Easing the paradigm shift in Hair transplantation - Pilofocus
Since piloscopy (Pilofocus), the technique pioneered by Dr Carlos Wesley, will finally be approved by the FDA this year, I would like to propose that we start talking and asking our hair transplant surgeons to adopt this technique. I cannot see but advantages and the cost should not be higher than FUE. Physician time, the main cost driver, is lower (harvesting takes 1 hour for 1000 grafts, so a 3000 grafts procedure should not take more than 5 hours).
Let's help move technology adoption faster than what happened with FUE, which has taken 10 years to overtake FUT.
I have spoken with the surgeon that performed my first procedure and he believes that this is a game changer. Many of his patients are worried about scarring and having to cut their hair, so he will try and learn pilofocus!
01-08-2015 06:23 AM
brocktherock
I know a lot of people will disagree with me but I think we are so close to having a cure that this isn't going to matter. Look at how long FUE has been out and it isn't the norm yet. Even if pilofocus was out today it would be still too expensive to make a real difference. I spent two years obsessed with hair transplants, I even had a consult with dr. rahal but the fact of the matter is that its too risky and too expensive. If Im wrong and the cure doesn't come then you'll still continue to bald and you'll waiste a ton of money for results that are ok at best. My buddy not only has a huge scar on the back of his head but the top of his head is textured like a basket ball, now he wears a hat everyday. My point is better days are ahead, don't settle for less if you have to spend that kind of money.
01-08-2015 06:28 AM
Hairismylife
Without donor regeneration, the game is not changed.
01-08-2015 06:33 AM
brocktherock
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hairismylife
Without donor regeneration, the game is not changed.
Even with donor regeneration you'd still need a zillion dollars for a full head of hair even at FUT prices.
01-08-2015 06:43 AM
Swooping
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hairismylife
Without donor regeneration, the game is not changed.
This. I would call Pilofocus straight up nonsense if the only purpose of it is to reduce scarring. Scarring isn't even almost a problem anymore with high skilled surgeons who use a small punch. Especially when they go in at a 90 degree angle and shift their angle thereafter before extracting.
Doubling or donor regeneration is where it's at. Problem is literally 99% of hair surgeons are clueless in this (aside from Dr. Cole somewhat). I am pretty sure that when you put Christiano, Higgins, Jahoda etc. in a room with with in vivo experimentation (trial & error) it would be peanuts for them and they would achieve doubling within a very short time span with a high yield. On the other hand why blame the HT guys. A method for doubling or regeneration would be highly likely way more time invasive. Currently HT surgeons make enough money as it is, why would they even try to innovate if it doesn't yield more profit and they are making very good money already. Simple as that.
01-08-2015 07:03 AM
Hairismylife
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swooping
This. I would call Pilofocus straight up nonsense if the only purpose of it is to reduce scarring. Scarring isn't even almost a problem anymore with high skilled surgeons who use a small punch. Especially when they go in at a 90 degree angle and shift their angle thereafter before extracting.
Doubling or donor regeneration is where it's at. Problem is literally 99% of hair surgeons are clueless in this (aside from Dr. Cole somewhat). I am pretty sure that when you put Christiano, Higgins, Jahoda etc. in a room with with in vivo experimentation (trial & error) it would be peanuts for them and they would achieve doubling within a very short time span with a high yield. On the other hand why blame the HT guys. A method for doubling or regeneration would be highly likely way more time invasive. Currently HT surgeons make enough money as it is, why would they even try to innovate if it doesn't yield more profit and they are making very good money already. Simple as that.
Not really…they can charge double for this and even so wont reduce demand.
Imagine now Dr Wesley offer donor regeneration but charge 100% higher, you still will go for that, right?
01-08-2015 07:31 AM
Swooping
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hairismylife
Not really…they can charge double for this and even so wont reduce demand.
Imagine now Dr Wesley offer donor regeneration but charge 100% higher, you still will go for that, right?
I'm not going to explain all details, but if you want to have a shot at hair doubling currently you need to work in vitro. Meaning it will be way more time invasive aside other costs you need to calculate in as extra personnel. So it wouldn't cost 2x as much, it would likely have to be 5x+ as expensive if you translate it to how long it takes to undergo a procedure now. If it would be that costly the target group would be immensely smaller due to way higher costs and they would yield higher profit with the current procedures. Not everyone has the money to spent $25+ per graft.
Nonetheless, I'll say it again throw high skilled researchers against this with in vivo trial & error and they crack doubling incredibly fast. Currently only a few ht surgeons try to give a shot at this, the other 95% don't even try. And the 5% who work on it, just don't have have the knowledge & experience. It's the same as if I would try to fix an engine of a car, would take me ages while someone skilled at it will fix the problem 50x as fast as me.
01-08-2015 08:34 AM
brunobald
One of the things I like about pilofocus is the potential to remove all the remaining scalp hair so you can be slick without shaving or having the nw7 shadow if you get that advanced. Definitely something I would consider.
01-08-2015 08:49 AM
Premium
I think it is not only about no scarring and less downtime, but also there would be a 45% more graft survival than with FUE. This means that people can achieve higher densities in the recipient area. Also, there would be more room to harvest from the donor area as a thin donor will not look as bad if it is not scarred in a punctuated way.
No scarring, more convenience (quicker than FUE + less downtime), higher yield (45% more than FUE) and similar cost are important enough factors to make FUE obsolete. The price will probably be a bit higher in the beginning, but it has to go down because in a surgery one pays for surgeon's time.
Not to mention the possibility of regeneration. Even if we only consider the rudimentary technique of applying Acell the problem that Dr Cole observed, i.e., Acell leaking out from the FUE holes at the donor site, would be solved. I there is something else that Dr Wesley has used in his trials, and has worked, all the better
01-08-2015 10:45 AM
hellouser
Quote:
Originally Posted by Premium
I think it is not only about no scarring and less downtime, but also there would be a 45% more graft survival than with FUE.
Where did you read that it would be 45% more survival? IF thats the case, pilofocus would get us to around 10,000 grafts for pretty much everyone. That'd be damn near a cure. AFAIK, graft survivial can be as low as around 75% for FUE and about 80-85% for FUT.
