While not directly related to hair regeneration, I think this could be another way of getting there (a potential cure). ReCell was just approved by the FDA for healing burns. It’s a fantastic technology and requires 97% less skin than what was used with older techniques to cover burn wounds. So if your whole back was burned you only need a credit card sized area to heal it.
The main reason I’m posting the articles is for the images (but they’re an interesting read too), just look at how amazing the results are (warning not for the squeamish). Now their articles don’t seem to explicitly claim it regenerates new skin but that’s what appears to be happening (see photos).
Bottom line is that if it can regrow the top layers of skin along with hair follicles then imo this could be one possible cure for us that is basically available right now. The way I see it working is that a doctor would take a small biopsy of skin cells from an area of your head where hair permanently grows, then remove a thin layer of skin from the bald areas and spray on the skin cells and when it heals you should get hair growing also.
If that doesn’t work, you could do a strip hair transplant, spray on the skin and you should get your old hair growing back-repeat until you have a full head of hair. We just need some hair transplant surgeons to try this idea out. Of course, it rests on the premise that the skin regenerates and doesn’t scar, so hair can grow on the healed area, hopefully, it can.
It might be a new way to treat the area where a strip is removed to minimize scarring, and it could be used to treat FUE extraction sites during surgery.
Agreed that’s what I was hoping it’d do, esp if it regrows the hair that used to be there, then essentially we have an unlimited supply of donor hair. Even better if it can be done with a small punch biopsy and spray on the cells to rebuild the layers of skin including the follicles.
Of all these products I’ve seen so far, imo this one is the real deal and it’s available now. I wasn’t aware but it was being used in other countries like Australia for 10 years. It looks to me it fully regenerates the skin, it’s been used to treat scars, burns and other skin issues and seems to heal them without forming scar tissue in most cases. If hair grows in the newly generated skin then I think we’re set. This has yet to be determined.
This is great, but just spraying on “skin” isn’t automatically going to grow hair follicles. The hair follicle is a very specialized organ in the skin which is made up of a number of very specialized epithelial and mesodermal derived cells, plus stem cells. These cells don’t exist in the “stroma” of the skin, outside of the hair follicle. Also, the stuff they’re using doesn’t really become true skin, it is more of a “skin-like” product. It’s also like ACell (remember that?), which is particles of collagen and connective tissue, applied to the wound, which then aggregate skin cells from around the edges and serve as a “matrix” for the skin cells to grow into. But you are not creating any new hair follicles that way. New hair follicles don’t just spontaneously grow unless you have the specialized cells they’re derived from (DP cells, HF stem cells) in the mix, and this product does not have those cells.
I hear what you’re saying but this is what was mentioned in the NBC article:
“Now, he says, he has very little pain. “I show everyone my grafts and scarring and everyone is surprised at how well it works,” he said. Hair follicles have started growing back in some areas, and in some, he said, scars are barely visible.”
Additionally regarding ReCell vs Acell:
Another difference between ReCell and ACell’s wound powder is that the wound powder only serves to promote healing via recruitment of the patient’s own cells. It does not actually apply cells to a wound as ReCell does. And on the surface, it doesn’t appear as if one approach is far superior than others, but the only way to find the best treatment is to test different ideas and see which works for which type of injury.
So it appears that ReCell seems to show more promise than Acell. What I’m wondering is if they remove a patch of skin that contains the cells that regrow all the layers of skin, then shouldn’t it also re-grow follicles? The NBC report seems to suggest that it does but in a limited capacity.
Yes I suspect that ReCell has much more promise than Acell from what i’ve seen and read. At least for scars, bad skin, burns, this is a godsend. But the best would be if it could regrow hair and it might be able to do that.
Someone needs to test this thing out, the good thing is that it already has FDA approval, it’s available now and has a 10 year track-record.
This is an advertising site for paid
advertisers to showcase successful hair restoration results only. It is not the
mandate of this site to engage in the discussion of failed, unsuccessful
procedures, lawsuits, litigations, refunds or complaint cases. Surgical hair
restoration procedures carry risks. Please do thorough research, consult your
own physician and investigate a doctor's background carefully before making a
decision. By proceeding to use our site, you agree to abide by our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy at http://hairsite.com/terms-of-use/ where you can also find a list of HairSite's sponsoring physicians.