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

[JJJJrS]

I've analyzed over 100 extraction points from gc83uk's 2nd and 3rd HST procedures.

There are a few new and very interesting things we can observe from this documentation:
- A before and after comparison of the extraction points. In other words, what does the follicular unit (FU) look like before extraction and how does it regenerate afterwards.
- The regeneration process for FUs which have been extracted multiple times.
- Which FUs HASCI targets for extraction.
- And of course, a regeneration rate for gc83uk's 2nd and 3rd procedures.

[JJJJrS]

Day 2

Month 9

'Day 2' shows extraction points from gc83uk's 2nd procedure. 'Month 9' is photo of gc83uk's donor 9 months after the 2nd procedure or 1 day before his 3rd procedure.

The blue, numbered circles are extraction points and the red lines/dots are a mapping of the surrounding hairs.

For more clarity, click and zoom in on an area of interest.

[JJJJrS]

Day 0

Day 2

Day 24

'Day 0' is a 'before picture' gc83uk took a day before his 3rd HST procedure. It is the exact same picture as the photo from the 2nd procedure labelled as 'Month 9'. 'Day 2' shows which follicular units HASCI extracted. Finally, "Day 24" shows the same donor area 24 days after the 3rd procedure.

The blue, numbered circles are extraction points from the 3rd procedure. The green, numbered dots are extraction points from the 2nd procedure (see analysis above). A blue circle with a green dot inside indicates that the follicular unit has been extracted during both gc's 2nd and 3rd procedure. Finally, the red lines/dots are a mapping of the surrounding hairs.

For more clarity, click and zoom in on an area of interest.

[JJJJrS]

At the moment, I haven't calculated any regeneration rates but feel free to analyse and make any observations on your own.

It's also my intention to eventually focus in on an a couple of specific areas as I did in the this preview. But again, if anybody wants to save me the trouble , feel free to do that as well.

If there's any clarification needed or mistakes, please point them out.

[534623]

At the moment, I haven't calculated any regeneration rates but feel free to analyse and make any observations on your own.

Really great and very clean work!

But why didn't you calculate the regeneration rates?

So in this case and with your 100 extractions sites analysis (twice as much as in my analysis) we have 2 separate regeneration rates:

- regenaration rate of gc's 2nd HST (100 extractions sites observed)
- regenaration rate of gc's 3rd HST (100 extractions sites observed - same area)

So it would be interesting to know, how much your 100 sites versus my 53 sites vary concerning the regeneration rate.

In my opinion, in future, the regeneration rates in general would be more accurate if you use THREE complete different areas - as I did in my own case:

- a small area with around 50 grafts or so above/behind the RIGHT ear;
- a small area with around 50 grafts or so above/behind the LEFT ear;
- a smal area with around 50 grafts or so in the occipital area;

In simple words, we do not need to check ALL extractions sites (1500 or more) of every procedure, as the joker Rassman suggests this BS. We simply do, what many others in other fields (factories etc) do when there are big numbers involved; namely - sample or so-called spot checks.
That means, if you get in all 3 different areas almost the same percentage (%), in this case, you can conclude that the MEAN percentage is THE regeneration percentage of the whole extraction procedure.

Furthermore, in the first step, it's completely irrelevant which type of graft regenerated; so in the first step we just talk about "REGENERATION SITES". A detailed analysis, whether or not an indentical graft regenerated, you can do and determine this later with other/additional photos, because you can't always determine this anyhow with just 1 photo.

[JJJJrS]

But why didn't you calculate the regeneration rates?

So in this case and with your 100 extractions sites analysis (twice as much as in my analysis) we have 2 separate regeneration rates:

- regenaration rate of gc's 2nd HST (100 extractions sites observed)
- regenaration rate of gc's 3rd HST (100 extractions sites observed - same area)

So it would be interesting to know, how much your 100 sites versus my 53 sites vary concerning the regeneration rate.

Anyone is free to do the calculations themselves since every point is circled and numbered. My intention is to calculate the regeneration rate for all extraction points in both procedures, for extraction points extracted multiple times, as well some type of comparison on the quality of the FUs, before and after extraction. For example how often does a multi-hair FU regenerate with less hairs or appear thinner. All of this requires some more work and I'm tired of it . But again, anyone is free to help me out and I can confirm the results later.

In my opinion, in future, the regeneration rates in general would be more accurate if you use THREE complete different areas - as I did in my own case:

- a small area with around 50 grafts or so above/behind the RIGHT ear;
- a small area with around 50 grafts or so above/behind the LEFT ear;
- a smal area with around 50 grafts or so in the occipital area;

In simple words, we do not need to check ALL extractions sites (1500 or more) of every procedure, as the joker Rassman suggests this BS. We simply do, what many others in other fields (factories etc) do when there are big numbers; namely - sample or so-called spot checks.
That means, if you get in all 3 different areas almost the same percentage (%), in this case, you can conclude that the MEAN percentage is THE regeneration percentage of the whole extraction procedure.

At this point, I probably won't do anymore donor counts for a while Very time consuming, but if people want to analyse other procedures in the future all they need are good photos and some patience.

If you look at this post, I recommended people to focus in on a smaller area. For example, anyone can isolate 50 or so FUs and post the cropped pictures of these areas.

My goal was to make it as complete as possible to give us the largest sample size possible.

Furthermore, in the first step, it's completely irrelevant which type of graft regenerated; so in the first step we just talk about "REGENERATION SITES". A detailed analysis, whether or not an indentical graft regenerated, you can do and determine this later with other/additional photos, because you can't always determine this anyhow with just 1 photo.

I think an analysis like this is very important. Of course, it's a little more subjective but a basic comparison is more than possible with the pictures I've analysed. I've also analysed gc's Day 20 photo which I can post also but I don't think it will give anymore clarification than the day 24 photo. Based on a preliminary look, I could see something like this raising more questions than answers.