I’m thinking that if they can achieve high percentage regeneration that might solve the problem for many of us.
@jarjarbinx Dr Wesley’s piloscope? I don’t think it is meant to achieve any regeneration, it is just a hair transplant. The only benefit of his technique is that it is scarless, but there is no regeneration of any sort.
Even though it is advertised as scar free, I think Dr. Wesley still needs to create an incision somewhere in order to get under the skin to remove the follicles , it is possible his technique is more traumatic than traditional FUE.
Besides, I read it somewhere that starting price for Wesley’s scar free transplant is USD 20,000.
It’s a great idea from the outside, but once you look at it from the inside, which is what this is, it’s not such a great idea. Follicles are tightly bound at the surface and widely disperse on entry into the scalp much like flowers in a tight neck vase. In order to harvest from below, you have to create a very wide incision below that will leave a huge mass of scar tissue below. Wounds tend to heal from the outside in and pull adjacent tissue closer. The huge wounds below theorized by Dr. Wesley will create massive subsurface damage and scar. His idea was never a good idea, but only a great marketing tool. He will not get any follicle regeneration simply because he is removing all the important stem cells. It’s all hype.
1 Like
Dr. Cole, I’m sorry to see that you feel this way. I’m optimistic that Pilofocus will produce good donor regeneration and I was hoping that you being a top hair transplant surgeon, you would already be talking to him about possibly using his technique on the west coast (since I live on the west coast) if his technique does produce quality donor regeneration.
Have you seen this study:
This study seems to indicate that there are stem cells on both halves of the follicle. It seems to me that if Dr. Wesley can figure out the appropriate depth to cut the follicles he could leave half of the follicle in its’ original place at the donor area and remove only the other half for implantation into the recipient area. And while he has the skin raised he could administer ACELL under the skin into the half he leaves behind in the donor area. And since this would take place under the skin the ACELL would stay where it’s needed to help regenerate the follicle half that’s left in the donor area. Then the harvested half that’s removed from the donor area could be implanted into the recipient area, also with ACELL.
I think Dr. Wesley’s Pilofocus opens up avenues to possibly achieve quality donor regeneration that just don’t exist with standard hair transplants.
You do good hair transplants Dr. Cole. I wish you were looking more closely at what Dr. Wesley is doing. I’m not affiliated with him in any way. I’m just a balding guy who’s anxiously waiting for Artista’s results over at a different site. I really don’t want to travel all the way to New York to get Pilofocus if it achieves breakthrough donor regeneration but if that’s what I have to do then I will. Since I’m in Oregon it would be a lot easier on me if I could just visit you in southern California. But if Pilofocus does what I think it’s going to do (donor regeneration) then I’m going to go wherever I have to go to get it.
Any hair transplant in my view, even if they can regenerate donor completely , will never be a cure because you can not place follicles close enough to each other at the recipient area to mimic the nature. And that would include Kyocera, Riken if their procedure involves mechanically moving hair follicles into recipient area.
If they can find a way to double your donor area via donor regeneration and doing two complete harvests then I believe they can get those follicles close enough to give you satisfactory coverage. This is why I want donor almost total donor regeneration of hairs that are original thickness and length. I think Pilofocus will probably achieve this.
Nope. He’s going for quality donor regeneration. I don’t know if he will achieve that or not but I think he probably will.
@jarjarbinx where did you get the idea that Dr. Wesley’s Pilofocus can regenerate donor? There was no mention of that last time I checked his website.
This is the problem with posting on boards. You get misquoted. I did not say Pilofocus can regenerate donor. And nobody is saying that. Dr. Wesley is not stating that. However, some people believe that it might and I happen to be one of those people.
That sounds like Dr. Gho’s Follicular Multiplication (FM) procedure from over 10 years ago; technically his 1st generation stem cell hair transplant. If my memory serves me right, he later on discarded this techinque in order to puruse something more effective.
Yes, I think you’re right, HairSite. I remember a poster, I think his name was Scissorboy, had this procedure and made a video of it. But his hair loss was only minimal when he had the procedure. I think that apart from that, Dr. Gho was unable to show the procedure really provided any value added.
Dr. Gho was not a participant in that study. Maybe he used a similar technique but he was not part of the study.
Dr. Gho was not involved in the study I posted.
jarjarbinx - “I’m optimistic that Pilofocus will produce good donor regeneration…If they can find a way to double your donor area via donor regeneration…I think Pilofocus will probably achieve this…He’s going for quality donor regeneration. I don’t know if he will achieve that or not but I think he probably will.”
Norwood3 - “where did you get the idea that Dr. Wesley’s Pilofocus can regenerate donor?”
jarjarbinx - “This is the problem with posting on boards. You get misquoted. I did not say Pilofocus can regenerate donor.”
???
Norwood3’s question was where you got the IDEA it could regenerate donor hair. He didn’t misquote you. You keep talking about regeneration when you talk about Pilofocus. His was a reasonable question in response to your comments.
He did misquote me because I did not say Pilofocus “can” regenerate donor hair. The word “can” in this context indicates more certainty than I indicated.
The strongest term I used is “optimistic” and even that term merely means “hopeful”. Hopeful does not = certainty where as “can” does = some certainty.
I’m not elucidating my optimism for Pilofocus to regenerate donor hair with NW3 until he accepts that I never said Pilofocus “can” regenerate donor hair. I can imagine that if I let his mischaracterization of what I said slide then at some point he’ll use it against me. I’m clipping his bs in the bud.
I never said Pilofocus “can” regenerate donor hair. Everything I said indicates that Pilofocus might regenerate donor hair.
NW3, listen up, I don’t want to be misquoted. I never said Pilofocus “can” regenerate donor hair. I don’t know whether or not it “can”. I am optimistic that it “might”.
And RickH you misquotied Norwood3. You said that NW3 quoted me as saying Pilofocus “could” regenerate donor hair but Norwood3 actually said that I said Pilofocus “can” regenerate donor hair.
Norwood3 - Thank you @RickH it’s frustrating talking to @jarjarbinx to say the least.
I don’t want to be misquoted. I think my position is reasonable.