Analysis of gc83uk's Donor - 2nd & 3rd HST Procedures

[gc83uk]

What do you mean?
Extraction sites after your 2nd HST?

http://www3.picturepush.com/photo/a/12695946/img/Picture-Box/gc83uk-Day-13.jpg

Extraction sites after your 3rd HST?

http://www.fileden.com/files/2012/12/16/3377048/Day%2024.jpg

Please post a "now" photo...

3rd HST.

I partially remapped in the same way JJJJrS has done using a "now" photo, I need to go through all the extraction points and then I'll upload maybe later tonight.

[534623]

3rd HST.

I partially remapped in the same way JJJJrS has done using a "now" photo, I need to go through all the extraction points and then I'll upload maybe later tonight.

Cool. So you compare the "now" situation (3 month later) ...

http://www.fileden.com/files/2012/12/16/3377048/Day%2024.jpg

... with JJJrS' documented Day-24 after photo?

Anyway, if you indeed can see 9 regrowth sites NOW of the former 20 "no regrowth sites" (up to day 24) that would confirm that regeneration can also happen at points much later on.

By the way - actually, it's not necessary to encircle and lable ALL extractions sites again in the "now" photo; simply tell the NUMBERS of JJJrS' documented photo plus the new photo of the same area.

Can't await to shave my whole head again in about 8 month to check my REAL regeneration rate after 12 month.

[FearTheLoss]

Cool. So you compare the "now" situation (3 month later) ...

http://www.fileden.com/files/2012/12/16/3377048/Day%2024.jpg

... with JJJrS' documented Day-24 after photo?

Anyway, if you indeed can see 9 regrowth sites NOW of the former 20 "no regrowth sites" (up to day 24) that would confirm that regeneration can also happen at points much later on.

By the way - actually, it's not necessary to encircle and lable ALL extractions sites again in the "now" photo; simply tell the NUMBERS of JJJrS' documented photo plus the new photo of the same area.

Can't await to shave my whole head again in about 8 month to check my REAL regeneration rate after 12 month.

IM I know you get bashed a lot because of your unique way of answering questions and proving points, but I, for one, would like to say I appreciate your intelligence and contributions to the forum.

[gc83uk]

On the day 24 photo analysed by JJJJrS link here:Day 24 donor circled/numbered

The following areas shown no regrowth:
4,8,12,13,17,31,32,39,56,62,67,70,75,82,87,92,94,9 5,97,112,114,118,119,122

On the 3 month photo which I have used the same mapping as JJJJrS I can see slightly less areas of no regrowth. However they also include some additional areas which originally were showing regrowth.

3 months donor

These following areas are showing no regrowth:
10,12,13,16,17,18,31,39,56,62,75,82,87,92,95,112,1 16,118,119,122

Once I get time I'll check the other's for thicker/thinner more/less hair etc.

I won't draw any definite conclusions with this yet, but it's encouraging that areas which previously shown no regrowth now are! On a further positive note, perhaps the hairs which were visible on day 24 have since gone in to telogen, it's a plausible reason.

I have also noticed a strange phenomen where it appears some FU's configuration have been altered slightly. Meaning some hairs which were originally growing side by side now have a few mm between them.

[JJJJrS]

The problem for me gc is that I've lost a lot of faith in this analysis based on the huge number of transections visible in the petri-dish photo and the failed extraction issue. If you have even remotely similar issues as the test candidate had, then the numbers are going to be totally distorted.

[gc83uk]

The problem for me gc is that I've lost a lot of faith in this analysis based on the huge number of transections visible in the petri-dish photo and the failed extraction issue. If you have even remotely similar issues as the test candidate had, then the numbers are going to be totally distorted.

Hmm, I know exactly where your coming from with this. I have a list of counter arguments, but I think they would be worthless right now without something real to back them up, so I will refrain.

However we have Centur having treatment on Monday. He is asking what we would like him to do in terms of documenting his case. Personally I think we should be encouraging more petri dish photos!

I personally suspect the large amount of transections in the Petri are not that usual!

[JJJJrS]

However we have Centur having treatment on Monday. He is asking what we would like him to do in terms of documenting his case. Personally I think we should be encouraging more petri dish photos!

Definitely agree. If censur only takes one picture, it should be a picture of the petri dish.

Other than that though, I'm not sure what other pictures he can take that you haven't already documented.

I've been contemplating how we could do an accurate, scaled-down analysis that includes the donor and recipient, but without knowing how many transections and failed extractions there are, it's very difficult.

I personally suspect the large amount of transections in the Petri are not that usual!

This is a possibility. What concerns me a little is that this was a "test patient." They only had to extract 200 grafts and they knew the results would be scrutinized online. In that case, you'd expect them to be extra careful when extracting grafts. So unless james had extraordinarily difficult hair characteristics, I'm confused why there was such a large amount of transections and failed extractions...

[Arashi]

I've been contemplating how we could do an accurate, scaled-down analysis that includes the donor and recipient, but without knowing how many transections and failed extractions there are, it's very difficult.

Like said before, we need to know 2 things: how many hairs were sacrificied in donor to get how many new hairs in recipient.

In order to do this, we'd need pre-op pictures that show EVERY single graft in the donor. So multiple pictures/angles and all very clear. Then we'd need to have pictures of all extraction points. And then same for recipient.

It would be a horrific amount of work to count how many hairs were lost in the extraction points. BUT we can apply statistical analysis, we don't need to count them all to get a good indication.

[JJJJrS]

Like said before, we need to know 2 things: how many hairs were sacrificied in donor to get how many new hairs in recipient.

In order to do this, we'd need pre-op pictures that show EVERY single graft in the donor. So multiple pictures/angles and all very clear. Then we'd need to have pictures of all extraction points. And then same for recipient.

It would be a horrific amount of work to count how many hairs were lost in the extraction points. BUT we can apply statistical analysis, we don't need to count them all to get a good indication.

In order to see how many failed extractions there were, you'd have to count every extraction point on the head and compare it to the number of implantation points. So at the least, you'd have to count 1000+ extraction points in the donor and 1000+ in the recipient. That alone is incredibly tedious but then to have the patient take nice, clear zoomed-in photos of a large part of his head... It just seems way too challenging.

I think the best thing would be to focus on a manageable 50 graft procedure and only start considering something like this as a very last resort.

[Phatalis]

Like said before, we need to know 2 things: how many hairs were sacrificied in donor to get how many new hairs in recipient.

In order to do this, we'd need pre-op pictures that show EVERY single graft in the donor. So multiple pictures/angles and all very clear. Then we'd need to have pictures of all extraction points. And then same for recipient.

It would be a horrific amount of work to count how many hairs were lost in the extraction points. BUT we can apply statistical analysis, we don't need to count them all to get a good indication.

Can you tell me what you mean by failed extraction and sacrificing donor? Does this mean that the hair extracted will not grow in the recipient AND it is also gone from the donor.. so it's like.. literally a lost follicle, a hair that won't be in donor anymore AND also won't be in recipient?

[Arashi]

Can you tell me what you mean by failed extraction and sacrificing donor? Does this mean that the hair extracted will not grow in the recipient AND it is also gone from the donor.. so it's like.. literally a lost follicle, a hair that won't be in donor anymore AND also won't be in recipient?

a failed extraction is when the follicle remains in the donor and the hair just gets cut off. In that scenario the hair should just grow back in donor.

What I mean with sacrificing donor is that after this procedure you will have less hairs in your donor than before, since only 80% is expected go grow back. In case you've transplanted 1000 hairs and 800 grow back, then you have lost/sacrificied 200 in donor, but this should have yielded 1000 hairs in recipient. With traditional FUE you'd sacrifice 1000 hairs in donor to get 1000 in recipient.

[Phatalis]

a failed extraction is when the follicle remains in the donor and the hair just gets cut off. In that scenario the hair should just grow back in donor.

What I mean with sacrificing donor is that after this procedure you will have less hairs in your donor than before, since only 80% is expected go grow back. In case you've transplanted 1000 hairs and 800 grow back, then you have lost/sacrificied 200 in donor, but this should have yielded 1000 hairs in recipient. With traditional FUE you'd sacrifice 1000 hairs in donor to get 1000 in recipient.

that's. so. ****ing. awesome.

[ANW]

well here are some quick back of the envelope calculations with some loose assumptions

JJ's assessment of GC's donor regeneration was 81% of which 41% of the 81% where visible thinner or with less hairs and the other 59% fully regenerated. lets assume that of the 41% there was a further reduction of 50% conservatively speaking meaning 20%. so the calculated regeneration is (59% + 20%)x81% = 64%. so if you take 50 grafts (100 hairs) you will loose 36 hairs.

GC's 2nd HST is roughly growing out at 1.4 hairs per graft growing. Probably not far off considering JamesBald had 1.3 in the petri dish. So now 50 grafts will get you (50g x 1.3) = 70 hairs growing in the recipient.

Loose 36: Gain 70 or 1:2, so for every hair you loose in your donor you gain 2 in your recipient. Hope that explains what Arashi said.

Assumptions
only 2 hair grafts and extracted
all extractions (minus failed extractions) are implanted at recipient
all recipient grafts grow, not necessarily all hairs in the graft

[534623]

Assumptions

The whole HST story is, in fact, actually easy to understand - especially today. I really don't know why you guys simply combine everything what is known in this thread (including what gc posted concerning what he found out 3 month after JJJJrS analysis of his 2nd and 3rd HST, for example) and simply combine all these verifiable data with the following data and calculations, for example:

http://www.baldtruthtalk.com/showpost.php?p=164302&postcount=11

Even if you also simply would take into consideration and calculation the "lesser or finer hairs" story, which has been also observed after a certain period of time - HST will always be the winner and will always beat every other known HT technique out there, especially when it comes to "getting more hairs from a limited source". The data and facts are already simply there.

Furthermore, what you guys always completely ignore is the fact that the duration between gc's procedures (gc, who is just "a" HST patient of thousands others!) has always been just 6 or 9 month, what can also influence things; besides the fact, that they extracted grafts during his 1st and 2nd HST 1 always just from a small shaved strip at his occiput, what finally "forced" them to extract the grafts too close to each other, what's also not really a such a good thing ...


Source - page 5

Now you guys can proceed with specualting as much as you want, you guys basically debate around "a" case - of thousand others. And even if you get the beloved "50 graft test" - you got "a" 50 grafts test ...