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

Dear BTT members & users,

as announced in a previous thread (http://www.baldtruthtalk.com/showthread.php?t=11777), I'll gladly share with you proof of effective donor regeneration. Please bear in mind this is just a "teaser" exclusively meant for you, and that we'll provide higher quality documentation in the future (both for medical & commercial purpose).
That being said, I think the following documents should suffice to support our main claim: we do achieve steady donor regeneration thanks to our FUE-L technique. More details about this new technique will be revealed soon, so please be patient and don't misjudge us for not disclosing everything immediately :)



About the patient:

- 30 yo male
- No medicinal treatment (e.g. finasteride, minoxidil, etc.)
- No previous surgical experience
- Diffuse pattern of hairloss with a slightly receding hairline (NWD2).
- Hair characteristics: black colour, under-average caliber, wavy texture (but regular subcutaneous refractive angles).
- No specific skin condition

Dr Mousseigne qualifies him as a fairly average patient; his thin hair caliber being compensated by a high skin/hair contrast.



About the procedure:

this test was performed in early April 2013. Other similar tests have been done earlier this year and in late 2012.

I decided to analyze and document a restricted perimeter of the whole test area, which included 100 Follicular Units (FU) before the extractions began. I thought this rather large sample would give everybody here a good idea of our technique's efficiency.

Three different steps of the procedure have been precisely analyzed:
- pre-op
- immediately post-op
- 12 days post-op

Each of these steps comes with an annotated macro picture, a chart, and synthetic comments.

If you deem it necessary, I will also be able to provide pictures from the +4 day & +6 day marks. I'll just need a little additional time to annotate and analyze them.



Once again, this study case works as a proof for donor regeneration after FU's extractions. We are not publishing pictures of the recipient area, because it would be too early to notice signs of regrowth anyway. Soon we'll share complete study cases with high standard documentation (including macro polarized shots & overall professional settings).
Thanks for both your interest and understanding.

http://i.imgur.com/is5W3xZ.jpg

The analyzed perimeter includes 100 Follicular Units (FU). In the chart below, each FU and its type (1 hair, 2 hairs, 3 hairs, 4 hairs) are listed as accurately as the image allowed me to be.



http://i.imgur.com/rqcvGvb.jpg

h = hair(s)
FU = Follicular Unit


Follicular Units' breakdown:
FU – 1 hair = 17% (17)
FU – 2 hairs = 68% (68)
FU – 3 hairs = 13% (13)
FU – 4 hairs = 2% (2)

These 100 Follicular Units (FU) contain a total of 200 hairs (h).
That gives a h/FU ratio of 2.0, which matches average caucasian characteristics.

Hello Mathieu

Thank you for taking the time! When can we expect to see the post op photo?

Can you tell me what size needles you're using to extract?

Thanks

http://i.imgur.com/JJYA6gL.jpg

The picture was taken immediately after the Follicular Units' extraction.
For further details, please check out the chart below.



http://i.imgur.com/6Ln570L.jpg

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mathieu

Once again, this study case works as a proof for donor regeneration ...

---

I always thought that "donor regeneration" is just a mythos?

All of a sudden it's so "cool & easy" ... :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gc83uk

Hello Mathieu

Thank you for taking the time! When can we expect to see the post op photo?

Can you tell me what size needles you're using to extract?

Thanks

---

Hi gc83uk, I'm posting the different steps progressively, instead of putting everything into one big bulky message. So if you want to link one of the specific steps in another conversation, you'll be able to do so.
The third one (12 days post-op) will be published in just a few minutes.

Regarding the exact instruments used for the procedure, I can't disclose them yet. But I'll give you a hint: it's smaller than regular FUE's punches.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 534623

I always thought that "donor regeneration" is just a mythos?

All of a sudden it's so "cool & easy" ... :rolleyes:

---

Hello IM, did my posts give the impression that donor regeneration is a "cool & easy" thing? If so, I misrepresentated my thoughts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mathieu

Hi gc83uk, I'm posting the different steps progressively, instead of putting everything into one big bulky message. So if you want to link one of the specific steps in another conversation, you'll be able to do so.
The third one (12 days post-op) will be published in just a few minutes.

Regarding the exact instruments used for the procedure, I can't disclose them yet. But I'll give you a hint: it's smaller than regular FUE's punches.




Hello IM, did my posts give the impression that donor regeneration is a "cool & easy" thing? If so, I misrepresentated my thoughts.

---

OK, is it also smaller than what you were using back in e.g 2007, 0.75 punch?

When can we expect you to disclose more details and what is the reason for the current secrecy?

Thank you very much for posting these. It's nice to have someone come on here and post information the way you do so precisely.

Again, and I think I'm saying this for the whole Bald Truth Talk community, we appreciate your efforts.

FTL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mathieu

Regarding the exact instruments used for the procedure, I can't disclose them yet. But I'll give you a hint: it's smaller than regular FUE's punches.

---

Let me guess ...

In one of your photos I can see "FUE-L".
"L" for "longitudinal" FUE? FUE is always a "longitudinal" extraction. Thus, the question is rather: What needle size is used to extract grafts longitudinal?

If the needle is smaller as with normal FUE extractions for INTACT follicles - in this case, it's not "FUE" anymore, because "FUE" is defined as extraction of INTACT follicles/follicular units.

gc83UK, 0,75-1,0mm is widely considered as the typical FUE punch range. You can therefore deduce that our current instrument is smaller than that.
We will unveil our "secrets" soon. But first, we would like to gather more documented results and also to fix a couple of administrative details (nothing illegal, don't worry! :p ).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mathieu

gc83UK, 0,75-1,0mm is widely considered as the typical FUE punch range. You can therefore deduce that our current instrument is smaller than that.
We will unveil our "secrets" soon. But first, we would like to gather more documented results and also to fix a couple of administrative details (nothing illegal, don't worry! :p ).

---

OK, I'm assuming it's somewhere between 0.5 to 0.7mm, impressive that it was able to extract a 4FU (#85) in full.

Perhaps you would be able to tell us how labour intensive this procedure is compared to regular FUE?

Also, do you have a picture of the extracted grafts or the grafts in the petri?

http://i.imgur.com/CRdONCV.jpg

The picture above was taken 12 days after the procedure. Please note that the doctor had to shave again the test area, hence the presence of tiny hair debris all over the area (beware, they could mislead you when trying to identify FU exiting the scalp).




Please wait a little before I publish the associated chart & analysis. After a quadruple check, there seems to be a miscount.

Ah, if only I had IronMan's IQ... :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mathieu

Ah, if only I had IronMan's IQ... :p

---

LOL. Someone has been watching the troll :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mathieu

ah, if only i had ironman's iq... :p

---

lol, zing!

[I'm reposting the 12 days post-op picture, so Winston can erase my previous post for more clarity. Thanks.]



http://i.imgur.com/CRdONCV.jpg

The picture above was taken 12 days after the procedure. Please note that the doctor had to shave again the test area, hence the presence of tiny hair debris all over the area (beware, they could mislead you when trying to identify FU exiting the scalp).


http://i.imgur.com/dA65jOM.jpg

h = hair(s)
n/a = transected Follicular Unit, no hair was harvested from it


Reminder: the test area included 100 FU. 60 FU were harvested, and 40 FU were left untouched.

Over the 8 fully transected FU containing a total of 16 hairs (n° 17, 23, 35, 54, 67, 81, 94, 99 ; see previous post), 7 FU fully regrew; only 1 fully transected FU showed partial regrowth (n°99, 1/2 hairs). That is because the transection was performed at a very superficial level, and no true damage was inflicted to the FU's structure.
-> 15/16 hairs regrew, which equals a survival rate of 93,75%.


Details of the 52 FU after their successful removal:

- 7 FU (13,5%) didn't regrow in the donor (n° 14, 34, 38, 61, 71, 83, 90) = 0/11 hairs
- 15 FU (28,8%) partially regrew in the donor = 21/36 hairs
- 30 FU (57,7%) fully regrew = 59/59 hairs

-> 86,5% of the extracted FU did regenerate to various degrees, between 0 and 12 days post-op.
-> 75,5% of the extracted hairs (80/106) did regenerate, between 0 and 12 days post-op.

For your information, I did a slight miscount in the "immediately post-op" message (http://www.baldtruthtalk.com/showpos...13&postcount=4); I sent the corrected draft to the admin (through the "contact us" form) ... if no action is taken, I'll re-post the right data in another message, but that may become a little confusing ... sorry for the inconvenience.

Mathieu,

Photos like these are all well and good, but they always make me wonder... what about the recipient? Are we sure that all of the transplanted hairs grew?

So Mathieu, in theory with this technique, you could harvest every hair in the donor section (at least once maybe more) to give even a nw6 or nw7 a full head of hair? By full head of hair I mean nw2 with full dense coverage...

Youngin, on this very patient, it's too early yet to comment potential regrowth on the recipient area.
Our current goal is to gather as many proof as possible of the whole process. For now, I can state that we achieve steady donor regeneration... but is it followed by steady recipient regrowth? Honestly, I don't know with certainty yet, and consequently I'd rather remain cautious. It will require several study cases to be assertive on this topic.

FearTheLoss, repeated harvesting of the same FU is an issue to cover with further testing. In fact, Dr Mousseigne did try to remove twice the same FU on a patient, after the first session was successful; he only waited a short lapse of time before he reiterated the harvesting, and he noticed then that no donor regeneration had occured the second time around. It will be interesting to experiment different lapses of time, in order to identify the shortest time interval possible between 2 harvestings of the same FU, while still achieving regeneration.
As for turning a slick Norwood 6-7 into a dense Norwood 2, I guess that's a possibility to consider if the patient has the right donor, favourable hair characteristics, and the motivation to undergo several surgeries.

And hear you have it - the next step forward in hair transplantation before our very eyes, Dr Gho, Dr Nigam and now this, it's clear this will become the new standard. You cant exactly refute those pictures no matter how hard you try... I just wonder why Spencer never mentions these types of procedures on his show.

All we need to see now is recipient growth.

Mathieu

Yes, I have read every one of Dr. Gho's documents on his HST procedure, that also obtains donor regeneration, and he stated that if a fu that just regenerated is harvested again in a short period of time that it will not regenerate again, therefore, he makes patients wait 9 months in between each procedure as a safe zone. Now, I'm sure people with quicker healing ability could have it harvested sooner, but 9 months seems to be what he has found as the safe time period for everyone.

Anyway, I'm rooting for you guys as you take the world of hair transplantation surgery to the next level. Exciting times!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gc83uk

OK, I'm assuming it's somewhere between 0.5 to 0.7mm, impressive that it was able to extract a 4FU (#85) in full.

Perhaps you would be able to tell us how labour intensive this procedure is compared to regular FUE?

Also, do you have a picture of the extracted grafts or the grafts in the petri?

---

gc83uk, you're assuming right ;)

If you look closely at the FU #85 in the pre-op picture, you'll see that it is very compact when exiting the skin. As mentioned in my first post, this patient has under-average hair caliber. The combination of these 2 aspects made the extraction technically possible.
On the other hand, if you look at the other 4 hairs FU (#7), the smaller punch only allowed to extract 3 hairs out of 4, mainly due to the FU's wider layout.

The FUE-L technique requires a lot of dexterity, and you can bet that many doctors will be too lazy & too untalented to learn it... just as the vast majority of them already skipped the standard follicular unit transplantation's shift.
However I do believe that good FUE specialists should be able to adapt quickly. Without revealing too much, I intend to create connections with other experimented FUE docs, unlike Dr Gho's exclusive approach. There are too many patients who should benefit from this progress, so we need more than 2 or 3 doctors mastering the procedure worlwide. Oh, and this is my last hint of the day: american patients can start to rejoice. If everything goes as anticipated, they won't be left apart.

And, sorry, but I have no picture of a graft in a petri dish to show here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FearTheLoss

Mathieu

Yes, I have read every one of Dr. Gho's documents on his HST procedure, that also obtains donor regeneration, and he stated that if a fu that just regenerated is harvested again in a short period of time that it will not regenerate again, therefore, he makes patients wait 9 months in between each procedure as a safe zone. Now, I'm sure people with quicker healing ability could have it harvested sooner, but 9 months seems to be what he has found as the safe time period for everyone.

Anyway, I'm rooting for you guys as you take the world of hair transplantation surgery to the next level. Exciting times!

---

FearTheLoss, thanks for the heads-up. I'm familiar too with Dr Gho's literature, so I was aware of this 8-9 months recommended interval. We'll see if we can reduce it or bypass it with strategic donor management.
Being myself a diffuse Norwood 6 with below-average density in the donor (courtesy of two past HTs, 1 obsolete strip procedure in 2006, and 1 FUE in 2009), you can bet that I'm all about reducing downtimes inbetween procedures. As long as pushing the envelope means no unconsidered risk or harm for the patient, I think this is the way to go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UK_

And hear you have it - the next step forward in hair transplantation before our very eyes, Dr Gho, Dr Nigam and now this, it's clear this will become the new standard. You cant exactly refute those pictures no matter how hard you try... I just wonder why Spencer never mentions these types of procedures on his show.

All we need to see now is recipient growth.

---

I think the fact that this is the most popular hair loss forum on the internet and Spencer encourages these donor regeneration discussions on BTT, speaks for itself.

Spencer talked about this stuff last night on the show and I personally wouldn't put too much faith in Nigam, I really like that Mathieu is posting clinical images from the clinic as opposed to a bunch on anonymous forum guys trying to prove Gho's concept for him with their own pictures or trying to organize 50 graft tests. :) I think this is a big step. We do need to see recipient pictures in order to get the full picture of results though, but this is a good start I think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PayDay

I think the fact that this is the most popular hair loss forum on the internet and Spencer encourages these donor regeneration discussions on BTT, speaks for itself.

---

Yesterday I did my bi-monthly tour of all international forums: italian, spanish, polish, swedish, flamish, you name it, I checked all of them. And guess what? There's ALWAYS one local member who reads BTT's forums.
You know what's funny? I saw swedish/polish/italian baldies mentioning IronMan and his posts (for the better or for the worse, depending on the poster's sensibility) :D this man is an international star!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PayDay

Spencer talked about this stuff last night on the show and I personally wouldn't put too much faith in Nigam, I really like that Mathieu is posting clinical images from the clinic as opposed to a bunch on anonymous forum guys trying to prove Gho's concept for him with their own pictures or trying to organize 50 graft tests. :) I think this is a big step. We do need to see recipient pictures in order to get the full picture of results though, but this is a good start I think.

---

I should announce it in a separate thread, but Dr Mousseigne is willing to do a FUE-L test, free of charge, on a patient based in London or the surroundings (any location allowing the patient to attend frequent check-ups). We don't want to force anyone to publish his testimony online, so he may just let us scientifically document his progress once the test procedure is done, and I will pass on the infos here. Any candidate can contact Dr Mousseigne himself at the following address: drbruno@mousseigne.com ... obviously, it could be interesting to treat an active BTT member, who would then honestly reports his experience here... but that's not an obligation either.

I agree it is all very exciting and great news.
The only real big question that will come after your proofs and documented cases will be the prices and its fairness.

But I'm glad competition has started...sincerely.
What are american and belgian doctors waiting for?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22810306

Quote:

---

Finally, we demonstrate that epidermal Wnt ligands are critical for adult wound-induced de novo hair formation.

---

Histogen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caddarik79

I agree it is all very exciting and great news.
The only real big question that will come after your proofs and documented cases will be the prices and its fairness.

But I'm glad competition has started...sincerely.
What are american and belgian doctors waiting for?

---

American doctors will keep denying it's possible for as long as they can so they can continue making money giving people 32cm scar lines from ear to ear and minimal coverage....they will do this until the general population is smart enough to do their research and fly overseas to Gho or Mousseigne

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FearTheLoss

American doctors will keep denying it's possible for as long as they can so they can continue making money giving people 32cm scar lines from ear to ear and minimal coverage....they will do this until the general population is smart enough to do their research and fly overseas to Gho or Mousseigne

---

Yes exactly, and if you can recall, that took a hell of a long time when Dr Woods came up with his technique.

Its a shame because the majority of customers out there are ACTUALLY still getting hair transplants after seeing an advertisement online (i.e no research/no forums etc).

Crazy!

yes that's a shame, what could we do to avoid that, we should make it more public... Gho and Mousseigne and stem cells transplantation in general!!!


Facebook? Twitter?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caddarik79

yes that's a shame, what could we do to avoid that, we should make it more public... Gho and Mousseigne and stem cells transplantation in general!!!


Facebook? Twitter?

---

I dont think theres much we can do about it - but when traditional HT surgeons start to see their patient numbers declining as people refuse to have permanent hair loss in donor regions they will be forced to adjust their offering or go out of business. Similarly the more surgeons who can offer donor regeneration the lower the price will be for consumers.

Mathieu

Firstly thank you so much for taking the time to come onto the forum and informing us about Dr. Mousseigne's very exciting work.

I am interested to hear your thoughts on the degree of scarring resulting from this procedure. Would you consider if to be the same as that resulting from a procedure with Dr. Gho's clinics - no visual scarring but micro scarring of some degree?

Thank you in advance for your response.

This is an awesome development ! Solely the fact that you are based in France and not in some 3rd world country gives me a lot of hope that you're not pulling a "Nigam". Also the fact that you're conservative yet about your (recipient) results and not yet promise us the skies without any evidence, gives me even more hope that you're onto something. Donor regeneration should replace FUE as the golden treatment method asap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arashi

This is an awesome development ! Solely the fact that you are based in France and not in some 3rd world country gives me a lot of hope that you're not pulling a "Nigam". Also the fact that you're conservative yet about your (recipient) results and not yet promise us the skies without any evidence, gives me even more hope that you're onto something. Donor regeneration should replace FUE as the golden treatment method asap.

---

Totally agree Arashi. We need more and more doctors to see that regeneration really is possible and to start learning to do it themselves. We need them to see that we as patients will no longer stand for the crappy that is currently offered as the gold standard for hair transplants - we need regenetative procedures to be the standard! It's 2013 and this should be the start of a long awaited evolution in the hair restoration industry.

Mathieu - are you going to address the pricing issue? Even if this regeneration works, it will be out of the hands of 90% of us. No one is going to choose a 10$/graft transplant over Gho (which is too expensive as it is). If we get right down to it, even FUE in the US is way overpriced. FUT is a more attainable goal price wise, but not a good option for most of us. It really is ridiculous.

yes, regeneration should be the standard in 2013 and hair multiplication the final ultimate holy grail in 2015.

am just wondering if we will be OK for hair multiplication if we were HSTransplanted one or many times before?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by youngin

Mathieu - are you going to address the pricing issue? Even if this regeneration works, it will be out of the hands of 90% of us. No one is going to choose a 10$/graft transplant over Gho (which is too expensive as it is). If we get right down to it, even FUE in the US is way overpriced. FUT is a more attainable goal price wise, but not a good option for most of us. It really is ridiculous.

---

+1
Also, who would be the ideal candidate for the free test in terms of Norwood level and age?

Thanks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UK_

Yes exactly, and if you can recall, that took a hell of a long time when Dr Woods came up with his technique.

Its a shame because the majority of customers out there are ACTUALLY still getting hair transplants after seeing an advertisement online (i.e no research/no forums etc).

Crazy!

---

UK_, please take into consideration that each country has different laws and culture, which implies for instance that active medical advertising is (theoretically) forbidden in France; while, in the US, you may come across Bosley ads when you turn on your TV.
In France, 95% of HT doctors are still performing obsolete techniques, like micro-mini grafting with strip harvesting or very large punches. They usually charge a fixed cost of about 3-5K€ for a 600-1200 grafts procedures (1200 being their top limitation due to technical & logistic shortcomings). Their business might have declined a little thanks to the internet, but far from enough to close down their practice; I'm actually inclined to believe that some of these doctors earn BIGGER salaries than the ones often discussed here for their brilliant skills.
So how does the majority of french patients find about their doctor? Well, through the recommendation of another doctor, i.e. their regular M.D. or their dermatologist. The doctor being an authoritative figure in our society, most people just listen religiously to his words and then act accordingly.
When average prospective patients use the internet for research, a good percentage of them falls indeed for the first links brought back by Google. Blame it on a mix of naivety and intellectual laziness. Unfortunately, many bad docs have invested their money in Google ranking improvement, or simply already had a website up & running 10 years ago (which naturally won the best visibility & ranking over time). These are the same who are invited on TV as "HT experts", because of their natural exposure, or active lobbying within the medical & mundane spheres.
As a consequence, and with the help of most patients' flawed mindset (i.e. naivety & intellectual laziness), these docs' misinformation still rules the market.
Based on personal observations, the same status is valid on other european markets.

So how to change this situation in the best interest of most patients? First, you have to accept that not everybody will be "saved", because some patients will always go to the wrong doctors, and then it is important to have an examplary physician ( as much technically as ethically) to communicate in the mainstream medias, and to use them in a clever way. In other words, we need a "positive" Bosley type of structure, with appropriate funds to perform mass marketing so the perceived norm about HT is impacted in a positive way. Sounds ambitious? Sure. But you're talking to a determined guy ;) For instance, I know for a fact that Dr Mousseigne can & will benefit from mainstream medias' exposure (TV, papernews, etc.) because he did operate journalists, media CEO's, TV hosts, actors, directors, etc. So he has the means to reach a national audience, and thus to reach patients' brain before it gets soiled with bad docs' misinformation. In fact, Dr Mousseigne has also worked on a few Hollywood actors, british journalists, and so on. Trust me, this is an aspect not to be neglected when you want to get the word out about a new revolutionary technique.
All in all, this is why I decided to instigate this medical project with Dr Mousseigne: he's got the technical experience and skills, and he also has an access to greater means of communication. You may be surprised to learn that some very respected HT doctors on BTT and other forums... do only exist through these medias. They exclusively rely on them to fill up their schedule. All of their patients are forum users (mostly ghost readers). It's an efficient business plan only if you are not wanting to expand too much, i.e. you're an isolated doctor running one practice. I personally know very well most of the belgian FUE doctors and how their clinics are run... and NONE can compete with Dr Mousseigne's greater communication potential.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FearTheLoss

American doctors will keep denying it's possible for as long as they can so they can continue making money giving people 32cm scar lines from ear to ear and minimal coverage....they will do this until the general population is smart enough to do their research and fly overseas to Gho or Mousseigne

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caddarik79

yes that's a shame, what could we do to avoid that, we should make it more public... Gho and Mousseigne and stem cells transplantation in general!!!
Facebook? Twitter?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UK_

I dont think theres much we can do about it - but when traditional HT surgeons start to see their patient numbers declining as people refuse to have permanent hair loss in donor regions they will be forced to adjust their offering or go out of business. Similarly the more surgeons who can offer donor regeneration the lower the price will be for consumers.

---

Guys, please check my answer above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UK Boy

Mathieu

Firstly thank you so much for taking the time to come onto the forum and informing us about Dr. Mousseigne's very exciting work.

I am interested to hear your thoughts on the degree of scarring resulting from this procedure. Would you consider if to be the same as that resulting from a procedure with Dr. Gho's clinics - no visual scarring but micro scarring of some degree?

Thank you in advance for your response.

---

UK Boy, thanks for your kind words, very much appreciated.

Based on our first observations, the FUE-L technique leaves no visible scarring in the donor area. Please keep in mind that the whole healing process of the tissues is completed after +/- 6 months, so hypopigmentation ("white dots") could only be assessed after this amount of time. Many traditional FUE clinics use 1-2-3-4-5 months post-op pictures to supposedly demonstrate the lack of visible scarring where the Follicular Units were harvested; it's in fact a deceptive advertising trick, because these same displayed donors could really show visible scarring once the healing process is completed.
So I'll stick to my cautious approach, which consists in saying "for now" we have observed no visible scarring after FUE-L extractions, although it will require further follow-ups to become a definitive assessment.

I must emphasize the fact that the FUE-L protocol is different from Dr Gho's. Indeed, we use our own instruments and medium storage, which make the FUE-L procedure stand on its own. I will appreciate when you eventually differentiate the two techniques, although they may both aim at the same goals. I suppose that this distinction will naturally occur as we share more documentation and results, so I understand why many members still need to refer to Dr Gho.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arashi

This is an awesome development ! Solely the fact that you are based in France and not in some 3rd world country gives me a lot of hope that you're not pulling a "Nigam". Also the fact that you're conservative yet about your (recipient) results and not yet promise us the skies without any evidence, gives me even more hope that you're onto something. Donor regeneration should replace FUE as the golden treatment method asap.

---

Arashi, thanks, I appreciate your support.

What you call "conservative" is actually just relying on basic scientific principles. I suppose this should be the norm when it comes to medical matters.

As all of you, I hope and long for an efficient treatment. And I would rather avoid any self-deluding approach. If the FUE-L technique provides steady regrowth both in the donor & in the recipient areas, then, I'll be over the moon with this fact. For the time being, I can only assert and prove that steady donor regeneration is achieved. This is a first important step, but it will take another whole meaning if, after transplantation, the recipient regrowth is up to our expectations. All of this is in the process of being thoroughly documented, and I can tell you that I've got some reasons to be "optimistic" already.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by youngin

Mathieu - are you going to address the pricing issue? Even if this regeneration works, it will be out of the hands of 90% of us. No one is going to choose a 10$/graft transplant over Gho (which is too expensive as it is). If we get right down to it, even FUE in the US is way overpriced. FUT is a more attainable goal price wise, but not a good option for most of us. It really is ridiculous.

---

youngin, yes, I will address the pricing issue in the other thread. I wish this one could stay on track and discuss medical aspects of the FUE-L technique, based on the documents I openly shared with you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caddarik79

yes, regeneration should be the standard in 2013 and hair multiplication the final ultimate holy grail in 2015.

am just wondering if we will be OK for hair multiplication if we were HSTransplanted one or many times before?

---

caddarik79, with all due respect, if you want to question your HST personal experience and its potential consequences, I think you have a dedicated forum for this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Breaking Bald

+1
Also, who would be the ideal candidate for the free test in terms of Norwood level and age?

Thanks

---

Breaking Bald, the optimal characteristics would be the following:
- straight hair
- high contrast between hair & skin colour
- average or above-average hair caliber
- young age (> 35) for ideal skin's penetrability & subsequent healing
- from Norwood 1 to Norwood 7, as long as test areas can be clearly determined and analyzed

Asians (Japanese, Koreans, but also other nationalities & ethnies) could be labelled as the perfect patients for this procedure.

did Mousseigne operate Nicolas Bedos with his technique? because he for sure, did something in 2012 and got a huge improvement in his hair situation...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mathieu

Last edited by Winston; Today at 12:45 PM. Reason: Inappropriate commentary removed.

---

[False and misleading commentary removed]