ACell, a Current Review of Applications in Hair Transplant Surgery

[CIT_Girl]

Gubter_87, I didn't mean to come across as flippant about the potential that this could be an amazing breakthrough for hair loss sufferers- I personally would love that as much as anyone. I just don't have my hopes up, with the evidence that has been presented so far, that this will be THE answer to everyone's prayers. By saying there was nothing 'novel', I meant in the notion that transacted follicles (plucked hairs) can regrow. We'll have to see side-by-side studies (on a bald head) to know for sure whether ACell actually has the ability to affect the survival rate of plucked hair. Further studies (or explanation from Dr. Cooley) are also needed- for example, to determine what constitutes a viable plucked hair: how much of the formative tissue must be left behind to achieve regrowth in the donor area and how much must be removed to actually get it to grow in the recipient area?- before people get too emotionally invested in this 'breakthrough'.

[Gubter_87]

Unless Dr. Cooley is lieing, he has been able to achieve a survival rate of 75 % for plucked hairs. If it is because of A-cell (which is probable) then great. However if this has nothing do to with the use of a-cell, and the good succes rate is just because of Dr. Cooleys plucking technique - then even better! I don't really see the issue.

Fact is if Dr. Cooley technique achieves these results - it is a major breakthrough for hair loss sufferers as it greatly increases the donor making it basically infinite.

Sure - we need to see more evidence. But I see no reason to doubt Dr. Cooleys initial findings as he is a reputable hair loss suregon.

[ejj]

just my opinion , if i only got 75% growth i would be pretty upset !
regards
ejj

[meridius]

just my opinion , if i only got 75% growth i would be pretty upset !
regards
ejj

Really? I would be thrilled if I got 75% growth from plucked hairs. That would be much more valuable than 100% growth from FUE or strip because the donor reserve would still be intact.

As long as the vast majority of the plucked hairs grow back which they should, I really cannot see a reason to be this dismissive of the new approach.

And I certainly cannot understand how someone can justify that it is okay for the donor hairs to be taken out in FUE not to grow back ever again in the donor area, and then make such a big deal about the plucked hairs coming back weaker. Is it because the survival rate is higher for FUE? What if this new method comes close or even better catches up with it? Given that it already achieves 50-75% despite being so new, why not?

[wolvie1985]

The autocloned hair does not come back weaker. A simple email or phonecall to Dr. Cooley's office would confirm this. The donor grows back and the recipient grows in approx. 75% of the time. These are the facts that Dr. Cole is trying so desperately to muddy.

[Winston]

I don't know why you guys are so up in arms about Dr. Cole’s post, it’s simply his point of view. It doesn't change the fact that Dr. Cooley is still experimenting with Acell and it doesn't change what Dr. Cooley believes about it’s effectiveness. Time will tell if this is the breakthrough that we have all been hoping for.

[HairRobinHood]

I don't know why you guys are so up in arms about Dr. Cole’s post, it’s simply his point of view. It doesn't change the fact that Dr. Cooley is still experimenting with Acell and it doesn't change what Dr. Cooley believes about it’s effectiveness. Time will tell if this is the breakthrough that we have all been hoping for.

Just for instance: A comment like that …

He did not discuss hair plucking with me during this phone call. He did relate his own personal experience by having his nurse punch into his scalp in an ACell treated area of scar and a non-ACell treated area. He said the punch crunched into the non-ACell scar site while it slid softly into the ACell scar site without making a characteristic crunching noise that is audible to the patient. The ISHRS has issued a position paper. The position paper clearly states that it is the opinion of the ISHRS that only licensed physicians should be punching into the scalp or performing FUE. This is simply food for thought as Dr. Cooley is now the ISHRS president.

… has absolutely NOTHING to do with “it’s simply his point of view”. Absolutely nothing!

By the way: Dr. Cole is talking here (quote/comment) about this subject:

http://www.baldtruthtalk.com/showthread.php?t=3528

But here I’m talking about that subject – the ISHRS called it “unprofessionally cat fight”:

http://www.ishrs.org/articles/position-1.htm