A more accurate donor regeneration figure

[JJJJrS]

I'm going to ask for a favour from any one of you who is interested in getting a more accurate donor regeneration figure.

In this thread, I did an analysis of gc's donor after two of his HST procedures so most of the work has already been done.

Could one of you please compare the before, during and after photos from gc's third procedure and complete a table similar to the ones Dr. Mousseigne presented in this thread.

The blue circles are the ones we care about by the way so don't bother with any of the other hairs. I know in many cases it's very difficult to know exactly how many hairs are in the follicular unit but if you're unsure, you can take a reasonable guess or present a range.

With this table we can then calculate a more accurate donor regeneration rate based on the individual hairs rather than the follicular units.

Please note, that even this type of analysis won't take into account failed extractions or split grafts, but at least it will give us a base figure we can work with. The only way to get the complete picture is the 50 graft test. But for now, let's try to work with what we have.

[didi]

No need to make complicate this drama further, we all agreed (except IM) that counting donor regeneration WITHOUT recipient is useless and waste of time.

Whatever figures we come up with means nothing if you don't know how many hairs are growing in recip.

lets say you come u with with figure of 40% 'true' regeneration rate in donor in relation of what was extracted. Sounds good BUT you still don't know if perhaps the only 60% of what was extracted is growing in recipient?

In another words, its pointless to keep analysing GCs case.
50 graft test can solve the problem but it will never happen as Gho cant back up his claims.


IM, Ghos cheerleader still seem to have difficulties understanding the concept.

[cocacola]

Didi hilarious as usual

[JJJJrS]

Whatever figures we come up with means nothing if you don't know how many hairs are growing in recip.

I'm aware of this, hence the bolded part in my post and my insistence on getting the 50 graft test done.

The only reason I want to do this is to have a baseline value that is accurate and everyone can confirm. For example, let's see what the real regeneration rate for an average patient is approximately, without considering failed extractions, split grafts, and recipient yield. Of course, it will be substantially lower when we include all the above factors but at least we'll have a better idea what the real regeneration rate is, especially for those unfamiliar with the procedure.

lets say you come u with with figure of 40% 'true' regeneration rate in donor in relation of what was extracted. =

If you're getting something like 40% regeneration of hairs, without considering split grafts, failed extractions, and recipient yield, than that says a lot about the procedure and its limitations.

[Skywalker]

If you're getting something like 40% regeneration of hairs, without considering split grafts, failed extractions, and recipient yield, than that says a lot about the procedure and its limitations.

Maybe, but it doesn't say a lot because there is no evidence for this figure...