Yes, that also seems to puzzle me...when I look at the website of Hasson and Wong for instance, I saw an entirely bald man who was restored to an (almost) NW1 in 2 mega sessions...I wonder why this technique does not enable them to do something like this. The prices are also very very high.
This also bothers me:
Per cm² kunnen in één behandeling 30-35 grafts (in een volledig kaal gebied) geplaatst worden. Deze dichtheid kan in een volgende sessie maximaal verhoogd worden tot ongeveer 50 grafts per cm².
Translation: Per cm2 there can only be 30-35 grafts transplanted (in a completely bald area). In a later session (probably after 9 months I assume) they can increase the density to 50 grafts per cm2. Is that not a bit too little to achieve maximum effect?
These are good questions -- I asked the same ones to HSI when I called them (by the way, I encourage anyone to do the same - the phone number is right there on the website and you can talk straight to a doctor with no obligation at all! I fully cold-called and the first time I got to talk to a doc right away - the second time they told me to call back in an hour after the doc finished a procedure)
As for the H&W point -- indeed, if I were an NW7, yeah, a good idea would to first strip out, get 8,000 grafts out of the deal, then fill in the rest with HSI until I get to the density I really want. The reality is, H&W photos aside, if you were to see these guys in person, their hair is still nowhere near the density it was pre-MPB.
Obviously it's more efficient to do strip first cause you get more bang in one procedure (though HSI would argue that you are permanently taking away donor that you could use over and over again). But I still think there would be enough donor left over that, while it couldn't be removed by strip because the scalp would be too tight, you could go over it again and again with HSI. Either way, for NW2-5, I think HSI is the way to go.
And, with strip you're still getting the linear scar with strip, as opposed to none with HSI (and even less scarring than FUE because they use smaller needles). At this stage of the game, I think strip is crazy because of the scar, no matter how 'pencil thin' they claim it is. If you want to buzz down to a #4 of less, in my opinion, in broad daylight, you can see the line if you don't have thick curly hair (and the shock loss is often terrible!). I'm sure reps from strip clinics would refute this with the odd tricho example that is indeed occasionally flawless, but those are exceptions not the rule in my opinion.
As for the 50 cm2 max issue -- yes, I brought this up with both doctors as this is a concern for me. I would want more than 50 at my hairline. They told me that this number has been recently raised to 60 but they admit this limitation because they make holes in the recipient that are slightly larger than the traditional lateral slit. The holes are the same size as those made in the donor, and they can't make them closer together at this time (although they say they are close to solving this problem with even smaller needles).
60 at the hairline is indeed acceptable for most people (but maybe not for me...!). But the good point they made is that while they are limited to 60, they can have the option consistently use 3-4 hair units (and repeat using those units while avoiding 1-2 hair unites altogether if you want) so you're really getting 180-240 hairs per centimetre. Obviously you don't want more than single units at the hairline or more than 2 hair units just behind it, but for the rest of the head, you could conceivably have a higher density than you did as a teenager. So hey, worst case, if I wasn't happy with 60 at the hairline, I could top it up with a traditional FUE (at the cost of a little bit of donor that wouldn't grow back). Still miraculous in my opinion.
As for what 25goingon65 said:
"HSI's responses suggest they won't be able to show us results better than conventional HT for at least another 2-3 years. If they come through, it'll be great. But until then, we won't know, unless others can see something I missed"
The results are in fact immediate. For those concerned with donor limitations (ie. 99% of us), the fact that your donor grows back right after the procedure is incentive enough. So yes, the results are better than a conventional HT. The website shows photos of patients after a single procedure, so that's why they're not mind-blowing.
These are good questions -- I asked the same ones to HSI when I called them (by the way, I encourage anyone to do the same - the phone number is right there on the website and you can talk straight to the doctor who would treat you!)
As for the H&W point -- indeed, if I were an NW7, yeah, a good idea would to first strip out, get 8,000 grafts out of the deal, then fill in the rest with HSI until I get to the density I really want. The reality is, H&W photos aside, if you were to see these guys in person, their hair is still nowhere near the density it was pre-MPB.
Obviously it's more efficient to do strip first cause you get more bang in one procedure (though HSI would argue that you are permanently taking away donor that you could use over and over again). But I still think there would be enough donor left over that, while it couldn't be removed by strip because the scalp would be too tight, you could go over it again and again with HSI.
BUUUUUT, you're still getting the linear scar with strip, as opposed to none with HSI (and even less scarring than FUE because they use smaller needles). At this stage of the game, I think strip is crazy because of the scar, no matter how 'pencil thin' they claim it is. If you want to buzz down to a #4 of less, in my opinion, in broad daylight, you can see the line if you don't have thick curly hair (and the shock loss is often terrible!). I'm sure reps from strip clinics would refute this with the odd tricho example that is indeed occasionally flawless, but those are exceptions not the rule in my opinion.
As for the 50 cm2 max issue -- yes, I brought this up with both doctors as this is a concern for me. I would want more than 50 at my hairline. They told me that this number has been recently raised to 60 but they admit this limitation because they make holes in the recipient that are slightly larger than the traditional lateral slit. The holes are the same size as those made in the donor, and they can't make them closer together at this time (although they say they are close to solving this problem with even smaller needles).
60 at the hairline is indeed acceptable for most people (but maybe not for me...!). But the good point they made is that while they are limited to 60, they can have the option consistently use 3-4 hair units (and repeat using those units while avoiding 1-2 hair unites altogether if you want) so you're really getting 180-240 hairs per centimetre. Obviously you don't want more than single units at the hairline or more than 2 hair units just behind it, but for the rest of the head, you could conceivably have a higher density than you did as a teenager. So hey, worst case, if I wasn't happy with 60 at the hairline, I could top it up with a traditional FUE (at the cost of a little bit of donor that wouldn't grow back). Still miraculous in my opinion.
so you're saying that HSI is definately worth trying if you are at that point in oyur life that finasteride is just not doing it for you anymore?
so you're saying that HSI is definately worth trying if you are at that point in oyur life that finasteride is just not doing it for you anymore?
I think that's for the individual decide, armed with all the facts. I just wanna help get the facts out there. A lot of people scoff at Dr. Gho because his first crack at multiplication in 2001ish wasn't perfect. So suddenly his credibility as a doctor and scientist is shot. I'm sure when the Wright brothers' first aeroplane design didn't get off the ground, people wrote them off entirely from then on too..
One thing that stands out to me though. 1,500 grafts per 9 months? If the technology works, it seems as though restoring a full head of hair to a NW6 would take 5-10 years of surgeries with this technique.
No. Why?
The following (interesting) interviews are already 5 years old:
In the meantime, some things have changed/improved: Currently, they are able to extract a maximum of ~2000 HST grafts – PER DAY! That means if your donor area (as well as your pocket) allow you to harvest ~4000 grafts, you can get them within 2 days.
The largest procedure I’m aware, is a guy called “Bas” (age 31). Some month ago he got 1600 HST grafts in just on day. You can find the video (including the graft counter scene) in the “IN THE MEDIA” -> “RTV” section (Beauty+TV - Episode 4 - 30 May 2010): http://www.hasci.com
But what’s really interesting (more accurate “suggesting”), they use slightly modified tools out of the DENTAL technology (curved root canal preparation):
The reason is simple: http://jlmeniusdds.com/services/root...treatment.html
The HST technique is based on removing just a part (hair shaft + some tissue) out of the hair ROOT canal in such a way, so that the “hair stem cells” are still attached to the removed hair shaft as well as leaving enough “hair stem cells” behind in the donor area. A tooth root canal treatment is a similar procedure, but for the HST technique, of course, they do not use just a motor driven “drill” to destroy bad tissue, instead of, they use a sharp (hollow) triple waved needle (with loose vibration) for the FU/tissue extraction. Due to the fact, that the extracted grafts are very small (in comparison to FUE grafts), this enables a precise injection of the grafts with special developed syringes (“hairstemcell injection”) too. In fact, with the HST technique you can get -of course if you always have enough donor reserves as well as money reserves- every DENSITY you want. They developed the graft injection method especially for eyebrow treatments (watch the Bridget Maasland video) and for thinning areas as well as for SAFE density procedures in general.
Thank you both for replying. That's great if they can prove 80% or more donor regrowth.
However when I said "results better than a conventional HT," I should have specified that I meant the recipient areas. If HSI shows, in the next few years at least, patients with fuller heads of hair than they could have gotten with regular transplants.. that will ease my fears a great deal.
I'm sure I seem like I'm being a pain with all this doubt, but every year MPB sufferers like myself see a dozen or more broken promises about new hair loss treatments, and this one in particular is coming from a brand name (Gho's) that comes with a lot of stigma. So I hope you'll understand the extreme caution that many in this community now live by.
Thank you both for replying. That's great if they can prove 80% or more donor regrowth.
However when I said "results better than a conventional HT," I should have specified that I meant the recipient areas. If HSI shows, in the next few years at least, patients with fuller heads of hair than they could have gotten with regular transplants.. that will ease my fears a great deal.
I'm sure I seem like I'm being a pain with all this doubt, but every year MPB sufferers like myself see a dozen or more broken promises about new hair loss treatments, and this one in particular is coming from a brand name (Gho's) that comes with a lot of stigma. So I hope you'll understand the extreme caution that many in this community now live by.
I feel you. I started getting a VERY receding hairline at age 15...Propecia is keeping me at a NW1/NW2...but I just hope that this works, and if not, that something big will come around in the next 10 years...
Does anyone have any idea of what the pricing is for the procedure? I realize it would depend on a number of variables, but a range would be nice to know.
Does anyone have any idea of what the pricing is for the procedure? I realize it would depend on a number of variables, but a range would be nice to know.
Does anyone have any idea of what the pricing is for the procedure? I realize it would depend on a number of variables, but a range would be nice to know.
Just a hint:
Try to find out the pricing (FU/per graft) of the FUE leaders out there (e.g. Woods, Rassman, Bernstein, Armani, Bauman etc), and you WILL notice the following:
Currently, the Hair Science Institute (HSI) is the cheapest one (~$6 $7/HST graft).
Im NOT SURE what the real reason has been for the HSI for their relatively low calculation (in comparison), so I only can assume, that one reason are all their many burn- and accident-victim patients:
This needs to be added to a pending investigation list. How about we make a list of unknowns and then trial them with willing volunteers? I'm quite happy to unleash mad scientists on my head at the moment, they can't do a worse job than nature.
Originally Posted by Dutch_Dude
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks