Article on piloscopy...

[FearTheLoss]

I'm sure we will as well, like I have said before, this is backed up by numerous studies and is not something Dr. Wesley made up...this is independent third party research

[brocktherock]

Yes but will it be practical enough to catch on. It seems just as difficult as FUE in terms of labor but requires higher skill level. How many people actually reach the end of their donor supply? Lets say you could harvest 16,000 grafts, it means nothing if they are too expensive for anyone to afford.

[Artista]

You are SO RIGHT Fear' thanks!!

[luca10]

I have great faith in this!

[Javert]

I'm sure we will as well, like I have said before, this is backed up by numerous studies and is not something Dr. Wesley made up...this is independent third party research

+1

[Javert]

I have great faith in this!

I do too! *fingers crossed*

[Artista]

'Fingers' are CERTAINLY *crossed* Javert ...

When I finally met with Dr Wesley in person last month, his sincerity in what he is doing and working on was quite obvious!

[Hemo]

I am trying to participate in the trial as well...have an appointment coming up and will see.

[nameless]

Thank you for your replies, all, and I will try my best to address each of your points.

First off, we don't charge $20K. Fees have not even been determined at this clinical stage of piloscopy. The journalist was simply referring to the range of prices currently charged by different surgeons throughout the world (about $3K to $20K). That is simply all that she meant.

ShookOnes: I appreciate your research, but those investigations do not relate to our use of ACell (we are not placing it in a strip nor are we plucking hairs). As I mentioned in my original presentation, the application of ACell will parallel that used in Dr. Cooley's donor area study (see image below). The proposed difference is this: the piloscopic approach may leave the overlying hair fragment in place within its native environment. Incorportion of ACell (e.g. an ACell 'flush' of the underlying pilosocpic plane) coupled with the native environment holds promise of a percentage of the overlying donor fragments resuming their growth cycle. As our instrument development primarily has taken place on cadaveric tissue, this has not been the recent focus. Neither has hair growth - as both donor hair regeneration and new hair growth would be quite disturbing findings on a cadaveric scalp!! This also speaks to Joachim's point: there was never a mysterious presentation to Spencer or to anyone. It was my presentation of the similarities between Cooley's findings and our approach coupled with the potentially-advantageous differences that truly Spencer understood and shared my excitement for its potential. I have never promised this phenomenon, but do believe in its promise.

Perhaps, most importantly, I would like to respond to hellouser's statement that the "delays" are "embarrassing". The first promise we make as physicians is "First, do no harm." While we have been working diligently to develop instrumentation that meets quality assurance standards and provides a safe and effective method to improve upon the status quo, a number of responsibilities (regulatory, manufacturing, investigational review board, sterilization studies, instrument cleaning assurances, etc.) also come into play. Having a busy practice in NYC to maintain as these are all taking place, it's in nobody's best interest to let any of these important items slip through the cracks. I personally, would feel more reassured than embarrassed knowing that an instrument is being carefully designed rather than hastily thrown together and marketed.

While I certainly understand the frustrations of those who wanted this to be done and ready a long ago, I can assure you that I and my engineering team also share your "bloodshot eyes from sleepless nights scrolling through online forums like Hair Loss Help and Bald Truth Talk". The only difference is that ours come from scrolling through all of the design hurdles that we encounter. Thank you for your patience and we'll keep our nose to the grindstone!

Dr. Wesley,

It sounds like you're saying that you intend to go under the skin and remove follicles from underneath while also leaving behind some tissue for each harvested follicle and you hope that the tissue left behind plus ACELL will regenerate new follicle in place of the harvested follicles. Even if this is possible how can you be sure that your machine can harvest the follicles from underneath at the exact right spot on the follicle so that you harvest enough of the follicle to grow after implanted to the thinning area while also leaving behind enough of that same follicle to regenerate? It sounds to me like you are going to have to severe the follicle at a very specific spot on the follicle and I don't see how you can achieve this coming to the follicle from below the skin where you can't even see the follicle. How can you severe the follicle at the exact right spot when you can't even see it? Also we are not talking about harvesting a single follicle - we are talking about harvesting many many follicles. How are you going to harvest many many follicles, severing them all at the exact right location on each follicle, under the skin when you can't even see where you are cutting?

2. I do not have high confidence in ACELL at all. If Acell could regenerate harvested follicles then this would already be widespread globally throughout the hair transplant industry. A lot of doctors have tried regeneration of donor tissue using Acell and as far as I know nobody has succeeded. If Clooney had really pulled it off then the entire hair transplant industry would be using Acell to regenerate donor follicles after harvesting donor follicles and it would be big news in the media. A successful donor regeneration after harvesting donor follicles would be a BIG story.

[FearTheLoss]

Dr. Wesley,

It sounds like you're saying that you intend to go under the skin and remove follicles from underneath while also leaving behind some tissue for each harvested follicle and you hope that the tissue left behind plus ACELL will regenerate new follicle in place of the harvested follicles. Even if this is possible how can you be sure that your machine can harvest the follicles from underneath at the exact right spot on the follicle so that you harvest enough of the follicle to grow after implanted to the thinning area while also leaving behind enough of that same follicle to regenerate? It sounds to me like you are going to have to severe the follicle at a very specific spot on the follicle and I don't see how you can achieve this coming to the follicle from below the skin where you can't even see the follicle. How can you severe the follicle at the exact right spot when you can't even see it? Also we are not talking about harvesting a single follicle - we are talking about harvesting many many follicles. How are you going to harvest many many follicles, severing them all at the exact right location on each follicle, under the skin when you can't even see where you are cutting?

2. I do not have high confidence in ACELL at all. If Acell could regenerate harvested follicles then this would already be widespread globally throughout the hair transplant industry. A lot of doctors have tried regeneration of donor tissue using Acell and as far as I know nobody has succeeded. If Clooney had really pulled it off then the entire hair transplant industry would be using Acell to regenerate donor follicles after harvesting donor follicles and it would be big news in the media. A successful donor regeneration after harvesting donor follicles would be a BIG story.

Dr. Wesley discussed this in his last call with Spencer. It's a very small space to hit, and very small adjustments may need to be made to hit this spot as it differs between people. I believe Dr. Wesley stated that maybe taking a few out with FUE initially to see this depth and adjust could be an option (not 100% sure I'm recalling this correctly, you can watch the video though). However, finding an average depth to extract the follicles, while leaving the upper portion in it's original environment may be all that is needed. Dr. Wesley seemed to suggest in the phone call that he believed keeping the follicle in it's original environment was more important than what Acell could do for any regeneration. If you have read the study he posted, they split the follicles horizontally and implanted both ends on balding scalp (a much more harsh environment then where one portion of the follicle would stay in the donor zone) and both halves grew with an average of 75% yield. The idea is, if one half is staying in the donor region where it's in it's original environment, maybe we can increase that 75% for that half. Further, maybe adding things like PRP/Acell can help both halves increase their yield. I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to see how Piloscopy could improve upon the technique used in this study that clearly worked for multiplying follicles.

Furthermore, Dr. Cooley has presented clear evidence that it works to some extent, and this is backed up by Dr. Cole who sees regeneration in his clinic all the time to various degrees. Dr. Cole stated the only problem is, the ACell leaks from the extracted follicle site where they need it to stay to do it's job and that's why he is seeing a great range of inconsistent regeneration rates. However, if you are flooding the donor area with Acell under the skin, where you are extracting the follicles, then there is nowhere for it to leak. I think that's another obvious reason Piloscopy has so much potential. However, regardless of if ACell works, my impression was Dr. Wesley believes the half of the follicle staying in the original atmosphere is far more important. I guess time will tell.

Artista, have you set your date yet for your phase testing? or has Dr. Wesley resumed this? Lastly, do you have any idea of when he plans to be doing large sessions (2000 grafts+) and begin using this in his practice?