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

Independent study proves donor regrowth 5 years ago


#1

Here is the study I often mention I posted 5 years or so ago that proved donor regrowth using Dr. Gho’s old FM method. I’ve been shocked by the level of ignorance that abounds in the hair restoration industry when it comes to donor regrowth. This is a phenomenon shown to occur in the early work of Oliver/Jahoda many decades ago. Yet, to this day, 99.9% of hair transplant surgeons believe donor regrowth is impossible. It is imperative we begin to educate these people.

The donor regrowth is not an issue at all. The recipient regrowth was the difficult part to figure out. However, soaking the grafts in a special medium for 2 hours prior to implantation solves the problem. You also have to wait about a year for the donor to fully heal before the follicles can be reharvested for a second procedure.

The meat and potatoes of this study is:

“we harvest the upper two-thirds of the follicles and 76% of the follicles regenerate at the donor site. This ratio increases as the level of transection gets higher ( 98% for the upper one-thirds).” Here is the full study:

INTRODUCTION

The limitations of the donor area reserve is the most important problem to be solved by all physicians dealing with hair restoration surgery. The studies for increasing the potential donor supply such as hair cell implantation and in vitro hair follicle regeneration are still under investigation due to their poor results. The only recent advance is the follicular unit extraction technique also known as FUE. This technique allows the surgeon to obtain an increased number of follicular groups from the scalp and other body areas. However, as the level of baldness advances the number of grafts needed is not sufficient for a satisfactory result.

Several authors have proved that follicular epithelial stem cells should be located in the bulbar region as well as the bulge area. In 1995 Kim et al1 and in 1999 Reynolds et al2 reported that the outer root sheath cells cultured from different parts of a hair follicle could regenerate into a differentiated hair follicles. Based on Dr. Kım and Dr. Reynold’s studies, we hypothesize that transecting the hair follicle from different levels should allow doctors to obtain several viable donor grafts from one donor hair. Therefore, the number of donor hairs available in a patient’s donor area would increase in comparison to the techniques used today. This manipulation will result not only in hair growth in the recipient site, but will also allow for hair regrowth from the remaining part of each follicle in the actual donor site.

In this clinical study, we transplanted different parts of transversly trisected hair follicles, harvested by the FUE technique, from the donor site. We then tested the hypothesis by duplicating the available donor hair grafts in hair transplantation. We then evaluated the efficiency of the transected follicles by checking the growth rate of each type of transection. This evaluaton is especially important for surgeons using FUE since transplanting the transected follicles is sometimes a problem.

MATERIAL AND METHODS
Using the follicular unit extraction technique, normal human occipital scalp hair follicles were obtained from 5 healthy male patients. A total of 45 hair follicles were isolated for each patient. The follicles were divided into three groups. Group A (N:15): The upper one third of the follicles were extracted from the donor site, leaving the remainıng two thirds of each follicle intact. Group B (N:15): The upper half of the follicles was extracted, leaving the remainıng lower half of each follicle ıntact. Group C (N:15): The upper two thirds of the follicles were extracted, leaving the lower one third of each follicle ıntact. Extracted follicles from each group were placed into the slits at the recipient site. To monitor the growth in each site, the area was divided into 1 cm2 boxes using permanent tatoos. Follicle count and thickness control was performed for one year by an independent third party

RESULTS
At the recipient site at the 15 follicles meanly 3 (2-4) of upper one thirds, 4.4 (2-6) of upper half and 6.2 (5-8) of upper two thirds were observed as fully grown after 1 year. The regenerated hairs were thinner than those from intact follicles. At the donor site a regrowth rate of meanly 12.6 (10-14) of extracted upper one thirds, 10.2 (8-13) of extracted half and 8 (7-12) of extracted upper two thirds was observed as emerging new follicles. The growth rate at the donor site and regrowth rate at the recipient site is given in Figure 1 and Figure 2 respectively.

Figure 1: UPPER 1/3 1/2 UPPER 2/3
Growth rate at the recipient sit

Figure 2: UPPER 1/3 1/2 UPPER 2/3
Regrowth rate at the donor site.

DISCUSSION
The hair follicle is a complex organism. It contains stem cells that not only govern the rate of cell loss, but also the regeneration of the hair during its life cycle. These stem cells are located at the bulb and outer sheath close to the erector pili muscle which is called the“bulge” as well. Oliver Et Al showed that rat vibrissae can still regenerate after removing the lowest one-third of the follicle. Similarly, Inaba Et Al, Kim and Choi proved that grafted hair follicles can regenerate after removal from the bulb. This data showed that the upper half of the follicle can regenerate outside of the bulb area. In our study we observed a growth rate of 29.3 % in the upper half of the follicles after 1 year. The regrowth rate was 76% at the donor site during the time period.

Recently, Rochat and Kobayashi proved the bulge hypothesis as true by isolating keratinocyte colony-forming cells from human hair follicles. They determined that cells were located in the follicular bulge area. This area is the outer root sheath to which the erector pili muscle is attached. This muscle is located nearly at the midportion of the follicle. Raposio Et Al identified these cells as follicular stem cells. Therefore, theoretically each half of the follicle should contain a stem cell reservoir and allow for new shaft production and hair growth which means an unlimited donor supply. They also transected hair follicles from the level immediately below the bulge area. They proved that the lower half of the follicle had the same growth rate as the intact follicle but that the upper half exhibited a reduced shaft production capacity. Although, the upper half of the follicle exhibited a reduced capacity for shaft production, it still had the capacity to form a hair shaft which means that it still contained some follicular stem cells. We have observed similar results ın our studies; just 13% of the upper one-third of the follicle can regenerate as a new follicle after transplantation. the upper half resulted in 20% and the upper two-thirds resulted in 33%. So we have observed that if only the bulge area is included in the graft the survival rate increases. If the transection level goes lower and the number of outer root sheath cells included in the graft increases, the survival rate will also increase, just like in the success rate in the extraction of the upper two-thirds of the follicles. This data supports the bulge hypothesis that implicates that the stem cell circulation begins in the upper outer root sheath and moves downward through the bulb area. Therefore, it is logical to include both stem cell locations and as much outer sheath as possible to increase the graft yield after the transplantation.

To our knowledge our clinical study is the first written study that compares trisected hair follicle growth and donor regrowth with single follicle extraction system. The most important problem in FUE procedures is the unacceptable levels of transection (damage due to cut hair follicles) in some patients. Sometimes surgeons are not careful enough when inserting the transected grafts into the slits. The results of our study reveals these transected new follicle can emerge in the recipient site. However, the number of new follicles depends on the transection level. New follicles are thinner than the original ones and they cannot cover the recipient site sufficiently. We think the bulge area stem cells can regenerate to build a new follicle, but without the bulb, the new follicle is thinner than the original one. We suggest that surgeons reconsider placing any transected follicle in the recipient site and maybe it is better to switch to strip surgery or to cancel the operation if the transection rate is above 10% in any patient.

We have also observed that in all FUE patients new hair follicles can regrow in the donor site. So we thought a kind of in vivo multiplication can be achieved so that the donor site can be harvested several times. This is basically true because we harvest the upper two-thirds of the follicles and 76% of the follicles regenerate at the donor site. This ratio increases as the level of transection gets higher ( 98% for the upper one-thirds). Also, new hairs emerge from 33% of these transplanted follicles in the recipient site. However, if a surgeon tries to extract the same follicle again it is really very difficult to extract the follicle intact. The punch suddenly buries into the skin and extracting the same follicle gets practically impossible.

In conclusion, the survival and growth rate of transversly sectioned human hair follicle increases as the level of transection decreases. However, we don’t recommend the surgeon to transplant the sectioned parts because the growth rate is not more than 33% and new follicles are so thin that they have no coverage effect. Also, at the donor site new follicle growth is observed but it is not possible to extract them again; therefore, the surgeon should be very careful with the patients whose transection rate is high during FUE procedures.


#2

Title:
In Vivo Follicular Unit Multiplication:
Is It Possible to Harvest an Unlimited Donor Supply?

This study was supported by research grant from the ISHRS in 2004 (according to the ISHRS Website):
http://www.ishrs.org/grant-recipients.php

Published Online: 3 Nov 2006:

Authors:
ERGIN ER, MD * , MELIKE KULAHCI, MD * , AND EMIRALI HAMILOGLU, MD * ,

  • TRANSMED Hair & Cosmetic Surgery Clinic, Istanbul, Turkey

» INTRODUCTION
»
» The limitations of the donor area reserve is the most important problem to
» be solved by all physicians dealing with hair restoration surgery. The
» studies for increasing the potential donor supply such as hair cell
» implantation and in vitro hair follicle regeneration are still under
» investigation due to their poor results. The only recent advance is the
» follicular unit extraction technique also known as FUE. This technique
» allows the surgeon to obtain an increased number of follicular groups from
» the scalp and other body areas. However, as the level of baldness advances
» the number of grafts needed is not sufficient for a satisfactory result.
»
» Several authors have proved that follicular epithelial stem cells should
» be located in the bulbar region as well as the bulge area. In 1995 Kim et
» al1 and in 1999 Reynolds et al2 reported that the outer root sheath cells
» cultured from different parts of a hair follicle could regenerate into a
» differentiated hair follicles. Based on Dr. Kım and Dr. Reynold’s
» studies, we hypothesize that transecting the hair follicle from different
» levels should allow doctors to obtain several viable donor grafts from one
» donor hair. Therefore, the number of donor hairs available in a patient’s
» donor area would increase in comparison to the techniques used today. This
» manipulation will result not only in hair growth in the recipient site, but
» will also allow for hair regrowth from the remaining part of each follicle
» in the actual donor site.
»
» In this clinical study, we transplanted different parts of transversly
» trisected hair follicles, harvested by the FUE technique, from the donor
» site. We then tested the hypothesis by duplicating the available donor hair
» grafts in hair transplantation. We then evaluated the efficiency of the
» transected follicles by checking the growth rate of each type of
» transection. This evaluaton is especially important for surgeons using FUE
» since transplanting the transected follicles is sometimes a problem.
»
» MATERIAL AND METHODS
» Using the follicular unit extraction technique, normal human occipital
» scalp hair follicles were obtained from 5 healthy male patients. A total of
» 45 hair follicles were isolated for each patient. The follicles were
» divided into three groups. Group A (N:15): The upper one third of the
» follicles were extracted from the donor site, leaving the remainıng
» two thirds of each follicle intact. Group B (N:15): The upper half of the
» follicles was extracted, leaving the remainıng lower half of each
» follicle ıntact. Group C (N:15): The upper two thirds of the follicles
» were extracted, leaving the lower one third of each follicle ıntact.
» Extracted follicles from each group were placed into the slits at the
» recipient site. To monitor the growth in each site, the area was divided
» into 1 cm2 boxes using permanent tatoos. Follicle count and thickness
» control was performed for one year by an independent third party
»
» RESULTS
» At the recipient site at the 15 follicles meanly 3 (2-4) of upper one
» thirds, 4.4 (2-6) of upper half and 6.2 (5-8) of upper two thirds were
» observed as fully grown after 1 year. The regenerated hairs were thinner
» than those from intact follicles. At the donor site a regrowth rate of
» meanly 12.6 (10-14) of extracted upper one thirds, 10.2 (8-13) of extracted
» half and 8 (7-12) of extracted upper two thirds was observed as emerging
» new follicles. The growth rate at the donor site and regrowth rate at the
» recipient site is given in Figure 1 and Figure 2 respectively.
»
» Figure 1: UPPER 1/3 1/2 UPPER 2/3
» Growth rate at the recipient sit
»
» Figure 2: UPPER 1/3 1/2 UPPER 2/3
» Regrowth rate at the donor site.
»
» DISCUSSION
» The hair follicle is a complex organism. It contains stem cells that not
» only govern the rate of cell loss, but also the regeneration of the hair
» during its life cycle. These stem cells are located at the bulb and outer
» sheath close to the erector pili muscle which is called the“bulge” as well.
» Oliver Et Al showed that rat vibrissae can still regenerate after removing
» the lowest one-third of the follicle. Similarly, Inaba Et Al, Kim and Choi
» proved that grafted hair follicles can regenerate after removal from the
» bulb. This data showed that the upper half of the follicle can regenerate
» outside of the bulb area. In our study we observed a growth rate of 29.3 %
» in the upper half of the follicles after 1 year. The regrowth rate was 76%
» at the donor site during the time period.
»
» Recently, Rochat and Kobayashi proved the bulge hypothesis as true by
» isolating keratinocyte colony-forming cells from human hair follicles. They
» determined that cells were located in the follicular bulge area. This area
» is the outer root sheath to which the erector pili muscle is attached. This
» muscle is located nearly at the midportion of the follicle. Raposio Et Al
» identified these cells as follicular stem cells. Therefore, theoretically
» each half of the follicle should contain a stem cell reservoir and allow
» for new shaft production and hair growth which means an unlimited donor
» supply. They also transected hair follicles from the level immediately
» below the bulge area. They proved that the lower half of the follicle had
» the same growth rate as the intact follicle but that the upper half
» exhibited a reduced shaft production capacity. Although, the upper half of
» the follicle exhibited a reduced capacity for shaft production, it still
» had the capacity to form a hair shaft which means that it still contained
» some follicular stem cells. We have observed similar results ın our
» studies; just 13% of the upper one-third of the follicle can regenerate as
» a new follicle after transplantation. the upper half resulted in 20% and
» the upper two-thirds resulted in 33%. So we have observed that if only the
» bulge area is included in the graft the survival rate increases. If the
» transection level goes lower and the number of outer root sheath cells
» included in the graft increases, the survival rate will also increase, just
» like in the success rate in the extraction of the upper two-thirds of the
» follicles. This data supports the bulge hypothesis that implicates that the
» stem cell circulation begins in the upper outer root sheath and moves
» downward through the bulb area. Therefore, it is logical to include both
» stem cell locations and as much outer sheath as possible to increase the
» graft yield after the transplantation.
»
» To our knowledge our clinical study is the first written study that
» compares trisected hair follicle growth and donor regrowth with single
» follicle extraction system. The most important problem in FUE procedures is
» the unacceptable levels of transection (damage due to cut hair follicles)
» in some patients. Sometimes surgeons are not careful enough when inserting
» the transected grafts into the slits. The results of our study reveals
» these transected new follicle can emerge in the recipient site. However,
» the number of new follicles depends on the transection level. New follicles
» are thinner than the original ones and they cannot cover the recipient site
» sufficiently. We think the bulge area stem cells can regenerate to build a
» new follicle, but without the bulb, the new follicle is thinner than the
» original one. We suggest that surgeons reconsider placing any transected
» follicle in the recipient site and maybe it is better to switch to strip
» surgery or to cancel the operation if the transection rate is above 10% in
» any patient.
»
» We have also observed that in all FUE patients new hair follicles can
» regrow in the donor site. So we thought a kind of in vivo multiplication
» can be achieved so that the donor site can be harvested several times. This
» is basically true because we harvest the upper two-thirds of the follicles
» and 76% of the follicles regenerate at the donor site. This ratio increases
» as the level of transection gets higher ( 98% for the upper one-thirds).
» Also, new hairs emerge from 33% of these transplanted follicles in the
» recipient site. However, if a surgeon tries to extract the same follicle
» again it is really very difficult to extract the follicle intact. The punch
» suddenly buries into the skin and extracting the same follicle gets
» practically impossible.
»
» In conclusion, the survival and growth rate of transversly sectioned human
» hair follicle increases as the level of transection decreases. However, we
» don’t recommend the surgeon to transplant the sectioned parts because the
» growth rate is not more than 33% and new follicles are so thin that they
» have no coverage effect. Also, at the donor site new follicle growth is
» observed but it is not possible to extract them again; therefore, the
» surgeon should be very careful with the patients whose transection rate is
» high during FUE procedures.

References:

  1. Rassman WR, et al. Follicular unit extraction: minimally invasive surgery for hair transplantation.
    Dermatol Surg 2002; 28: 720–728.

  2. Kim JC, Choi YC. Regrowth of grafted human scalp hair after removal of the bulb. Dermatol Surg 1995; 21(4): 312–313.

  3. Reynolds AJ, et al. Trans-gender induction of hair follicles.
    Nature 4 November 1999; 402(6757): 33–34.

4. Gho CG, et al. Human follicular stem cells: their presence in plucked hair and follicular cell culture.
Br J Dermatol 2004; 150(5): 860–868.

  1. de Viragh PA, Meuli M. Human scalp hair follicle development from birth to adulthood: statistical study with special regard to putative stem cells in the bulge and proliferating cells in the matrix.
    Arch Dermatol Res 1995; 287(3-4): 279–284.

  2. Raposio E, et al. Follicular bisection in hair transplantation surgery: an in vitro model. Plast Reconstr Surg 1998 (July); 102(1): 221–226.

  3. Rochat A, Kobayashi K, Barrandon Y. Location of stem cells of human hair follicles by clonal analysis.
    Cell 25, March 1994; 76(6): 1063–1073.

  4. Oliver RF. Whisker growth after removal of the dermal papilla and lengths of follicle in the hooded rat. J Embryol
    Exp Morphol 1966 (June); 15(3): 331–347.

  5. Inaba M, Anthony J, McKinstry C. Histologic study of the regeneration of axillary hair after removal with
    subcutaneous tissue shaver.
    J Invest Dermatol 1979; 72(5): 224–231.


#3

This study was a total failure. JB, I don’t understand how you are using this study as proof of concept. It is all the contrary.

-Patient group 1:
Before: 15 follicles (donor).
After: 15.6 follicles (3 recipient+12.6 donor).

-Patient group 2:
Before: 15 follicles (donor).
After: 14.6 follicles (4.4 recipient and 10.2 donor).

-Patient group 3:
Before: 15 follicles (donor).
After: 14.2 follicles (6.2 recipient+ 8 donor).

PLUS: the recipient follicles are thin.

CONCLUSIONS:
1-No hair gain.
2-Loss of caliber in the recipient hairs.
3-Donor follicles cannot be harvested again because the punch “suddenly buries into the skin”.

Quote:

RESULTS
At the recipient site at the 15 follicles meanly 3 (2-4) of upper one thirds, 4.4 (2-6) of upper half and 6.2 (5-8) of upper two thirds were observed as fully grown after 1 year. The regenerated hairs were thinner than those from intact follicles. At the donor site a regrowth rate of meanly 12.6 (10-14) of extracted upper one thirds, 10.2 (8-13) of extracted half and 8 (7-12) of extracted upper two thirds was observed as emerging new follicles. The growth rate at the donor site and regrowth rate at the recipient site is given in Figure 1 and Figure 2 respectively.

However, if a surgeon tries to extract the same follicle
again it is really very difficult to extract the follicle intact. The punch
suddenly buries into the skin and extracting the same follicle gets
practically impossible.

In conclusion, the survival and growth rate of transversly sectioned human
hair follicle increases as the level of transection decreases. However, we
don’t recommend the surgeon to transplant the sectioned parts because the
growth rate is not more than 33% and new follicles are so thin that they
have no coverage effect. Also, at the donor site new follicle growth is
observed but it is not possible to extract them again; therefore, the
surgeon should be very careful with the patients whose transection rate is
high during FUE procedures.

<<<


#4

We focus in the donor regrowth, because we assume the surgeon (in this case Gho) will take care that recipient site hairs will grow at any cost, because the patient will easily notice it if these hairs don’t grow.

In contrast, the donor area is quickly concealed as hair grows back, and most patients won’t be able to evaluate it. For example, Hairsite himself. We have talked about this so many times before. I don’t know why you keep playing the fool, JB. The fact is that patients don’t check their donor regrowth. They only check the recipient area, because it was bald before, and now it is meant to have hair, so it is easy to check.

Thus, we asume that the recipient area will grow hair, and we question the donor area’s regeneration.

I think its quite easy to understand.

» The donor regrowth is not an issue at all. The recipient regrowth was the
» difficult part to figure out. However, soaking the grafts in a special
» medium for 2 hours prior to implantation solves the problem. You also have
» to wait about a year for the donor to fully heal before the follicles can
» be reharvested for a second procedure.


#5

» This study was a total failure. JB, I don’t understand how you are using
» this study as proof of concept. It is all the contrary.
»
» -Patient group 1:
» Before: 15 follicles (donor).
» After: 15.6 follicles (3 recipient+12.6 donor).
»
» -Patient group 2:
» Before: 15 follicles (donor).
» After: 14.6 follicles (4.4 recipient and 10.2 donor).
»
» -Patient group 3:
» Before: 15 follicles (donor).
» After: 14.2 follicles (6.2 recipient+ 8 donor).
»
» PLUS: the recipient follicles are thin.
»
» CONCLUSIONS:
» 1-No hair gain.
» 2-Loss of caliber in the recipient hairs.
» 3-Donor follicles cannot be harvested again because the punch “suddenly
» buries into the skin”.

»
» Quote:
» >>>
» RESULTS
» At the recipient site at the 15 follicles meanly 3 (2-4) of upper one
» thirds, 4.4 (2-6) of upper half and 6.2 (5-8) of upper two thirds were
» observed as fully grown after 1 year. The regenerated hairs were thinner
» than those from intact follicles. At the donor site a regrowth rate of
» meanly 12.6 (10-14) of extracted upper one thirds, 10.2 (8-13) of extracted
» half and 8 (7-12) of extracted upper two thirds was observed as emerging
» new follicles. The growth rate at the donor site and regrowth rate at the
» recipient site is given in Figure 1 and Figure 2 respectively.
»
»
» However, if a surgeon tries to extract the same follicle
» again it is really very difficult to extract the follicle intact. The
» punch
» suddenly buries into the skin and extracting the same follicle gets
» practically impossible.
»
» In conclusion, the survival and growth rate of transversly sectioned
» human
» hair follicle increases as the level of transection decreases. However,
» we
» don’t recommend the surgeon to transplant the sectioned parts because the
» growth rate is not more than 33% and new follicles are so thin that they
» have no coverage effect. Also, at the donor site new follicle growth is
» observed but it is not possible to extract them again; therefore, the
» surgeon should be very careful with the patients whose transection rate
» is
» high during FUE procedures.
»
» <<<

I disagree. As he stated there was regrowth in the donor area. In many cases as much as 80% regrowth. The recipient area was not the point he was trying to make with this post. In fact on the other tread he has stated yhat the difficult part was the recipient area which is now being addressed. I accept that the quality of hair maybe in question after it but the point he is trying to make is that after extraction hair regrew in the donor area. Now the next point is with further study it may be possible to improve the quality of the hair that regrows and improve the chances and quality in the recipient area. But the point he makes is still valid in that donor regrowth is real.


#6

» I’ve been shocked by the
» level of ignorance that abounds in the hair restoration industry when it
» comes to donor regrowth.

Just to highlight some important steps in the HM field …

2003

Title:
To Multiply or not to Multiply, that’s the question
By Coen G.Gho MD and H.A. Martino Neumann MD, PhD
2003, October 15-19. 11th International Society of Hair Restoration Surgery (ISHRS) Meeting, New york, USA.

EXCERPT:
Hair multiplication
We have shown in several studies that follicular stem cells derived from plucked hair can be cultured. Hair multiplication is a technique whereby cultured follicular stem cells derived from plucked hair from the occipital side of the head are used to regenerate new hairs in bald areas. Because the role of the connective tissue or extracellular matrix surrounding the epithelial portion of the hair follicle is very important for the survival of the implanted cells, we implant the cultured cells into hair follicles which remain in the recipient area.

Source (text in full): http://hasci.com/uploads/downloads/ISHRS_abstract.pdf

2004 (Accepted for publication 3 October 2003)

Title:
Human follicular stem cells: their presence in plucked hair and follicular cell culture
By Coen G.Gho, Jacqueline E.F.Braun, Claudia M.L.J. Tilli, H.A. Martino Neumann, Frans C.S. Ramaekers

EXCERPT:
Follow-up studies will focus on the role of components of the connective tissue and the extracellular matrix surrounding the epithelial portion of the hair follicle.
Source (text in full): http://hasci.com/uploads/downloads/BJD5682.17may04.pdf

2010
The (true) Dr. Gary Hitzig & Dr. Jerry Cooley “Hair Cloning” story:
http://www.hairsite.com/hair-loss/board_entry-id-64021.html#p64055

2010 (March)

Mar 3rd, 2010 - ACell Interview with Dr. Gary Hitzig

EXCERPTs

How long have you been experimenting with ACell’s MatriStem products?

Since September 2008, when the FDA approved it for use.

How many patients have you treated?

The initial cohort I treated was between 18 and 20 people.

I am currently writing a scientific article based on the results from this
group; explaining the rationale behind the unique regenerative process
we’ve observed. Once all of the documentation has been organized and all of
the patient follow-ups have been completed, the research will be sent to
ACell for verification of claims. Publication should follow shortly thereafter.

More recently, however, I’ve been able to treat a slightly larger group
with a much wider array of applications. This is the most exciting aspect
of my research.[…]

In regards to ACell, what applications have you tested thus far?

  • Scar reductions,
  • plucked hair duplication,
  • recipient injections,
  • virgin scalp donor regeneration and
  • a new gel formulation.

Recipient injections occur during hair transplants. We place grafts in a
fashion consistent with normal hair restoration procedures, but we also
inject a liquid suspension of ACell into the recipient area. Using
this method, we have been able to increase hair counts from 50-400%.
That means that in the best case scenario, we can get 4 follicles for every
1 that is implanted. […]

And finally …

2010 (April)

Title:
Donor hair follicle preservation by partial follicular unit extraction.
A method to optimize hair transplantation

By Coen G.Gho and Martino Neumann
Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20388024?dopt=AbstractPlus

CONCLUSIONS

Dr. Coen Gho has been, in fact, the first in the whole HM field, who mentioned the expression “Extracellular Matrix” in a scientific paper; and, in fact, “Extracellular Matrix” (ECM) IS one of the essential KEYs to get Hair Multiplication consistently (and at all) working - for both parts of transected hairfollicles!

Regarding “ignorance” within the HT field - just for example:

Dr Ray Woods, March 2009, regarding ECMs or “something out of some factory/lab”:

I wouldn’t smear, wash or coat a precious natural healthy follicle with ANY chemical compound.

In my opinion, billions of years of evolution can not be improved upon by a man made chemical cocktale

Let the blood do its work, and don’t dilute it, or interfere with something out of some factory/lab

Dr Ray Woods

Source: http://www.hairsite.com/hair-loss/forum_entry-id-50726-page-5-category-2-order-last_answer.html

Pahhh!!!


#7

Sorry Celt, I have now edited the header of my post.
Yes, you are right that the donor regrows in some percent, but note that the donor hair regrows ONLY when the recipient hair dies. LOL, so then what is the merit? You have no hair gain.

» I disagree. As he stated there was regrowth in the donor area. In many
» cases as much as 80% regrowth. The recipient area was not the point he was
» trying to make with this post. In fact on the other tread he has stated
» yhat the difficult part was the recipient area which is now being
» addressed. I accept that the quality of hair maybe in question after it but
» the point he is trying to make is that after extraction hair regrew in the
» donor area. Now the next point is with further study it may be possible to
» improve the quality of the hair that regrows and improve the chances and
» quality in the recipient area. But the point he makes is still valid in
» that donor regrowth is real.


#8

Well, you yourself posted Cooley’s interview, where he backpedaled from previous Hitzig’s sensationalist claims.

http://www.hairsite.com/hair-loss/forum_entry-id-62627.html

But you, Iron_Man, keep confusing people, posting articles, and articles, only showing the “bright side” of the story, even if you know that it is not true.

» 2010
» The (true) Dr. Gary Hitzig & Dr. Jerry Cooley “Hair Cloning” story:
» http://www.hairsite.com/hair-loss/board_entry-id-64021.html#p64055
»
» 2010 (March)
» ------------------------------------------------
» Mar 3rd, 2010 - ACell Interview with Dr. Gary
» Hitzig

»
» EXCERPTs
»
» How long have you been experimenting with ACell’s MatriStem
» products?

»
» Since September 2008, when the FDA approved it for use.
»
» How many patients have you treated?
»
» The initial cohort I treated was between 18 and 20 people.
»
» I am currently writing a scientific article based on the results from
» this
» group; explaining the rationale behind the unique regenerative process
» we’ve observed. Once all of the documentation has been organized and all
» of
» the patient follow-ups have been completed, the research will be sent to
» ACell for verification of claims. Publication should follow shortly
» thereafter.
»
» More recently, however, I’ve been able to treat a slightly larger group
» with a much wider array of applications. This is the most exciting
» aspect
» of my research.[…]
» ----------
» In regards to ACell, what applications have you tested thus far?
»
» - Scar reductions,
» - plucked hair duplication,
» - recipient injections,
» - virgin scalp donor regeneration and
» - a new gel formulation.
»
» Recipient injections occur during hair transplants. We place grafts in a
» fashion consistent with normal hair restoration procedures, but we also
» inject a liquid suspension of ACell into the recipient area.
» Using
» this method, we have been able to increase hair counts from
» 50-400%
.
» That means that in the best case scenario, we can get 4 follicles for
» every
» 1 that is implanted. […]
» -----------------------------------------


#9

» Well, you yourself posted Cooley’s interview in the baldtruth show, where
» he backpedaled from previous Hitzig’s sensationalist claims.
»
» http://www.hairsite.com/hair-loss/forum_entry-id-62627.html
»
» But you, Iron_Man, keep confusing people, posting articles, and articles,
» only showing the “bright side” of the story, even if you know that it is
» not true.

Iron_Man - 01.05.2010, 14:24
Spanish Dude - 01.05.2010, 14:45

Wow! Spanish Dude is able to read & understand within just few minutes each and every part of my posting above – and he even got immediately THE CLUE behind my post!! I knew he is a genius … :smiley:

@Spanish Dude, do you really believe I post here just for douch bags like you or some other HS idiots??


#10

iron deficient man you arent clever and in fact you seem the “douchebag”. spanishdude has contributed to this board for ages. you suck. go away now


#11

» iron deficient man you arent clever and in fact you seem the “douchebag”.
» spanishdude has contributed to this board for ages. you suck. go away now

That’s right, but just one crap after the next …


#12

LOL.
Thanks scarro for your nice words.
and thanks you too Iron_Man, you are really funny.

» » iron deficient man you arent clever and in fact you seem the
» “douchebag”.
» » spanishdude has contributed to this board for ages. you suck. go
» away now
»
» That’s right, but just one crap after the next …


#13

I thought Gho had come up with something NEW on his procedure - if it is still the same old stuff then maybe it is not exciting as I thought because I think it is accepted by most that the Syrup result was terrible and we have had very little in the way of positive feedback for Gho over the years. Even Hairsite cannot vouch for donor regeneration.


#14

» I thought Gho had come up with something NEW on his procedure - if it is
» still the same old stuff then maybe it is not exciting as I thought because
» I think it is accepted by most that the Syrup result was terrible and we
» have had very little in the way of positive feedback for Gho over the
» years. Even Hairsite cannot vouch for donor regeneration.

Recently, YOU have been the last one who posted in this (crappy) thread:
http://www.hairsite.com/hair-loss/board_entry.html?id=64064&da=ASC&page=0&category=all&order=last_answer&descasc=DESC&be_page=0

… so actually you should already know, that this “Syrup topic” recently has just been discussed once again - including the guy “Syrup” himself and including his own opinion today.

So do you really think this crappy case from 2003 should be discussed once again???

» I thought Gho had come up with something NEW on his procedure

Is this comment just a joke or what???

It seems hair loss cause Alzheimer too … :no:


#15

» » I thought Gho had come up with something NEW on his procedure - if it is
» » still the same old stuff then maybe it is not exciting as I thought
» because
» » I think it is accepted by most that the Syrup
» result
was terrible and we
» » have had very little in the way of positive feedback for Gho over the
» » years. Even Hairsite cannot vouch for donor regeneration.
»
» Recently, YOU have been the last one who posted in this (crappy) thread:
» http://www.hairsite.com/hair-loss/board_entry.html?id=64064&da=ASC&page=0&category=all&order=last_answer&descasc=DESC&be_page=0
»
» … so actually you should already know, that this “Syrup topic” recently
» has just been discussed once again - including the guy “Syrup” himself and
» including his own opinion today.
»
» So do you really think this crappy case from 2003 should be discussed once
» again???
»
» » I thought Gho had come up with something NEW on his procedure
»
» Is this comment just a joke or what???
»
» It seems hair loss cause Alzheimer too … :no:

It seems that Syrup’s situation is one of poor design and below average artistic skills, it has little to do with donor regeneration/hair multiplication as there is no way to prove.


#16

Recently, YOU have been the last one who posted in this (crappy) thread:

Yes I did, but I tend to skip over some of the personal stuff a lot of you often engage in so I missed the bit on Syrup.

So do you really think this crappy case from 2003 should be discussed once again???

Yes I really think it does yes, there were other cases of unhappiness with Gho’s work at the time too, if it has been working fine for 5 years and the cases like Syrup’s haven’t been sorted out it is a problem with credibility for Gho because people like Syrup DO have credibility on the forums. I have gone back and had a look - first of all iron_man you tried to dump on Syrup, then were forced to apologise - I think your brain is the one in question :no:

As for Gho not advancing his procedure - then we are exactly where we were before, I don’t know why you consider that a joke.

Hairsite, I agree, but it doesn’t look good on the integrity of Dr Gho that Syrup’s case was so badly handled - and if the process has not advanced from 5 years ago how on earth has Dr Gho failed to get this out on the market with other HT doctors. Maybe Dr Gho is absolutely hopeless at anything except research - but none of it looks good.


#17

» “Recently, YOU have been the last one who posted in this (crappy)
» thread:

»
» Yes I did, but I tend to skip over some of the personal stuff a lot of you
» often engage in so I missed the bit on Syrup.
»
»
» “So do you really think this crappy case from 2003 should be discussed
» once again???

»
» Yes I really think it does yes, if it has been working fine for 5 years
» and the Syrup case hasn’t been sorted out it is a problem with credibility
» for Gho because Syrup DOES have credibility on the forums. I have gone back
» and had a look- first of all you tried to dump on Syrup, then were forced
» to apologise - I think your brain is the one in question :no:
»
» As for Gho not advancing his procedure - then we are exactly where we were
» before, I don’t know why you consider that a joke.
»
» Hairsite, I agree, but it doesn’t look good on the integrity of Dr Gho
» that Syrup’s case was so badly handled - and if the process has not
» advanced from 5 years ago how on earth has Dr Gho failed to get this out on
» the market with other HT doctors. Maybe Dr Gho is absolutely hopeless at
» anything except research - but none of it looks good.

All good points, the way I see it is that I am starting to believe that Gho may have something real, granted the work he did for Syrup was a joke, but I am willing to overlook that as an exception because no doctor can get away with that kind of subpar work for so many years. For Gho to be in business for all these years and able to back up his work with peer reviewed studies, he may really have something real. Besides, if Syrup is the only bad story since 2003, I say Gho has a pretty good record right there.


#18

» For Gho to be in
» business for all these years and able to back up his work with peer
» reviewed studies
, he may really have something real. Besides, if Syrup is
» the only bad story since 2003, I say Gho has a pretty good record right
» there.

Careful! this is the first study about FM/HST published by Gho. And it is a peer reviewable study.
We will see how many TRUSTWORTHY peers actually review it.


#19

» Careful! this is the first study about FM/HST published by Gho.

Really?

Pahhh!!!


#20

" Besides, if Syrup is the only bad story since 2003, I say Gho has a pretty good record right there."

Well, I was around 5 years ago and there were a number of other cases, but yes I agree, I think he may indeed have something with his research - it seems he may well be brilliant at that - but adequate at nothing else :slight_smile:

Let’s hope he can bring it to others like Dr Bisanga who can evaluate it properly, and if it really works, get it out into the market more effectively.