Is there any research/studies on the success of the "plucking" method?

[Ardent]

I read this post on baldingblog.com which discusses their ACell study, which I believe is ongoing:

NHI ACell Update? - Balding Blog

I have seen most of the half dozen people that I performed ACell plucking procedures. They averaged 200-300 plucked grafts. Although there was some growth from the plucked hairs, there was just as much growth in the control group as in the ACell treated group. I would conclude from this that I have not replicated the results reported by others.

 

With regard to the large number of patients where I used ACell in the wounds of strip surgeries, I have seen some value, although I have not called them all back to evaluate their wounds.

 

For hair multiplication, I am not considering performing more of these procedures until I view the results of others at the upcoming ISHRS meeting in Anchorage, Alaska this September.

It seems that they don't believe the ACell had an impact, but there was some minor success with plucking. Has any other organized research been done on plucking? Is there any general consensus on whether it is effective?

[Ahairdown]

Dr Cooley is all over this. Go over to the The Bald Truth forum and look for the thread in the cutting edge treatments section. He even came into at one point and responded personally a few times during the convo

 

Apparently there is a yearly convention of some sort each year in the fall and they plan showing the results from their ongoing studies this year in a few months.

[mahhong]

I read this post on baldingblog.com which discusses their ACell study, which I believe is ongoing:

NHI ACell Update? - Balding Blog

It seems that they don't believe the ACell had an impact, but there was some minor success with plucking. Has any other organized research been done on plucking? Is there any general consensus on whether it is effective?

 

Most doctors who have experimented with plucking have reported very limited success - certainly not enough consistent benefit to be worthwhile as a procedure. I think I read some doctors getting around 1 in 10 plucked hairs to grow, but that's very likely with statistically insignificant groups of people, or at least not enough data to make any sound judgement on.

 

Some doctors are reporting more anecdotal success with ACell than Dr. Rassman has done, but we have to wait for the ends of the trials to really get a sense that anybody got them to work and, if so, how. Generally speaking though, it looks like if ACell is going to work effectively enough to be a common procedure there is still a lot of work to be done figuring out the best way to use it.

 

So, I don't imagine plucking is in and of itself going to be useful anytime soon, but it is the basis of some interesting research - ACell being one example and Dr. Gho's work being another. The fact that some hair follicles on some people can seem to regenerate from plucking is interesting enough in itself to warrant research, but we're probably some way off from realising any benefits from that - if there are any to be had. It's good news at least that several doctors, some very reputable, are doing good research into the whole plucking/autocloning side of things, because it's certainly an area that needs to be explored whatever the outcome may be.

[Blake Bloxham]

In my opinion, hair duplication/multiplication (plucking) boils down to two components: the ability to properly extract only the inner portion of the follicle (so both the new plucked graft and the remaining regenerative follicle in the donor region will regrow), and the ability of the growth serum (ACell Matristem, Dr. Gho's "fertilizer" - I still get a kick out of that description ) to induce the regenerative, bottom portion of the follicle to grow around the plucked graft.

 

Plucking the graft in and of itself doesn't seem overtly complicated, and my guess is that much like follicular unit extraction (FUE) procedures, the hands of a skilled hair transplant surgeon and experience would allow for acceptable survival rates during the plucking phase.

 

However, in my opinion, it is the chemical composition and efficacy of the growth serum that is the true variable and key to making this a successful procedure. I try to follow Dr. Rassman's blog closely, though I admit that I hadn't seen that most recent ACell/Matristem update. After reading the description, it looks like he is not quite having the results that were once assumed/hoped for, and I do applaud his objective, scientific review of this new procedure.

 

Having said that, I do think that the upcoming ISHRS conference (where other physicians are likely to report updates with hair duplication/plucking procedures) will reveal some interesting information, and I also think it's possible that there are other variables affecting Dr. Rassman's outcomes that may have been avoided by others researching and clinically testing the system. Keep in mind that this is in no way an insult to any particular physician (I have the utmost respect for Dr. Rassman and think he's an excellent surgeon and innovator in this field), but it's just a reality of clinical research.

 

However, the bottom line is that we will probably see differing results for a period of time while these duplication procedures are in the testing phases. It's likely that the procedure itself will be modified and eventually conform to a more unified, agreed upon practice (as we've seen with the evolution of surgical hair transplantation), and changes will be made to the regrowth serums as more information unfolds. Hair duplication is promising, but science takes time to perfect.

[mahhong]

Great post Future_HT_Doc!

 

Also, just to clarify, there have been tests performed with both plucking and autocloning, and I was referring to the pure plucking method. There has been very limited success with simply partially plucking a hair follicle from the donor area and grafting it back into the balding area (whilst the donor follicle also regrows), but the success rate has been far too low to be considered as any form of surgical procedure. Prior to ACell and other growth serums this partial plucking on the inner follicle was experimented with (though not in a large study to my knowledge) and it did produce some results, but those results were very inconsistent and could not warrant serious attention.

 

Those results however led on to the current study of autocloning, which is what 'Future' is talking about. Results have still been mixed but they have been more consistent and we're still in the early stages, so there is hope that over the next few years greater progress can be made.

 

I personally think there is huge potential in this field but, like Future, believe the key lies in perfecting the surgical technique and growth serum. Dr. Rassman hasn't had great success by the sounds of it, but his trial is relatively small and still unfinished. In addition there is a lot of discussion currently about the way to effectively use ACell and it would seem there are many techniques being tried out by a variety of doctors - only time will tell us if a consistently successful procedure can be developed.

 

Cooley and Hitzig have reported with a lot more optimism on ACell and have been researching it for the longest period of time in the hair restoration community (that I know of). That doesn't automatically mean it will be a success, but it's encouraging that they seem to be learning more about ACell and hopefully improving its success in autocloning procedures.

 

I hope the ISHRS conference will reveal some more interesting and hopeful information and believe that to be the case. Much of the next generation of surgical development is focused around some manner of autocloning by partially retaining a follicle during transplantation, and I believe it is not without reason that this looks to be developing into the next major area of surgical development. It could in theory offer the "cure" we've been searching for in its most optimistic form, but at very least should offer the chance for significantly increasing the donor available - making even the most serious cases of baldness treatable surgically. I hope within the next 3-5 years we see these early experiments develop into a coherent and successful surgical technique that allows a transplanted hair to grow without compromising the original donor follicle. That would be a gigantic leap forward and one that, on paper at least, seems plausible and possible.