This is an interesting idea. I can't wait to hear input on this topic.

When I discovered on this site that rolling scars were being "tethered" by scar tissue I became fascinated with subcision. It seemed logical to cut through the scar tissue and give the scar another chance to heal properly.

I do hope, for whatever reason, that subcision is an answer and will serve us well. I will gladly accept any % amount of improvement.

Is maybe the attraction of these nearby cells to the wound area the solution and the reason why

subcision works.?

No, I don't think so, that isn't the concept of subcision. Subcision just cuts through the tissue that is tethering the scar down, letting the scar elevate.

This is an interesting idea. I can't wait to hear input on this topic.

When I discovered on this site that rolling scars were being "tethered" by scar tissue I became fascinated with subcision. It seemed logical to cut through the scar tissue and give the scar another chance to heal properly.

Subcision doesn't give the scar another change to heal properly. It replaces scar tissue with more scar tissue below the surface, resulting in a plump appearance.

You are wrong. The burden of proof is here on you..

Subcision begins from the healthier skin ..If you try to begin the subcision needling from

the center of the scar the results will be minimal. With subcision you also eliminate the fibroblasts

that make the walls of the scar and they block regeneration..

You are also wrong if you believe subcision replaces the scar with more scar tissue.

Even if subcision doesnt promote any tissue growth, the scar that is cut out with the needle would

be replaced with the same amount of scar tissue that had being lost,,but not with MORE scar tissue.

User's testimonials are really positive when it comes to subcision..

I havent seen a single person being against subcision .

You are wrong. The burden of proof is here on you..

Subcision begins from the healthier skin ..If you try to begin the subcision needling from

the center of the scar the results will be minimal. With subcision you also eliminate the fibroblasts

that make the walls of the scar and they block regeneration..

You are also wrong if you believe subcision replaces the scar with more scar tissue.

Even if subcision doesnt promote any tissue growth, the scar that is cut out with the needle would

be replaced with the same amount of scar tissue that had being lost,,but not with MORE scar tissue.

User's testimonials are really positive when it comes to subcision..

I havent seen a single person being against subcision .

I am one of the veteren members here since 03, and I was one of the first if not the first to write about subcision on this forum. I've had subcision several times.

I have no idea what you mean when you say subcision starts from the healthier skin. Actually doctors take great care in avoiding doing subcision on healthy skin, you definately want to avoid healthy skin because like I said subcision actually causes scar tissue below the surface. A doctor enters the skin with an Admix Nokor needle and starts cutting up the scar tissue that is tethering down the scar. The area subcisioned fills with blood and the scar elevates. As the blood goes away, new tissue in the form of more scar tissue takes its place. Sometimes the scar tetheres back down. Don't be mistaken, the new tissue is not healthy tissue, it is more scar tissue below the surface.

That is also why one of the risks of subcision is nodules and firm lumpy skin at the site of subcision, because the new tissue below the surface is in fact more tough fibrous scar tissue.

If subcision didn't result in more tissue growth, what would be the point? You wouldn't get an increase in volume and the scar would be at the same elevation as you first started. You also said something about cutting the scar out. You aren't cutting anything "out," this isn't liposuction so no volume of tissue is sucked out or lost. Think about it like this. Think about the scar tissue as roots or ropes, you just slice through them, that is all. You aren't taking any volume out. You slice them apart and let more tissue fill in to connect the strands together, making them longer and letting the scar to elevate.

Why would you think running a spatula shaped needle under your skin back and forth vigorously and causing damage to lower layers would result in healthy tissue regeneration? That makes no sense.

Is scar tissue just doomed forever then? Is that why it sometimes takes more than one subcision to try to get the scar tissue more malleable?

You are wrong. The burden of proof is here on you..

Subcision begins from the healthier skin ..If you try to begin the subcision needling from

the center of the scar the results will be minimal. With subcision you also eliminate the fibroblasts

that make the walls of the scar and they block regeneration..

You are also wrong if you believe subcision replaces the scar with more scar tissue.

Even if subcision doesnt promote any tissue growth, the scar that is cut out with the needle would

be replaced with the same amount of scar tissue that had being lost,,but not with MORE scar tissue.

User's testimonials are really positive when it comes to subcision..

I havent seen a single person being against subcision .

I am one of the veteren members here since 03, and I was one of the first if not the first to write about subcision on this forum. I've had subcision several times.

I have no idea what you mean when you say subcision starts from the healthier skin. Actually doctors take great care in avoiding doing subcision on healthy skin, you definately want to avoid healthy skin because like I said subcision actually causes scar tissue below the surface. A doctor enters the skin with an Admix Nokor needle and starts cutting up the scar tissue that is tethering down the scar. The area subcisioned fills with blood and the scar elevates. As the blood goes away, new tissue in the form of more scar tissue takes its place. Sometimes the scar tetheres back down. Don't be mistaken, the new tissue is not healthy tissue, it is more scar tissue below the surface.

That is also why one of the risks of subcision is nodules and firm lumpy skin at the site of subcision, because the new tissue below the surface is in fact more tough fibrous scar tissue.

If subcision didn't result in more tissue growth, what would be the point? You wouldn't get an increase in volume and the scar would be at the same elevation as you first started. You also said something about cutting the scar out. You aren't cutting anything "out," this isn't liposuction so no volume of tissue is sucked out or lost. Think about it like this. Think about the scar tissue as roots or ropes, you just slice through them, that is all. You aren't taking any volume out. You slice them apart and let more tissue fill in to connect the strands together, making them longer and letting the scar to elevate.

Why would you think running a spatula shaped needle under your skin back and forth vigorously and causing damage to lower layers would result in healthy tissue regeneration? That makes no sense.

How then can you explain that incision points are healing without a scar?

i mean if the wound from the incision is harsh then also incision point would heal with scar tissue which is not the case(also dermarolling would not be effective

and would result in more scar tissue which is also not the case).

also look at the pictures of mr matt.The guy went 3 subcision rounds (or more i cant remember) and you will make your

own conclusion whether or not this technique makes or not more scar tissue.

Sometimes depressed scars are attached to the fibrous bands down and thus indendation is created .Subcision cuts this connective tissue.

Also when attacking the fibroblast ,skin tissue is full of stem cells that are hungry to differentiate to specific cells and form proper collagen.

Bring me some histological examination of the treated skin area if you are sure about your statements.

.

How then can you explain that incision points are healing without a scar?

i mean if the wound from the incision is harsh then also incision point would heal with scar tissue which is not the case(also dermarolling would not be effective

and would result in more scar tissue which is also not the case).

also look at the pictures of mr matt.The guy went 3 subcision rounds (or more i cant remember) and you will make your

own conclusion whether or not this technique makes or not more scar tissue.

Sometimes depressed scars are attached to the fibrous bands down and thus indendation is created .Subcision cuts this connective tissue.

Also when attacking the fibroblast ,skin tissue is full of stem cells that are hungry to differentiate to specific cells and form proper collagen.

Bring me some histological examination of the treated skin area if you are sure about your statements.

.

Honestly, you are way over-analyzing how subcision works.

lol,you veteran! if you managed to level your scars get your hands to some iodine.

pm me if you want ,i will help you.