Video: Acell Treated Donor Area (Dr. Cole)

[wilymon]

"Hypopigmentation is reduced; Hair regeneration is induced"

Dr. Cole saying this raises my spirits immensely!

[NTMANNN]

so he's seeing positive results? thats promising! is he offering this to all patients?

[whynot]

Was this an FUE? Forgive me for sounding a little dense, but I don't know what I'm supposed to be looking for.

[wilymon]

Was this an FUE? Forgive me for sounding a little dense, but I don't know what I'm supposed to be looking for.

"Hypopigmentation is the loss of skin color. It is caused by melanocyte or melanin depletion, or a decrease in the amino acid tyrosine, which is used by melanocytes to make melanin." Yes, it's FUE. If you've see a shaved FUE head, there are usually little white-ish dots where the grafts were extracted. Cole is saying this was reduced, a claim that I think Cooley had made during his presentation.

I don't know what he means by "hair regeneration is induced." I posted a comment on YouTube asking what he meant, but no reply yet. It'd be great if he's talking about the donor area, but he might be referring to grafts growing out quickly.

Looks like he is offering it on his website.

[wilymon]

I just noticed this, he also posted a new article on his website

[plopp]

I really have no idea what game Cole is trying to play here. How does he think that regrowth is more likely following an FUE extraction than when a hair follicle is plucked?

He expresses concern that only the outer root sheath might remain after plucking (which really is just a wild guess), yet most follicular stem cells are known to be located in the bulge or dermal sheath as of today. Even the dermal pappilla has been proven to have the capability to induce hair follicle regeneration. At the same time, he states that he has proven (in his very lacking study in scientific terms btw) that minimal depth FUE extractions will leave behind enough follicular stem cells even though the whole follicle has been removed.

He also goes on to say that Cooley has demonstrated that plucked follicles grow finer than their FUE counterparts, something which has been denounced.

All these weird things really makes me think that this is more of a sour grapes thing for Cole than anything else..

[wilymon]

I really have no idea what game Cole is trying to play here. How does he think that regrowth is more likely following an FUE extraction than when a hair follicle is plucked?

He expresses concern that only the outer root sheath might remain after plucking (which really is just a wild guess), yet most follicular stem cells are known to be located in the bulge or dermal sheath as of today. Even the dermal pappilla has been proven to have the capability to induce hair follicle regeneration. At the same time, he states that he has proven (in his very lacking study in scientific terms btw) that minimal depth FUE extractions will leave behind enough follicular stem cells even though the whole follicle has been removed.

He also goes on to say that Cooley has demonstrated that plucked follicles grow finer than their FUE counterparts, something which has been denounced.

All these weird things really makes me think that this is more of a sour grapes thing for Cole than anything else..

Is he saying that FUE is better than plucking as far as regeneration is concerned? I thought he was simply saying that Acell+PRP resulted in some regeneration in his FUE procedures.

I agree that he can be somewhat wacky at times, but what I take from all this is that someone as cautions/skeptical as Cole is getting some good results from Acell. To me, that's good news.

[plopp]

Is he saying that FUE is better than plucking as far as regeneration is concerned? I thought he was simply saying that Acell+PRP resulted in some regeneration in his FUE procedures.

I agree that he can be somewhat wacky at times, but what I take from all this is that someone as cautions/skeptical as Cole is getting some good results from Acell. To me, that's good news.

Quoted from a previous post of Cole re plucking:

When we leave 50% of the intact follicle in the donor area, we can expect no more than 50% of them to grow. With so little tissue remaining in the donor area following plucking, how can we imply that we are duplicating hair follicles?

His logic is absurd.

So, leaving 0% of the follicle (as in FUE) and adding some magic ECM, should result in a 54% regrowth? He did even state once, that on one particular patient, he didn't see any extraction sites at all. Using his very robust scientific methods (as in the aforementioned article), that would mean a 100% regrowth of the donor!

I seriously don't get his reasoning. Sure, it might be possible to get regrowth by treating the donor with an ECM, but the regrowth will surely not be induced by stem cells that somehow have been left behind from the extraction. Nevertheless, regrowth will be more likely if a follicle is plucked, since the risk for fibrosis is a lot less whether an ECM is applied or not. Whichever is the case, I feel like he is denouncing the plucking procedure simply to get some cheap publicity and somehow protect his 'innovative' reputation (he did revolutionize the HT industry with his Cole Isolation Technique, right?)..

Sorry about sounding like a dick, having a bad day..

[Bakez]

He can't claim that it works for plucking because he hasnt done it or seen it himself, nor is there any evidence for it.

[RichardDawkins]

@plopp : Ahem Stemm cells are in fact responsible for regrowth. They are responsible for all regenerations in your body.

If this wouldnt be the case, i would today say that you have a serious problem because your body is not able to regenerate itself anymore

But i am honest, his FUE with multiplication is better for patients then just pluckng because yeah plucking will totally regrow the hair but it will take longer because you can only transplant single hairs and not follicle groups.

@Bakez : I dont know what i am gonna say to you anymore because we got in fighting a few weeks before so i leave you with your constant trolling one liners alone.

Plucked hairs grow PERIOD. Or otherwise i would be happy to not pluck my eyebrows every month which is annoying

[wilymon]

Plucked hairs grow PERIOD. Or otherwise i would be happy to not pluck my eyebrows every month which is annoying

I'd never even heard of plucked hairs not growing back until I started reading these hairloss forums. Well, I've heard of some women's eyebrows growing back after years of plucking, but it took a while to cause that kind of damage. I have friends who have been waxing their legs for years and the hairs always grow back.

[plopp]

@plopp : Ahem Stemm cells are in fact responsible for regrowth. They are responsible for all regenerations in your body.

If this wouldnt be the case, i would today say that you have a serious problem because your body is not able to regenerate itself anymore

I never said otherwise. SCs from the removed follicle obviously won't contribute much, however. Rather, adjacent SCs will migrate to the area of wounding and, possibly, be able to grow a new follicle, if the environment allows it to. I'm rather doubtful it will, however, since it can be theorized that parts of the damaged organ need to be left in the site of wounding in order for SCs to be able to differentiate into that very cell type.

But i am honest, his FUE with multiplication is better for patients then just pluckng because yeah plucking will totally regrow the hair but it will take longer because you can only transplant single hairs and not follicle groups.

FUs can be recreated with plucking. Sure, plucking might "take longer" (i.e. be more expensive), but I'd rather have that than white dots all over the back of my head.

Plucked hairs grow PERIOD. Or otherwise i would be happy to not pluck my eyebrows every month which is annoying

Seriously, you pluck your eyebrows? That doesn't sound like Richard Dawkins, haha