Studies have shown that one treatment can produce results. I normally combine more effective procedures with Rigenera. They include lasers, microneedling, surgery & deep peeling. This gives a faster response compared to Rigenera alone.

We use a special instrument known as a punch biopsy to harvest your own skin. Typically, we take out 2-5 pieces of tissue from a hidden area like the back of your ear, the inner arm, upper thigh, or upper buttock.

Harvesting is conducted under local anaesthetic & is painless. It takes between 3-6 seconds in total. Yes, it is that easy.

I use a syringe to inject the processed tissue solution back into the areas of concern. The level of injection is in the hypodermis- just under the dermal layer of skin. This typically takes between 2-4 minutes. Unlike true dermal grafting, micrografting & ReCell, the recipient area skin is not broken.

Immediate. Unlike other procedures, injected autologous non-cultured cellular grafts like Rigenera do not have associated downtime. Harvest sites heal up within 5 days & are inconspicuously placed. You may be some very mild bruising in the injected site (areas of scarring). The flipside? You have got to wait 6 months before seeing results, & it takes 24 months before maximal benefits. 

Broadly, stem cells can be divided into culture & non-culture cellular grafts. The former is more complex as it means extracting stem cells from the donor, growing it in a laboratory for 4-6 weeks, then reinjecting back into the areas of concern. This method is hugely expensive (upwards of 30-50K). In the next two decades it may be feasible in an outpatient setting. Other methods I currently employ include-

1. Dermal grafting. It is like Regenera but the dermis is manually chopped not placed in a microblender.
2. ASC or adipose tissue stem cells, derived from autologous fat cells.
3. ReCell – for autologous non-cultured melanocytes
4. SSG – split & split micrografting. This is primarily for hypopigmentation & vitiligo.

Rigenera & Regenera Activa rely on your body’s immune system to regenerate cells from stem cells. Dermal fillers act as either a spacer filler or as a way of replacing collagen & fat. Fillers rely less on your body’s ability to regenerate adipose tissue, extracellular matrix & collagen.

• Fillers pros: More predictable. Better correction. Fast results.
• Rienera pros: Natural way to stimulate collagen & remodel scars. Slow results, if any. Unpredictable. Less useful in moderate to large volume atrophic scars.

Both processes use your own cells, & both are kits with their own patented cell harvesting technology. ReCell is better for superficial problems such as hypopigmentation, burns, textural changes & skin quality issues. Rigenera is better suited for what goes on underneath the skin, dermal scarring & hair pathology are examples.

There are no head-to-head studies comparing Rigenera to adipose stem cells. I suspect the results may be similar (in the context of scar tissue). I understand that Regenera Activa has possibly the edge when it comes to regenerative hair studies, namely for the management of male & female pattern hair loss.

Rigenera has the advantage when it comes to ease of harvest & delivery. For fat stem cells, liposuction is required, followed by processing then re-injection.

I was taught dermal grafting by the great Dr Rob Sinclair in the early 2000s. Back then filler technology was still in evolution. Dermal grafts are more predictable than Rigenera as I transfer dermis to the scars directly. Dermis consists of collagen, hyaluronic acid, ECM & fibroblasts. It does not rely on stems that may or may not regenerate tissue.

• Dermal graft pros: Faster results, does not require stems to evolve. Under Medicare. Technically challenging, more side effects including inclusion cysts.
• Rigenera pros: Slower results, but very easy to do. Less invasive. No side effects but there is no Medicare rebate.

Clinic Cutis & my colleagues use PRP. I have used this technique in every way possible, injected, saturated on the outside, mixed with lasers, microneedling & in concentrations ranging from 3X to 7.5X. I believe it can have marginal effects with healing, but it does not give meaningful volumetric correction of scars.

If you would really like me to use PRP with your treatment (based upon your research), just tell me beforehand. It is against my advice, but if you want it, I can deliver PRP at an additional cost.

The current literature suggests that there may be a synergistic effect with PRP & Rigenera. I do agree, however only in the context of androgenetic alopecia.

If you are serious about removing acne scars, a targeted approach is best. This means finding suitable treatments based upon your scar type. For most cases of scarring, simple nurse-led treatments like fractional laser or TCA peels can give better results than Rigenera at a fraction of the cost.

Tethered, anchored & atrophic scars can be treated with surgical modalities including subcision. Rigenera is an option for those who exhibit atrophic scarring and would like to try out an alternative to dermal fillers.

This treatment has the least amount of side effects compared to other surgical modalities. Unlike full or split grafting, Rigenera only removes 7-8 mm of full thickness tissue, taking only 4-5 seconds. No sutures are required. As the solution is injected in the hypodermis, there is no requirement to prepare the recipient (scar site) area.

No. This procedure is not covered under Medicare, neither is stem cell or adipose stem cell transfer. Medicare does cover dermal grafting, full thickness & split skin grafting.

As a guide, Rigenera cost between $2490 to $4990. The lower figure is the cost for a simple 7 ml solution, the higher figure also combines multi treatment modalities such as subcision, chemical peels, surgery & laser resurfacing.