. I do not think he will see any regeneration from Acell unless he comes up with a different method of extraction, however. He cores out a punch biopsy with anything from a 2.0 mm punch, which is huge, to a 1.2 mm punch. In doing so, he removes all of the stem cells, which is part of his rationale for limited the incision depth to 1 mm below the skin surface. You can pack this hole with all the Acell you want, but the only stem cells remaining are those from adipose tissue and some dermis. You have removed the entire bulge, all of the CK15 positive cells and all of the CD 34 stem cells. You have no hair follicle stem cells remaining.
[...]
I worry about how the healing will be in the subcutaneous adipose and lower dermis. Acell may help this form more normal tissue, but there will be no hair follicles.

the beauty of our work is [applying ACell into FUE wounds] that we are getting flawless healing and some follicle regeneration. All we need to do now is first finalize our follow up studies and second find a way to seal the donor area with a more affordable price and a product that is commercially available.

Still I love what he is doing and look forward to getting my hands on a unit some day. There are going to be some FDA hurdles to get this device approved because it has a ton of technology in it including lasers, etc.

Concerning Pilofocus, I think the same as Dr. Cole. And concerning Dr. Cole's work with ACell:
The "some follicle regeneration" claim reflects just his transection rate; meaning, the more follicle regeneration he can see in a patient's donor area, the larger has been his transection rate; = more unusable grafts for the recipient area ...

[FearTheLoss]

Stop dreaming...


Concerning Pilofocus, I think the same as Dr. Cole. And concerning Dr. Cole's work with ACell:
The "some follicle regeneration" claim reflects just his transection rate; meaning, the more follicle regeneration he can see in a patient's donor area, the larger has been his transection rate; = more unusable grafts for the recipient area ...

You're not as bright as you once seemed Ironman. Dr. Wesley's device has the ability to pinpoint parts of the graft and extract accurately every time. Therefore, he could extract the entire graft accurately and have almost a 100% survival rate. ON THE OTHER HAND, he has the ability to accurately remove part of the graft, even more accurately than you beloved Gho. So we should see a higher regeneration rate than Gho's 20-40%.

[Hicks]

Who could afford 10,500 grafts? Even 2,000 is a **********

[Kiwi]

Who could afford 10,500 grafts? Even 2,000 is a **********

You'd drag it out over years. Hopefully Pilofocus is cheaper than the Gho procedure. Hopefully he freely shares the technology with the entire hair transplant community.

If he doesn't he's a douchbag just like Gho...

[mmmcoffee]

Except, if the average person has 100,000 hairs, and we lose roughly 50-60% when balding, doesn't that mean you need 50000-60000 not 10500...I thought the average person has around 8-10k donor hairs as is which is why NW5+ are kind of screwed

[hellouser]

Except, if the average person has 100,000 hairs, and we lose roughly 50-60% when balding, doesn't that mean you need 50000-60000 not 10500...I thought the average person has around 8-10k donor hairs as is which is why NW5+ are kind of screwed

Average number of grafts available grafts for most people is anywhere from 4-8,000. I think 8-10,000 grafts means you are a freak occurrence and have ridiculously dense hair in the donor. Only way you could get 10k grafts is if you got near 100% yields and combined FUE + FUT.

You need to think of amount of grafts necessary in two ways:

1) How much coverage is necessary
2) How dense you want your hair to be

Average area for an NW7 is about 200cm/2. Mine is actually about that much. Side to side the balding area is 14cm wide and front to back its 18cm (use string to measure lengths). This translates to 252cm/2. However, I don't have a square balding area, its oval, more or less. So lets use an oval calculator:

http://www.csgnetwork.com/areaellipse.html

Result: 197cm/2.

So let's say you wanted some decent coverage at 35 grafts per cm/2. You'd thus need 7,000 grafts. But this is obviously a thinning look, so not exactly an ideal result. A better look would be around 55 grafts, therefor 11,000 grafts. This is of course assuming you are an NW6/7. Some people go by the rule that 1,400 grafts in an HT moves you back by one norwood. If this is correct, then 1,400 * 7 = 9,800. Which to me would be on the thin side.

To be completely honest, I'd easily sacrifice much more donor area if only to have more up top if regeneration weren't a reality. I'd rather be balding at the back and sides than at the top. Hopefully Pilofocus can alleviate this problem as well. However, this is exactly why regeneration is so absolutely VITAL to all of this. You'd basically need 3 megasessions to restore everything completely to a respectable level and anything after would be for density. Have a look at this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Aqolq7BCf0

Thats 11,500 grafts and to me, still looks a little thin. Between that and what he had before, it's an insane result. But as I mentioned, I'd take even more from the donor... just look at his sides! They're still dense enough! But if you did two megasessions, let's say 3,000 grafts each, with regeneration to any extent but a minimum of 50%, you're guaranteed complete reversal with enough transplants.

Having said that, regeneration better be a TOP priority for Dr. Wesley. If he doesn't do this, he's not getting my money for an HT as I don't want to have a limit on procedures.... but if he does confirm and execute regeneration, he's going to get a lot more from me than what he could right now. I'm willing to pay more than what I would right now for an HT, but it needs to guarantee me regeneration.

[hirsute]

I've been thinking about this again and have concluded that I may have been wrong on my initial assertion. I was taking 1,500x7 and coming up with 10,500 grafts for good coverage; however, that would be going to the (what I believe nonexistent) Norwood 0. Ronald Reagan was the exception that proves the general rule. More realistically, the ultimate goal would be a Norwood 1. That would mean that a Norwood 7 would need 1,500x6 or 9,000 grafts for good coverage. This sounds somewhat better to me.

NW7 to 6 1,500, NW6 to 5 1.500, NW5 to 4 1,500, NW4 to 3 1,500, NW3 to 2 1,500, NW2 to 1 1,500.