Is pilofocus the closest cure?

[clarence]

Ok, poor reading comprehension on my part, perhaps. Lack of scarring, like pilofocus for those who have been living under a rock for the past two years, is a huge thing and I agree.

[JJJJrS]

However regarding regeneration I wouldn't get my hopes up too much. Experiments with Acell have been conducted by other doctors and until now we haven't seen any good results. Maybe some regrowth will happen but I would doubt it's much more than 10%. Of course nobody can tell but again, based on the facts that there's no good result reported by anybody yet doesn't seem too promising.

Agreed. Until I see conclusive evidence, I won't believe it.

The picture Dr. Wesley included in his presentation, that purportedly showed donor regeneration, wasn't even taken by himself. It was from a 2010 study by Dr. Cooley. Up to now, Dr. Cooley has had minimal success with his ACell and plucking experiments, so I have no reason to believe Dr. Wesley cracked the donor regeneration problem either.

[JJJJrS]

Ok, poor reading comprehension on my part, perhaps. Lack of scarring, like pilofocus for those who have been living under a rock for the past two years, is a huge thing and I agree.

I'm pretty confident that the scarless aspect of the HST procedure comes at the expense of thinner results in the recipient. If you're splitting grafts, like I believe HASCI is, the results aren't going to be as thick as they could be in the recipient.

Obviously there's still a lot of work remaining for pilofocus, but I guess the big selling point is that you're getting the visibly scarless results without thinner recipient results. In fact, since the procedure is no longer blind, like regular FUE, you should have the highest rates of yield.

[Arashi]

I'm very confident that the key idea behind the procedure is graft splitting and that the net result is no new hairs. For example, if a 2-hair graft is extracted from the donor, on average, 1 hair will grow in the recipient and 1 will grow in the donor. This would explain why HASCI only targets multi-hair units for extraction and it would also explain the massive amount of transections we saw in the petri-dish photo.

This might very well be true. However the reason I think that some regrowth might have occured is that I had shot a picture of my scalp just when the crusts came off and I compared that to my final results. I compared 200 grafts and only 4-5 didn't grow, so that's about 97-98% growth. It then would make no sense to me that in Gaz's case only 65% grew. Of course it might be possible that that's the case, but I don't know ... And also when I judge Gaz's situation with the naked eye, it does seem he did get a little bit more grafts than you'd expect based on splitting. But obviously that's very hard to judge with the naked eye.

We all (except IM, lol) agree that if regeneration occured, it was nowhere near the 85% HASCI always promises. But to find out if regeneration occured at all, we need to do a 100 graft test. I think I might go for that in a few months (if HASCI agrees).

[JJJJrS]

This might very well be true. However the reason I think that some regrowth might have occured is that I had shot a picture of my scalp just when the crusts came off and I compared that to my final results. I compared 200 grafts and only 4-5 didn't grow, so that's about 97-98% growth. It then would make no sense to me that in Gaz's case only 65% grew. Of course it might be possible that that's the case, but I don't know ... And also when I judge Gaz's situation with the naked eye, it does seem he did get a little bit more grafts than you'd expect based on splitting. But obviously that's very hard to judge with the naked eye.

What I mean by thinner results is less hairs per graft not necessarily yield. In gc's case, the overwhelming majority of hairs in the recipient were 1-hair grafts. There were very few 3-hair grafts, for example.

I've never done a complete analysis on the recipient though so I would be curious to see how it actually turns out.

We all (except IM, lol) agree that if regeneration occured, it was nowhere near the 85% HASCI always promises. But to find out if regeneration occured at all, we need to do a 100 graft test. I think I might go for that in a few months (if HASCI agrees).

I think 50 would be a perfect size procedure. Obviously, it's not going to make a cosmetic impact but if your goal is to find out how well the procedure works, that should be the size.

[534623]

If you're splitting grafts ...

I wonder how long it will take until people will finally come to realize that there is only one master on this planet when it comes to "how to split grafts/follicles/hairs" - and finally, how to make to 2 hairs from 1 ...

It's actually as simple to understand like this:

This is Dr. Coen Gho ...

http://youtu.be/M7FIvfx5J10

... and here you can see what happenend with all his copycats so far:

http://youtu.be/EMlpiey20b8

And nothing will change in the near future.

[JJJJrS]

This is Dr. Coen Gho ...

http://youtu.be/M7FIvfx5J10

... and here you can see what happenend with all his copycats so far:

http://youtu.be/EMlpiey20b8

And nothing will change in the near future.

Are you trying to say that Gho's HST procedure is all smoke and mirrors, like the Van Damme commercial?

[Arashi]

What I mean by thinner results is less hairs per graft not necessarily yield. In gc's case, the overwhelming majority of hairs in the recipient were 1-hair grafts. There were very few 3-hair grafts, for example.

I've never done a complete analysis on the recipient though so I would be curious to see how it actually turns out.



I think 50 would be a perfect size procedure. Obviously, it's not going to make a cosmetic impact but if your goal is to find out how well the procedure works, that should be the size.

50 obviously is easier to manage than 100 but I always felt the variance in 50 grafts is too high and 100 grafts will yield a more reliable number. 100 grafts wil still be easy to manage as long as the grafts are used on bald recipient area, like to lower the hairline and as long as the grafts in donor are taken from places as close together as possible, which I would ask for of course.

I'm not sure when I will be in the Netherlands, I think feb/march, as soon as I know I'll drop HASCI an email to find out if they would want to do such 100 graft procedure.

[Number47]

50 obviously is easier to manage than 100 but I always felt the variance in 50 grafts is too high and 100 grafts will yield a more reliable number. 100 grafts wil still be easy to manage as long as the grafts are used on bald recipient area, like to lower the hairline and as long as the grafts in donor are taken from places as close together as possible, which I would ask for of course.

I'm not sure when I will be in the Netherlands, I think feb/march, as soon as I know I'll drop HASCI an email to find out if they would want to do such 100 graft procedure.

Hi Arashi, thanx for the info but lets not turn this into another Gho thread.Lets talk about pilofocus. No scaring its a revolution if it works lets hope it does. Regrowth would be awesome but i think we shouldn't get our hopes up with this, all the regrowth promises we have seen so far is just splitting grafts or transecting them on purpose. Lets wait and see how it works as a hair transplant and then we can see how it works in terms of donor regeneration.

[clarence]

Would be easier to stop talking about Gho, if everyone stop calling pilofocus a revolution