Home | News | Find a Doctor | Ask a Question | Free

Ensuring an Accurate Graft Count


#1

For anyone undergoing a hair transplant procedure, the accuracy of your graft count is a major concern. When you are investing hundreds or thousands of dollars into a transplant procedure, it’s important to know that you are getting your money’s worth. Since the vast majority of surgeons charge by the graft, it is imperative that you know you are receiving an accurate count.

With this in mind, Dr. Cole developed and patented the Counting Incision Device (CID). This disposable electronic device accurately counts recipient incision sites. The count, which can go up to 10,000, is displayed on a small LCD screen on the front of the instrument. Patients can ask to see this count at any point during or after their procedure. By using a CID, surgeons are better able to concentrate on the task at hand (producing top-quality transplant results), rather than trying to keep an accurate count of incision sites. It is important to note that these instruments are intended for single-use only as it is impossible to thoroughly and safely sterilize them due to the electronic circuitry involved.

As an example of how indispensable CIDs can be, today, Dr. Cole asked one of his long-term nurses to keep up with the graft count during a CIT procedure. Despite years of experience working alongside Dr. Cole, she reached a, erroneous count of 1,020 when the CID showed that only 948 incisions had actually been made. The margin for error in much larger sessions would likely increase exponentially. Even if your doctor has no ill-intentions, basic human error can contribute to you paying hundreds, or even thousands, of dollars more than you should for grafts you haven’t actually received.

A number of physicians are already using these devices and one of Dr. Shaprio’s patient advocates endorsed this device on another board. At just $20 a piece (a fraction of what surgeons are making on every procedure), we believe all doctors should be using these in every procedure. You can tell your surgeon to purchase a device from device4hair.com, or even purchase one yourself to ensure it is properly sterilized and not being reused from a previous surgery.

click PLAY button in the media player below to watch the video
1_file60.flv
Dr. Cole is a sponsoring physician of HairSite


#2

Ha, a very simple concept, I am surprised nobody thought about this until now.


#3

» Ha, a very simple concept, I am surprised nobody thought about this until
» now.

Actually I’ve always thought of it, as most others have as well. Really nice to see a device for it is finally made.

Sometimes when I see hair transplants I wonder if they’re miscalculated in graft numbers due to human error.

Great device, nice to see things moving forward.


#4

We have been using electronic counters for many years now.
This is just 1 part of our counting system.

In our institute patient are allowed to control and count their grafts if they wish to. They can also see the counters that are used during the making of the recipient sites.

And last but not least they get full details of their graft count on request.

Transparant and full disclose, what more can you ask for…


#5

» We have been using electronic counters for many years now.
» This is just 1 part of our counting system.
»
» In our institute patient are allowed to control and count their grafts if
» they wish to. They can also see the counters that are used during the
» making of the recipient sites.
»
» And last but not least they get full details of their graft count on
» request.
»
» Transparant and full disclose, what more can you ask for…

Any difference between the counter that you use and the one used by Dr. Cole?


#6

Great invention, come to think of it there must be tens of thousands who overpaid for their surgery because inaccurate graft count by the techicians, it takes decade for the industry to make this one little step forward, this is what we are dealing with!


#7

» Any difference between the counter that you use and the one used by Dr.
» Cole?

Correct me if I’m wrong, bverotti, but I believe their clinic uses a foot switch where the doctor steps on a pedal as he makes each incision. My understanding is that, with this sort of system, you have to be very coordinated to move your foot and hands at the same time and not accidentally step on the pedal at the wrong time.

Dr. Cole’s Counting Incision Device can be seen here: http://http://www.device4hair.com/Hair-Restoration-Tools/Counting-Incision-Device-C-ID.html. The device count goes up on the LCD screen each time an incision is made in the skin, allowing the physician to truly focus on the surgery. The CID also makes an audible beep with each incision meaning that the patient can count along if they wish (though patients typically report that they get too distracted to keep up with the count). The beep is also clever because it distracts patients from the sound of the graft site preparation being made in their scalp (which I would imagine is a bit unsettling, particularly in the beginnng).

As many posters have mentioned, in this day and age, there’s no reason every surgeon shouldn’t be using an automated counting device and it’s truly a disservice to patients if one isn’t used during their procedure. Any surgeon or patient can purchase a CID from http://www.device4hair.com.


#8

Is the device something that any doctor can use? Do I purchase the device and bring this to my doctor the day of the surgery?


#9

» Correct me if I’m wrong, bverotti, but I believe their clinic uses
» a foot switch where the doctor steps on a pedal as he makes each incision.

bahahaha bverotti you got owned :smiley:

That foot pedal thing to keep the count reminds me of the Flintstones.

That’s what you get for interupting her thread specifically on their new invention. But no, “We have one too and ours is better”. How rude :wink:


#10

I may be wrong here but all of this seems a distraction.

The Fus can be counted by the technicians who prepare for implantation.

More importantly, the far bigger question is how many actually grow!!!

This instrument counts how many holes are made. That is it! will the holes be filled with grafts? That is another question.


#11

x


#12

dr. Cole congratulation this is a great idea, very useful tool.
But I would not overemphasis its importance to inform the patients about the number of transplanted grafts. The patient can be inform precisely about the number of the incisions, but if someone is really curious how would you prove them that every hole are containing a viable FU graft? They still dont know are these incisions filled with grafts or even what kind of graft…
Other:
This instrument is useful for the doctors, they will not make more incisions, only what number are necessary, if they know the number of the available grafts at the time of the incision process. This is the case at FUE surgery and strip surgery with stick and place method.
But when the incisons are premade, the number of grafts is known only far later, so still there can be easily a gap between the number of incisions and the real graft number. (For my opinion some more empty incisions make no harm at all. )
But by the use of this device as an option we can make less incisions first, and the further necessary amount of incisions can be made after knowing the exact graft count. This is very good.


#13

Does this work for doctors who are using lateral slits for the recipient?


#14

» I may be wrong here but all of this seems a distraction.
»
» The Fus can be counted by the technicians who prepare for implantation.
»
» More importantly, the far bigger question is how many actually grow!!!
»
» This instrument counts how many holes are made. That is it! will the holes
» be filled with grafts? That is another question.

Does the counter clicks when a hole is created or when a graft is placed in the hole?


#15

Garyg, we encourage all doctors to purchase CIDs in bulk so that they can use a new one on each patient (at just $20 a piece, they are a minor cost compared to how much doctors are making on HT procedures). These devices are single-use only, as they are impossible to thoroughly and safely sterilize due to the electronic circuitry involved. Physicians should be eager to use this device as it ensures a much greater level of accuracy and gives them the capacity to focus on the surgery (and not a three or four figure count), improving the overall transplant quality. However, if for whatever reason your doctor doesn’t or won’t purchase one, you can absolutely buy one directly from device4hair.com and request that it be used. This way you can ensure the device used on you is sterile and is not being re-used.

A few of you correctly noted that the CID only counts the incision sites made (fastforward, it clicks when the incision is made, not when the site is filled). Patients should obviously not be charged if an incision is made and a graft is not planted. If, for whatever reason, graft sites were prepared and not filled, this number should be deducted from the count on the CID.

Readyfreddy, the CID absolutely works for doctors using the lateral slit technique. The CID comes with 3 different tips with depth control for pre-cut blades or needles (18G, 19G, 20G or 21G), depending upon the doctor’s preferred method of recipient site preparation.


#16

» However, if for whatever reason your doctor doesn’t or won’t purchase one,
» you can absolutely buy one directly from device4hair.com and request that
» it be used. This way you can ensure the device used on you is sterile and
» is not being re-used.

if the doctor doesn’t want to use the device for whatever reason, I doubt he will use it even if the patient is willing to purchase one himself and request that it be used on him on the day of the surgery. I think either you convince the doctor to use it in the first place or you can forget about it.


#17

» I may be wrong here but all of this seems a distraction.
»
» The Fus can be counted by the technicians who prepare for implantation.
»
» More importantly, the far bigger question is how many actually grow!!!
»
» This instrument counts how many holes are made. That is it! will the holes
» be filled with grafts? That is another question.

Good point. Hopefully they can come up with something else for that. In the meantime, I think this is a step forward. I can’t count the number of time I’ve pondered and questioned the numbered of grafts stated was used in any procedure.


#18

»
» if the doctor doesn’t want to use the device for whatever reason, I doubt
» he will use it even if the patient is willing to purchase one himself and
» request that it be used on him on the day of the surgery. I think either
» you convince the doctor to use it in the first place or you can forget
» about it.

Ipod, you bring up an interesting point. Some doctors are creatures of habit and hesitate to pick up on new technologies. For over 30 years physicians used plugs to perform hair transplants. Eventually, a small group of physicians began to adopt a new method of hair restoration surgery, using Follicular Units. However, most physicians refused to evolve for over a decade. Then these reluctant physicians gradually began to lose patients to those physicians who used follicular units, which astute patients recognized as a far superior technique. Gradually, more and more patients began to demand follicular units but only after many years of pressure from patients did most physicians adopt a better, more aesthetic result. Some physicians have, for years, put off change especially change that forces the physician to expend more money or change the way they practice medicine. In the end, it is the patient and consumer advocates who influences what physicians use. Do you think most physicians today would use microscopes without the effort by consumer advocates such as Spencer Kobren? If everyone had waited for physicians to make the move on their own, they’d likely still be using plugs and no microscopes.

Patients have a lot more influence than they realize. If patients demand that doctors use CIDs to ensure a completely accurate count, physicians will either need to adopt the technology, or risk becoming obsolete. Most top hair restoration physicians will immediately recognize the value of the CID to their practices and, more importantly, their patients; others will take more convincing. Some physicians, not current on the latest industry news, might not even be aware that such a device exists. This is one of those cases where, I believe, patients can educate and influence doctors for the better good of the industry as a whole.

I’d love to hear others’ thoughts on this issue!


#19

» »
» » if the doctor doesn’t want to use the device for whatever reason, I
» doubt
» » he will use it even if the patient is willing to purchase one himself
» and
» » request that it be used on him on the day of the surgery. I think
» either
» » you convince the doctor to use it in the first place or you can forget
» » about it.
»
» Ipod, you bring up an interesting point. Some doctors are
» creatures of habit and hesitate to pick up on new technologies. For over
» 30 years physicians used plugs to perform hair transplants. Eventually, a
» small group of physicians began to adopt a new method of hair restoration
» surgery, using Follicular Units. However, most physicians refused to
» evolve for over a decade. Then these reluctant physicians gradually began
» to lose patients to those physicians who used follicular units, which
» astute patients recognized as a far superior technique. Gradually, more
» and more patients began to demand follicular units but only after many
» years of pressure from patients did most physicians adopt a better, more
» aesthetic result. Some physicians have, for years, put off change
» especially change that forces the physician to expend more money or change
» the way they practice medicine. In the end, it is the patient and consumer
» advocates who influences what physicians use. Do you think most physicians
» today would use microscopes without the effort by consumer advocates such
» as Spencer Kobren? If everyone had waited for physicians to make the move
» on their own, they’d likely still be using plugs and no microscopes.
»
» Patients have a lot more influence than they realize. If patients demand
» that doctors use CIDs to ensure a completely accurate count, physicians
» will either need to adopt the technology, or risk becoming obsolete. Most
» top hair restoration physicians will immediately recognize the value of the
» CID to their practices and, more importantly, their patients; others will
» take more convincing. Some physicians, not current on the latest industry
» news, might not even be aware that such a device exists. This is one of
» those cases where, I believe, patients can educate and influence doctors
» for the better good of the industry as a whole.
»
» I’d love to hear others’ thoughts on this issue!

Hair transplant doctors are known to have big egos, I don’t think a patient can simply demand that the doctor uses a particular instrument or else, this is not gonna fly.


#20

» Hair transplant doctors are known to have big egos, I don’t think a
» patient can simply demand that the doctor uses a particular instrument or
» else, this is not gonna fly.

NeverAgain, I agree that doctors’ egos are probably going to be one of the biggest impediments to getting them to use these devices. At the same time, physicians should be wise enough to realize that, if they never pick up on new techniques and technologies, educated patients will choose to go elsewhere for their surgery. Surgeons adverse to change will eventually wake up and realize their methods and instruments are antiquated and that prospective patients demand something more- in this case, an accurate graft count.