Interview with Gary Hitzig Using ACell MatriStem

[mahhong]

Fascinating interview and a good adjunct to Cooley's recent work. Also interesting to note (although I got this information from his website and not from his interview) that Rassman is now researching with ACell.

 

See Dr. Jerry Cooley's Presentation on ACell MatriStem in Hair Restoration and Hair Duplication (Formerly Known as AutoCloning).

 

In my opinion this is a massive breakthrough and there is a palpable sense of excitement about this treatment. It offers a genuine and sustainable way forward; it's not about treating symptoms or combining cocktails of all descriptions to get a little more success. This is real deal hair cloning. There are lots of variables to consider and research but for the first time there's no field of disappointment clearly lurking over the hill. Usually even the layman can spot basic flaws in the hopes of most treatments, but with this it's scientifically, financially and ethically viable.

 

Most interestingly Hitzig feels this treatment could start getting rolled out within a year. I wouldn't interpret that as "we'll have unlimited donor hair within a year", but I think he means they'll be able to start implementing it within that timeframe and introduce gradually more refined and successful ways of doing things; much like any innovation in hair transplantation.

 

The long and short is there seems real hope this does work, can work and can be viable within 5 years. It truly is a revolution if that's the case. Scarless procedures, much greater if not unlimited quantities of permanent donor hair, huge leaps forward in repairs cases etc. And with it already FDA approved this isn't some behind-closed-doors medical roulette that we have to worry won't even make safety grade. This stuff is being used now for a whole range of things (some far more important than hairloss in the scheme of medical science and cosmetic surgery).

 

I'm really excited, but we have to be cautious. I still think a timeframe of more like 3-5 years is likely for this to turn into a really usable procedure, even if all the research does go swimmingly (which it looks like there's a strong chance it will). In addition it has to be refined from a theoretical improvement to a usable surgical procedure. There's no point doctors implementing it unless cost, time and efficacy factors all meet up.

 

The point is this though, for the first time I think we can not feel like over-excited schoolchildren when we say "the future is here!!!". The merit of this method is huge and the safety and efficacy is already proven. It needs a little more time to check how things are really panning out, but I've yet to hear a truly dissenting voice amongst the hairloss or medical community in general. Usually some bizarre new product comes out of nowhere and despite our best hopes it's a matter of weeks before it's derided by professionals. Not so with this stuff.

 

It's an interesting interview, so check it out if you can! It's encouraging that Cooley, Hitzig, Rassman and many more are now actively researching or looking seriously into this area. That's going to speed up the waiting and more quickly establish guidelines and procedures I think.

 

Not that I have any authority, but I would issue a word of warning. I can imagine, especially as this is already FDA approved, there will be many rogue agents out there happy to pluck your hairs, sprinkle a bit of pixie dust on them and re-implant them. Probably right now. Don't do it! I meet a lot of people that claim they will travel anywhere, pay anything and risk any amount for a full head of hair. Be sensible and let the best in the business test this stuff properly and come up with the best ways to make it work. Hitzig states as much in his interview; you have to know how to use this stuff. You can't just pour it over something and watch it work its magic. If you have to wait a couple of years, or even a bit more, to get this done, so what? It's worth it to know it really is a workable and efficient procedure. Do the research and look towards the legitimate doctors and for a time when they feel it's safe to use.

 

Until then, let's just be happy that the hairloss world is moving at such a breakneck pace! To think it was only just over a decade ago that propecia was pretty new and modern transplant techniques were just coming into their own! We really have come a million miles in that short space of time, accelerating all the time. I think we're about to go lightspeed

[dakota3]

Who said this was scarless surgery? I do not believe Dr. Cooley would say that. It does not work in all cases and there certainly should not be a claim of scarless surgery.

 

I will only say that if Dr's like Dr Cooley are working on this then there is a better chance of success with Acell

[mahhong]

Well, I should clarify on two points.

 

Firstly the hair duplication (formerly known as autocloning) procedure is in theory scarless. It takes plucked hairs with endothelial tissue around them and implants them into the bald scalp, meaning that there is no strip or punch procedure.That is of course the best case scenario (if hair duplication is possible and has a high success rate), but the actual hair duplication procedure involves no cutting of donor tissue.

 

In terms of its application for FUE/strip I admit the term 'scarless' is a bit misleading. Dr. Cooley's presentation suggests that wounds treated with ACell heal and feel like 'virgin scalp' again (his words). There is a depigmented scar still present, but that scar is not rough and fibrous but instead smooth and much more like 'normal' skin. In Cooley's brief he actually mentions that this could end up being ACell's biggest contribution; namely that it has huge uses in the realm of scalp laxity and the ability to potentially increase the number of strip surgeries.

 

This was my understanding anyway. Hair Duplication (Autocloning), whilst the least tested and confirmed of ACell's uses, seems to be to be scarless (unless you count the invasive act of implanting the graft a scar, which I don't think it would class as). The actual plucking of hairs is essentially a slightly refined version of simply taking a hair between your fingers and plucking it - of course standardised to make sure the hair contains the necessary tissue.

 

As for efficacy I have heard Dr. Cooley suggest success rates of between around 50-75% and Dr. Rassman seems to confirm that. Dr. Cooley suggested he was getting improved results as he continued his research, especially in healthy scalp, but that of course the conservative lower figures were the current working percentage until the technique can be refined.

[Shyguy]

after a hair is plucked how long does a new hair formed in the area where the plucking took place? did cooley or hitzig mention the % yield of hairs from the plucked areas (donor) or just the recipient area?

 

if the donor area had 100% of the hairs grow back then why aren't there more people trying this on a test spot to see if it works?

[mahhong]

From what I can tell the yield is somewhere between 50-75% in the recipient area when ACell is used. That's still quite a big difference in success so that's one of the areas that needs research and hopefully improvement.

 

From the donor area I believe 100% of the plucked hairs grow back. I don't know if that was specifically mentioned but that's what I'm led to believe. It's essentially just the same as plucking a hair from your head right now. The follicle will regenerate a new hair, so my understanding is that from a donor perspective there's no problems.

 

As for the reason more people aren't trying this, well I think that is changing and a lot of doctors are now looking more seriously into this. There have been lots of 'regeneration' medicines and powders in the past that doctors have tried on hair with little or no success. To that extent this is not a new idea, but it's the first stuff that has seemed to have a good success rate both in wound healing and also hair duplication (autocloning). There are now several doctors studying this stuff, including Dr. Rassman, who is working with a statistically significant group of patients, meaning that his results will give a good idea of efficacy. In the meantime it seems Cooley is really getting to grips with how to use the stuff effectively.

 

As for how long the hair lasts; that is the single biggest question. Nobody knows if this will be a permanent hair follicle or one just as susceptible to pattern baldness. However there is one interesting thing to mention. Dr. Hitzig has been implanting beard hair into scalps for a long time (nearly 10 years I believe). It might amaze you to know that he has actually had success in getting those hairs to grow using NO extra products or medicines. His success rates were very low, however (less than 5% I think). You can find some of his research on the net.

 

But, what was interesting is that the hair that did grow in the small number of cases seemed to be permanent hair that cycled normally. In other words it took on the donor characteristics. This is why I believe Cooley and Hitzig are so excited (but remaining cautious). There is already evidence to suggest these hairs WILL be permanent from previous work, but that will need to be properly verified before it can be labelled as fact. In principle, though, this procedure has already been done successfully before; it just wasn't successful enough to be a useful treatment. Now that ACell seems to have made a massive impact on the success rate it would seem the possibility of infinite donor hair and minimally invasive HTs is very close - especially because the product in question is already FDA approved and does not need to go through safety trials again.

[JoeKid0000]

On a related note, Dr. Rassman has a categorized his posts related to Acell: ACell - Hair Loss Information