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

To CITnews/Dr. Cole, about donor regeneration


#1

I think I speak for a lot of people when I ask why Dr. Cole’s evidence of donor regeneration has not made a bigger collective splash on the HT world in the last couple of years.

I speak here all due respect and no attempts to attack anyone’s credibility. But if one of these hair multiplication operations was claiming to be able to pull 1 graft from the donor area and somehow produce 1.5 or 2 grafts in the recipient area from it on average, it would have sent shockwaves through the HT world. That is functionally what Dr. Cole is claiming to see just by using Acell & PRP on low-depth FUE extraction wounds.

I think at least a couple years have gone by since Dr. Cole was first saying this stuff and it has made little impact on the industry. Your clinic is also not posting “WOW” final result HT cases that suggest you have achieved a notable improvement in the ratio between recipient hair gained versus donor hair lost during the HT process.

Has Dr. Cole not yet “swung for the fences” on anyone? Has he not yet attempted to use this regeneration technique to push the limits on how much total MPB restoration is possible for high-Norwood patients?

I could understand that cautious outlook, especially with what is admittedly an inconsistent technique with no long-term data. (What if the regenerated donor follicles eventually succumb to old age decades earlier than normal? etc.) But there are plenty of guys with more hair loss & money than cautiousness and Dr. Cole is making no bones about this regeneration happening - haven’t any of his patients wanted to see what this can really do for them?

Are there no other clinics showing interest in what your clinic has been observing with this? Has nobody else tried to test it, etc?

Some respected FUE clinics aren’t as interested in cutting-edge HM techniques as others. But this technique/phenomenon seems to offer a huge potential benefit and require very little additional expense/trouble/difficulty/risk to achieve it. There wouldn’t be much learning curve, etc, for other clinics to implement it. And the risk of over-harvesting the donor area (betting too high on getting too much regeneration after a given HT session) would not become significant until they were already pushing far enough to see clear evidence that the technique does work to some extent.

Any feedback would be appreciated.


#2

Cal, you read my mind, that’s exactly how I feel about Cole’s PRP & Acell treatment. It has been at least a couple years since it was first announced and really it hasn’t made much of an impact in the HT world, it seems as if even Dr. Cole himself is not sure how well that really works or if it works at all.


#3

In order for things to move forward at a quicker pace, there needs to be a LOT more research.

I will be getting updates over the next few days from the annual ISHRS meeting in San Francisco. Please look at my contact information below and feel free to call me. Ask for Chuck.

CITNews works at Dr. Cole’s office


#4

This answer could not have been more evasive.

[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by CITNews[/postedby]
In order for things to move forward at a quicker pace, there needs to be a LOT more research.

I will be getting updates over the next few days from the annual ISHRS meeting in San Francisco. Please look at my contact information below and feel free to call me. Ask for Chuck.

CITNews works at Dr. Cole’s office
[/quote]


#5

Why are we waiting for the ISHRS? I thought the Dr. Cole was the one who did the PRP and Acell experiments,

[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by CITNews[/postedby]
In order for things to move forward at a quicker pace, there needs to be a LOT more research.

I will be getting updates over the next few days from the annual ISHRS meeting in San Francisco. Please look at my contact information below and feel free to call me. Ask for Chuck.

CITNews works at Dr. Cole’s office
[/quote]


#6

(bump)

Still hoping for a better answer to the original question . . . .


#7

[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by cal[/postedby]
I think I speak for a lot of people when I ask why Dr. Cole’s evidence of donor regeneration has not made a bigger collective splash on the HT world in the last couple of years.

Dr. Cole gave a presentation on the benefits of ACell during the recent ISHRS conference in San Francisco. many doctors do full-depth extractions because they believe that adipose (fat) is necessary for hair growth. Full depth extractions do not leave stem cells, so ACell will only improve healing by reducing hypopigmentation.

Remember, doctors are very slow to change and integrate new technologies and medical products. Consider how many years hair transplant doctors placed plugs and mini grafts. One would think, after the first round of results, the plug and mini docs would have been looking at singles and follicular units.

I speak here all due respect and no attempts to attack anyone’s credibility. But if one of these hair multiplication operations was claiming to be able to pull 1 graft from the donor area and somehow produce 1.5 or 2 grafts in the recipient area from it on average, it would have sent shockwaves through the HT world. That is functionally what Dr. Cole is claiming to see just by using Acell & PRP on low-depth FUE extraction wounds.

At this stage with ACell we are preserving some donor density. We are working on improving this. It isn’t as simple as it would seem on the surface.

I think at least a couple years have gone by since Dr. Cole was first saying this stuff and it has made little impact on the industry. Your clinic is also not posting “WOW” final result HT cases that suggest you have achieved a notable improvement in the ratio between recipient hair gained versus donor hair lost during the HT process.

ACell is improving beard hair yield from approx. 60% to 90% and PRP/ACell + ATP improves healing and graft survival. Wow results continue to be largely dependent upon donor characteristics.

Has Dr. Cole not yet “swung for the fences” on anyone? Has he not yet attempted to use this regeneration technique to push the limits on how much total MPB restoration is possible for high-Norwood patients?

Scalp hair, beard hair, and chest hair plus ACell, PRP, ATP definitely open up greater possibilities for Norwood 6 patients. We commonly see patients get relief to their satisfaction mainly in the frontal area and they are not very concerned about thin hair in the back. There is also the photo release issue. About half of our patients demand the highest level of privacy.

I could understand that cautious outlook, especially with what is admittedly an inconsistent technique with no long-term data. (What if the regenerated donor follicles eventually succumb to old age decades earlier than normal? etc.) But there are plenty of guys with more hair loss & money than cautiousness and Dr. Cole is making no bones about this regeneration happening - haven’t any of his patients wanted to see what this can really do for them?

Off the top of my head, roughly 10% of our patients are in the higher Norwood ranges. Roughly half of those patients request complete privacy.

cal:
Are you in the Atlanta area?

Are there no other clinics showing interest in what your clinic has been observing with this? Has nobody else tried to test it, etc?

There are many other clinics using extracellular matrix products. Those clinics who perform minimal depth extractions will be seeing follicle regeneration as long as they are using the product properly and use a reliable method of keeping the extracellular matrix product in contact with the donor extraction sites during the healing process.

Some respected FUE clinics aren’t as interested in cutting-edge HM techniques as others. But this technique/phenomenon seems to offer a huge potential benefit and require very little additional expense/trouble/difficulty/risk to achieve it. There wouldn’t be much learning curve, etc, for other clinics to implement it. And the risk of over-harvesting the donor area (betting too high on getting too much regeneration after a given HT session) would not become significant until they were already pushing far enough to see clear evidence that the technique does work to some extent.

Any feedback would be appreciated.[/quote]


#8

[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by cal[/postedby]
I think I speak for a lot of people when I ask why Dr. Cole’s evidence of donor regeneration has not made a bigger collective splash on the HT world in the last couple of years.

Dr. Cole gave a presentation on the benefits of ACell during the recent ISHRS conference in San Francisco. many doctors do full-depth extractions because they believe that adipose (fat) is necessary for hair growth. Full depth extractions do not leave stem cells, so ACell will only improve healing by reducing hypopigmentation.

Remember, doctors are very slow to change and integrate new technologies and medical products. Consider how many years hair transplant doctors placed plugs and mini grafts. One would think, after the first round of results, the plug and mini docs would have been looking at singles and follicular units.

I speak here all due respect and no attempts to attack anyone’s credibility. But if one of these hair multiplication operations was claiming to be able to pull 1 graft from the donor area and somehow produce 1.5 or 2 grafts in the recipient area from it on average, it would have sent shockwaves through the HT world. That is functionally what Dr. Cole is claiming to see just by using Acell & PRP on low-depth FUE extraction wounds.

At this stage with ACell we are preserving some donor density. We are working on improving this. It isn’t as simple as it would seem on the surface.

I think at least a couple years have gone by since Dr. Cole was first saying this stuff and it has made little impact on the industry. Your clinic is also not posting “WOW” final result HT cases that suggest you have achieved a notable improvement in the ratio between recipient hair gained versus donor hair lost during the HT process.

ACell is improving beard hair yield from approx. 60% to 90% and PRP/ACell + ATP improves healing and graft survival. Wow results continue to be largely dependent upon donor characteristics.

Has Dr. Cole not yet “swung for the fences” on anyone? Has he not yet attempted to use this regeneration technique to push the limits on how much total MPB restoration is possible for high-Norwood patients?

Scalp hair, beard hair, and chest hair plus ACell, PRP, ATP definitely open up greater possibilities for Norwood 6 patients. We commonly see patients get relief to their satisfaction mainly in the frontal area and they are not very concerned about thin hair in the back. There is also the photo release issue. About half of our patients demand the highest level of privacy.

I could understand that cautious outlook, especially with what is admittedly an inconsistent technique with no long-term data. (What if the regenerated donor follicles eventually succumb to old age decades earlier than normal? etc.) But there are plenty of guys with more hair loss & money than cautiousness and Dr. Cole is making no bones about this regeneration happening - haven’t any of his patients wanted to see what this can really do for them?

Off the top of my head, roughly 10% of our patients are in the higher Norwood ranges. Roughly half of those patients request complete privacy.

cal:
Are you in the Atlanta area?

Are there no other clinics showing interest in what your clinic has been observing with this? Has nobody else tried to test it, etc?

There are many other clinics using extracellular matrix products. Those clinics who perform minimal depth extractions will be seeing follicle regeneration as long as they are using the product properly and use a reliable method of keeping the extracellular matrix product in contact with the donor extraction sites during the healing process.

Some respected FUE clinics aren’t as interested in cutting-edge HM techniques as others. But this technique/phenomenon seems to offer a huge potential benefit and require very little additional expense/trouble/difficulty/risk to achieve it. There wouldn’t be much learning curve, etc, for other clinics to implement it. And the risk of over-harvesting the donor area (betting too high on getting too much regeneration after a given HT session) would not become significant until they were already pushing far enough to see clear evidence that the technique does work to some extent.

Any feedback would be appreciated.

[postedby]Originally Posted by CITNews[/postedby][/quote]

Doesn’t sound promising


#9

IMO it’s promising. Progress is slower than we like. Breakthroughs in regenerative medicine will have a HUGE impact on improvements in hair restoration technology and results.

CITNews works at Dr. Cole’s office


Cole Hair Transplant
1045 Powers Place
Alpharetta, Georgia 30009
Phone 678-566-1011
I am not a doctor and the content of my posts are my opinions, not medical advice
email CITNews at chuck@forhair.com


#10

Thanks for the answer.

BTW: I am American but I live several states away from the Atlanta area.

I do consider your clinic pretty close compared to many other top level FUE clinics. But that isn’t saying much in the FUE industry, with lots of guys flying to foreign continents to get work done.


#11

CIT, you wrote:

"There are many other clinics using extracellular matrix products. Those clinics who perform minimal depth extractions will be seeing follicle regeneration as long as they are using the product properly and use a reliable method of keeping the extracellular matrix product in contact with the donor extraction sites during the healing process. "

That sounds like Dr. Cole has figured out a way to regenerate the donor using Acell already. But that clearly is not the case considering how few patient results we have seen so far. Care to elaborate?


#12

What I get from this is that it works a bit - but even then not very consistently.
In other words it IS promising, but no more than that in the foreseeable future.


#13

[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by damraak[/postedby]
CIT, you wrote:

"There are many other clinics using extracellular matrix products. Those clinics who perform minimal depth extractions will be seeing follicle regeneration as long as they are using the product properly and use a reliable method of keeping the extracellular matrix product in contact with the donor extraction sites during the healing process. "

That sounds like Dr. Cole has figured out a way to regenerate the donor using Acell already. But that clearly is not the case considering how few patient results we have seen so far. Care to elaborate?[/quote]

Dr. Cooley and Dr. Mwamba are having success with extracellular matrix products as well. Dr. Wesley acknowledged the regenerative benefits of ACell in his Pilofocus video.

So… There are other doctors having success with extracellular matrix products and Dr. Cole is not the only one.

ACell was approved by the FDA as a regenerative medical product.

The following photo is of an ACell regenerative result from another doctor:

CITNews works at Dr. Cole’s office


Cole Hair Transplant
1045 Powers Place
Alpharetta, Georgia 30009
Phone 678-566-1011
I am not a doctor and the content of my posts are my opinions, not medical advice


#14

“ACell was approved by the FDA as a regenerative medical product.”

With all due respect this is not true. The Acell products being referenced were FDA “cleared” under the 510K clearance protocol for predicate devices. This means that the products do not differ substantially from medical devices manufactured before March, 1976 when the Medical Devices Ammendment was approved by Congress. Acell is cleared for wound management and nowhere in the FDA application nor the letter of clearance is “regeneration” or any other similar language mentioned. FDA approval is a completely different process and is not applicable to this product.

That said, I’m not saying Acell works one way or the other but the language should be corrected because it is grossly inaccurate.


#15

Chuck, please help me understand, who is the doctor and what is he trying to prove with this? That Acell will work if the follicle is transected?


#16

[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by ipod[/postedby]
Chuck, please help me understand, who is the doctor and what is he trying to prove with this? That Acell will work if the follicle is transected?[/quote]

bump


#17

as CITnews said, it takes time and research to get the data, we have posted some results and progress with PRP/Acell, here are a few of them:

www forum . forhair . com / topic1794.html


www forum . forhair . com / topic1878.html
www forum . forhair . com / topic1802.html
http://www.hairsite.com/hair-loss/board_entry-id-120297-page-0-category-2-order-last_answer-descasc-DESC.html


#18

[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by jotronic[/postedby]
“ACell was approved by the FDA as a regenerative medical product.”

That said, I’m not saying Acell works one way or the other but the language should be corrected because it is grossly inaccurate.[/quote]

If the statement were grossly inaccurate, I doubt ACell would risk placing the term “regenerative” on their website. There are strict laws prohibiting false product claims. See image:

Regenerate limbs? No. Regenerate fingertips? Yes. Regenerate normal skin where scar tissue would be expected? yes.

Regenerate a 2cm strip removed during surgery? NO

CITNews works at Dr. Cole’s office


Cole Hair Transplant
1045 Powers Place
Alpharetta, Georgia 30009
Phone 678-566-1011
I am not a doctor and the content of my posts are my opinions, not medical advice
email CITNews at chuck@forhair.com


#19

More “regenerative” declarations:

CITNews works at Dr. Cole’s office


Cole Hair Transplant
1045 Powers Place
Alpharetta, Georgia 30009
Phone 678-566-1011
I am not a doctor and the content of my posts are my opinions, not medical advice
email CITNews at chuck@forhair.com


#20

Your links and screenshots are meaningless because you did not show anything by the FDA that says that Acell is “FDA Approved” for anything much less for “regenerative medicine”.

I showed you where the FDA said that Acell is “FDA Cleared” under the 510K protocol for predicate devices for wound management.

You can point to all the webpages and resources you want but until you can point to a link on the FDA website that backs up your claim (FDA approved for regenerative medicine) then you’re just putting lipstick on a pig.