Gho's files patent for Hair multiplication

[Arashi]

@Arashi Re: fue
There must be a reason why the likes of Hassan & Wong don't do FUE and stick to FUT, graft survival I think?

The 1,2,3 options, I really don't know, I mean you can't argue with the numbers, I just look at the results on the results section of this site and divide the number of total hairs by grafts, sometimes it shows the breakdown too. There is always a ton of single hairs extracted, the moment you extract 1 single hair then you have to extract 1 x 3 hair graft to keep at the avg of 2 hair grafts. I think the problem lies when people have fewer 3 hair grafts than normal. There is definitely something in that!

You could also argue that because of the fascination of scarless, surgeons are trying harder than ever, using different size needles to extract the grafts depending on how big the graft is. Maybe transection rate is higher when being too cute. Just guess work mate.

TBH, I'd rather have a FUT than a FUE and get HST in the scar. If I had shit loads of donor hair that is what I would do.

The surgeon that suggested 2000 FU's, didn't speculate how many hairs that would equate too, but I honestly don't believe I would get over 4000 hairs. Maybe they think if they cherry pick all the 2 hair grafts then it will only leave 1 hair grafts in the donor and it will look like shit. You have also said yourself or possibly didi in the past that one good thing about having short hair and hasci implanting small grafts like they do, is it gives the appearance of having more hair.

I've highlighted that comment above, because after I wrote it, I just knew that it makes perfect sense. It's all about balance right? You want to extract singles for the hairline as well as doubles, so I think when it comes to FUE it's done deliberately taking singles not only to give a more natural smooth hairline appearance, but to lessen the depletion in the donor, especially someone like me.

Could be ... I realize how much guessing in all this is involved ... And what to think about the area's around the scars ? I think a good surgeon would either keep the density around the scars higher and/or transplant into the scars. It seems HASCI did not do that, so maybe the doctor advised 2000 FU's but had in mind to keep density higher around the scars than HASCI has done ... So that's something to consider. And then of course there's the question: how accurate can a surgeon estimate anyway ? So it's all really difficult to draw hard conclusions just by looking at your current result and having that 'you can use 2000 FU's' advise in mind ... Anyway that was pretty much my point in the first place.

[gc83uk]

Hmm I'm not just talking about my case in particular though, what I'm saying is Fue ain't all that. It's generally worse than fut imo.

And by time you factor in graft survival, it's pointless. Nevermind moving hair from a to b, you lose hair as a whole when having an fue.

I actually told hasci to take grafts from around my scar to reduce the contrast of bare skin to thick hair around it. Long term I need to get some hair placed in there, that's for sure.

[gc83uk]

And thanks caddarik for your kind wishes, all the best for you too, keep in touch

[Arashi]

Hmm I'm not just talking about my case in particular though, what I'm saying is Fue ain't all that. It's generally worse than fut imo.

I dont know ... In the past this certainly was the case but I think most FUE doctors have about 95% or higher graft surival nowadays. In my opinion HST is just exactly a FUE. Only difference is that HASCI splits grafts and thus takes a 3-4 FU, leave 1-2 hairs behind and move 1-2 hairs to donor. Exactly like JJJJR's concluded.

[534623]

I dont know ... In the past this certainly was the case but I think most FUE doctors have about 95% or higher graft surival nowadays.

Really? All of the sudden most FUE doctors have about 95% or higher graft survival rate - without changing anything??

WHY should they suddenly have 95% graft survival, when 95% (or more) HT doctors still use saline solution as graft storage medium??

Recently, Dr. Gho has scientifically proven (contrary to others who just make wild claims out there) completely the contrary to your “hot air” claims …

The Influence of Preservation Solution on the Viability of Grafts in Hair Transplantation Surgery

http://www.hasci.com/uploads/files/2013_gho_the_influence_of_preservation_solution_on_the_viability_of_hairtransplantation_grafts.pdf

But completely independent from this study, all those guys who had HST procedures know anyhow: whatever they implant - GROWS.

And last - but not least:
I still wonder why nobody is asking Arashi, IF everything is so great with normal FUE procedures - why doesn't he buy one?? ... in Turkey ... lol

[caddarik79]

what about the evolution of your 2nd procedure, Ironman?

[gc83uk]

I dont know ... In the past this certainly was the case but I think most FUE doctors have about 95% or higher graft surival nowadays. In my opinion HST is just exactly a FUE. Only difference is that HASCI splits grafts and thus takes a 3-4 FU, leave 1-2 hairs behind and move 1-2 hairs to donor. Exactly like JJJJR's concluded.

That is a myth, sorry. For the likes of Mwamba to say it's around 80%, he seems like an honest kind of guy too, perhaps too honest with the whole Nigam situation.

Has there been a study to show how FUE is now getting as high as 95%? If there is I will obviously retract!

It was common knowledge graft survival even compared to FUT was shocking, which is why many like at Hasson & Wong still do FUT.

It's an important fact that HST pisses on FUE when it comes to graft survival, that is why HST is not 'exactly like a FUE', plus no scarring.

Going back to my situation, if I have had 7000 hairs transplanted into my recipient, then to lose 7000 hairs, the equivalent of nearly 3500-4000 FUE grafts with my hair characteristics, it's seems more and more unlikely that I have had no regrowth. If I would have had 3500 FUE extracted from my donor I damn well know my donor would be decimated far over what we see now, I think you know that too.

I'm pretty sure that if you extract 5000 times with HST, you'll hit the sweet spot some of the time and this is when the regrowth will happen, it's almost accidental you could say.

Just my opinion.

Anyway I will do that count in my donor, just not this week. I need to get the hair shorter, otherwise it will be impossible.

[caddarik79]

Going back to my situation, if I have had 7000 hairs transplanted into my recipient, then to lose 7000 hairs, the equivalent of nearly 3500-4000 FUE grafts with my hair characteristics, it's seems more and more unlikely that I have had no regrowth. If I would have had 3500 FUE extracted from my donor I damn well know my donor would be decimated far over what we see now, I think you know that too.

.

Thank you!!!!!!!

[caddarik79]

your very next move will be very very interesting to follow!!!!

and more, I am very curious about how top will look in another 6-9 months...

[Arashi]

Going back to my situation, if I have had 7000 hairs transplanted into my recipient, then to lose 7000 hairs, the equivalent of nearly 3500-4000 FUE grafts with my hair characteristics

Well, that's of course questionable: with 7000 hairs, did the doctor have 7000/2.5 = 2800 grafts in mind ? Or more, like you seem to think ? Furthermore, how accurate could his prediction have been ? Would it be possible his prediction could have been off 800 grafts ? And last, what target density did he have in mind for your donor ? It seems likely 125 hairs/cm2 and it also seems likely you're already past that. So again, you result is nothing beyond an ordinary FUE result in my eyes.

But, to cut down on speculation: let's measure your donor density now !

[Arashi]

That is a myth, sorry. For the likes of Mwamba to say it's around 80%, he seems like an honest kind of guy too, perhaps too honest with the whole Nigam situation.

Can you show me where he said that ? Also do you have any other proof of FUE survival being only 80% ? And do you have proof it's much higher at HASCI ?

[Arashi]

Really? All of the sudden most FUE doctors have about 95% or higher graft survival rate - without changing anything??

WHY should they suddenly have 95% graft survival, when 95% (or more) HT doctors still use saline solution as graft storage medium??

Recently, Dr. Gho has scientifically proven (contrary to others who just make wild claims out there) completely the contrary to your “hot air” claims …

The Influence of Preservation Solution on the Viability of Grafts in Hair Transplantation Surgery

http://www.hasci.com/uploads/files/2013_gho_the_influence_of_preservation_solution_on_the_viability_of_hairtransplantation_grafts.pdf

Hahaha that study is a joke, just like all other Gho 'studies'. Any university would throw it in a trash can, in fact, I laughed out loud. Did you even read it Ironman ? They compared their own solution to 2 commercial solutions, dumped the grafts in it and watched it and concluded that grafts were more viable in their own solution BUT THEY DID NOT EVEN IMPLANT THEM !!! They only implanted the grafts dumped in their own saline and concluded they all survived. What's a study without a control ? How can they even say grafts are more viable without implanting the grafts bathed in the commercial solution ? What a complete joke, like all of their 'research'. If a student in his first year would present this to his professor, he'd tell the student to go back to high school !!

Furthermore, they used 0.7 mm grafts, so probably there wasnt any damage at all to the follicle, that's FAR from a real world situation. Grafts die not because of the saline, but because of damage.

Remember how that ISHRS surgeon said Gho's paper with his regrowth claims had a scientific value of about 0 ? Well This paper is even worse.

[Arashi]

Also they claim on the Dutch forums that Gho is not even a 'surgeon' but just a 'doctor'. I havent verified it but reading papers like this, that would make a LOT of sense !! What a joke ... He should go back to highschool

[35YrsAfter]

Hi Chuck, when they say Gaz, they are referring to me. I have created a link to a recent set of photos about 3 or 4 pages back in this thread.

Thanks for posting. I have found that cameras + flash often make hair appear much thinner than it actually is. Below is an example of how lighting can change the appearance of hair density. Notice the appearance of thinning on the photo on the right. The right photo was taken indoors with flash just minutes before the second photo. The photo on the left was taken outside in direct sunlight. The camera with flash found "thin" areas that I couldn't see at all in natural as well as indoor lighting.
BTW, have you considered beard hair grafts? One of our repair patients has had over 5,000 placed all over his head to cover scars and improve density. The beard area heals remarkably well and beard hair is often twice the caliber of scalp hair. It looks natural when placed correctly.


35YrsAfter also posts as CITNews and works at Dr. Cole's office - forhair.com - Cole Hair Transplant, 1045 Powers Place, Alpharetta, Georgia 30009 - Phone 678-566-1011 - email 35YrsAfter at chuck@forhair.com
The contents of my posts are my opinions and not medical advice
Please feel free to call or email me with any questions. Ask for Chuck

[Arashi]

Thanks for posting. I have found that cameras + flash often make hair appear much thinner than it actually is.

Yes, thats the way how Dr Nigam grows hairs