The Value of Using Non-Head Hair for Transplantation?

Dr Rassman

In contrast to transplants using scalp donor hair, I appreciate that the probability of technical and cosmetic success with body hair and other nonhead hair transplants for severe cases of baldness remains unclear. Today I read an article in a well-regarded journal that describes 3 patients who had a significant cosmetic need resulting from poor previous surgical procedures and exhausted scalp donor supply (Umar S. Ann Plast Surg. 2011 May 2. [Epub ahead of print]). The article appears online in this month’s journal before its appearance in print and can be accessed here.

The outcomes with nonhead hair appear to be excellent. Given the varied and anecdotal results with BHT (and nonhead hair, in general) infrequently reported (in blogs) by different patients and physicians (1) do you see a role for nonhead hair in individuals who are in situations similar to that described by Umar?, and (2) wouldn’t it be of great value for those who perform nonhead hair transplants to pool their experiences and data to potentially better understand (and publish in a peer-reviewed journal) those patient or physician factors, or both, that may contribute to and predict good outcomes?

I have seen some good results reported from body hair transplants (BHT) so there may be instances where it could be an option, but I don’t generally recommend it due to the variability in texture and growth cycle. I’ve previously written about using scalp and body hair together in transplantation, and remain neutral. My opinion continues to be that body hair should only be used when you run out of donor hair from the scalp, but having said that, I would consider it as one of the last options.

With respect to pooling the experiences and data for a better understanding, I believe it is a great idea. In practice, I don’t know how the accumulation of data from all the body hair patients and their surgeons would be delineated. By that I mean that most surgeons wouldn’t want to publish or admit to bad outcomes, nor would certain patients want to participate in the study. My point is that it stands risk of a skewed study… but perhaps I am just a skeptic.