Not just the poor hair density. And the cost. But also the time investment I put into this – four months as a social leper avoiding my friends, changing my work behaviour.

And perhaps above all else, the knowledge that those 2,900 grafts are gone for good – and that my chances of getting a decent coverage with my remaining donor hairs are greatly reduced now.

So how bad has it been? I reckon I'm in a similar place to where I was pre-HT. I can see a few frizzy hairs, which I take to be transplants. I think they have effectively made up for the density lost through further native hair loss.

But I reckon no more than 10-20% of transplants have survived.

So what has gone wrong? These are the possibilities I'm pondering:

1. Surgical error. Dr Kulachi uses a team of assistants to insert the transplants – could this part of the operation have been poorly executed? It was all done and dusted in 3-4 hours – does that seem quick? My left side is noticeably less dense than the right – was someone less proficient taking care of that side?

2. Pimples. I had a lot of spots in the recipient area, which lasted for 4-5 months afterwards. Could they have damaged the transplants? Judging by the experiences of most people on this forum, I suspect not.

3. Physiology. This was suggested to me on a forum thread. The suggestion was that 1-2% of patients are not very suitable to a hair transplant due to their physiological make up. It is the first I have heard of it, and I need to do more research, but it seems an unlikely idea to me.

I have sent my photos, and a link to this blog, to Transmed and I await the feedback. After the last set of pics I sent, they mentioned 'compensation'. We shall see.

Thank you to everyone who has commented and provided me with support and sympathy. Interestingly, I have received messages from other Transmed patients who did not have a good experience.