TheEmperor

WTF!?!? Plan not the best? Who are you to decide that? HOW can you decide that? Those are decisions that the patient and doctor made. And at 3.5 months how can you even judge? His initial coverage looks __thin__. That hair is probably going away anyway. As Joe said, Dr. Wong planted around it. Hopefully it will stay, but what if it does not? I think it would be less responsible to plant less hairs hoping that the native hair will "hold up". Then he'll be back in the chair in another 2 years.

You could go a day early and meet the doc the day prior to your surgery.

The crown is a large area. I would go with a physician who can pull a large# of grafts.

Forgot to add.. . Another observation is that docs seem to use the lateral slit to control the forward angulation of hair. This lets them create the "hair shingle". If a doctor is using a saggital slit, so they then have less control of the forward angle? Would this then create higher variabilty in the foward angle and possibly a "rougher" look? I see Shapiros hair work (saggital) and it looks differnt from say H&Ws work (lateral). From reviewing the web sites, the H&W patients seem to have more of a forward growing "hair shingle" and the Shapiro patients look a bit more unkempt with perhaps more vertical volume. (While I'm at it I might as well dispense my observations of other docs: Feller's hairlines are triangular. Rahal's patients have a blocky look. Armani's hairlines have an artificial outward "swell" leading towards the temple area.) Not saying one is better than the other, I'm just making observations about how they use their respective techniques to create an illusion of density and the final product.

I've been researching HTs for years and I have seen all the pics. There are a few things regarding hairline design and front/top graft placement. I have noticed that native hair grows perpendicularly to the scalp. Therefore hair that is farther forward in the hairline is angled forwarwd. Native hair on top of the head grows straight upward. So what i have noticed about HT hair placement is that almost all of the docstors angle the hairs forward, even if they are on the direct top of the head. I suppose this is to give the illusion of coverage and make it less see-thru. My first question is if this is really a good idea? Shouldnt the surgeon try to match EXACTLY the growth of the native hair. (Before someone says that they do -- I know that they frequently do not and I can provide many pictures showing this.) The problem with having all the hairs angled forward together is that almost everyone you see who gets a HT, combs all the hair together one direction of the other, so its a "combover" style with perhaps a little more density than a real combover. The other question relates to relative density. It seems that several physicians blast the front centimeter with hair to a greater density than the midscalp. My obervation of my loss pattern is that it thinned out uniformly -- if anything the hairline thinned a bit faster than the top. This looks totally natural. If a physician plants higher density in the first cm, will this not be unnatural. And again, really limit the hairstyle o a combover? The BEST hair transplants I have seen are the ones where the doc tight packs the grafts through the front AND top. (Say 5500+ grafts on a Nor4/5a) Lots of Dr. Hasson's patients come to mind. If a doctor plants at a high enough density, is it possible for him to avoid having to angle the hairs on the top forward? My observation is that for naturalness, it might be better to focus on central density and mimicking the natural hair angles, instead of going a bit lower with the hairline, putting more grafts in the from centimeter, and angling everything to the same degree to create a "hair shingle". Another observation is that the hair behind the hairline (and its angulation) plays a significant role in the overall look of the hairline. I suspect these are questions that the top docs wrestle with. The doctor who is planting 3000 grafts in front of existing hair on a 22yo patient doesnt have to deal with these questions, Im sure.

I've been researching HTs for years and I have seen all the pics. There are a few things regarding hairline design and front/top graft placement. I have noticed that native hair grows perpendicularly to the scalp. Therefore hair that is farther forward in the hairline is angled forwarwd. Native hair on top of the head grows straight upward. So what i have noticed about HT hair placement is that almost all of the docstors angle the hairs forward, even if they are on the direct top of the head. I suppose this is to give the illusion of coverage and make it less see-thru. My first question is if this is really a good idea? Shouldnt the surgeon try to match EXACTLY the growth of the native hair. (Before someone says that they do -- I know that they frequently do not and I can provide many pictures showing this.) The problem with having all the hairs angled forward together is that almost everyone you see who gets a HT, combs all the hair together one direction of the other, so its a "combover" style with perhaps a little more density than a real combover. The other question relates to relative density. It seems that several physicians blast the front centimeter with hair to a greater density than the midscalp. My obervation of my loss pattern is that it thinned out uniformly -- if anything the hairline thinned a bit faster than the top. This looks totally natural. If a physician plants higher density in the first cm, will this not be unnatural. And again, really limit the hairstyle o a combover? The BEST hair transplants I have seen are the ones where the doc tight packs the grafts through the front AND top. (Say 5500+ grafts on a Nor4/5a) Lots of Dr. Hasson's patients come to mind. If a doctor plants at a high enough density, is it possible for him to avoid having to angle the hairs on the top forward? My observation is that for naturalness, it might be better to focus on central density and mimicking the natural hair angles, instead of going a bit lower with the hairline, putting more grafts in the from centimeter, and angling everything to the same degree to create a "hair shingle". Another observation is that the hair behind the hairline (and its angulation) plays a significant role in the overall look of the hairline. I suspect these are questions that the top docs wrestle with. The doctor who is planting 3000 grafts in front of existing hair on a 22yo patient doesnt have to deal with these questions, Im sure.

I would almost absolutely say no to a HT for you. Please do a consult with H&W or another top clinic to see what they say. If you do start HT, then you need to have a well though out plan and 1200 is just a drop in the bucket. The problem with some clinics is that they are not geared for larger sessions. I didnt know anyone was still doing sessions as small as 1200. On the bright side youve got a few things going for you. 1) By the time Hm or cloning is available, you will still be young. 2) One you get into the professional workplace, the negativity and jabs from your peers will die down considerably. 3) Your head looks like it has a good shape.

There was a study a while back about skinny grafts vs chubby grafts. They found that "chubby" grafts with lots of excess tissue had a higher yield, presumably because there were dormant folicles in the tissue. In fact, if they transplant slivers of non-follicle tissue that is normally thrown away, they will see some growth! My hypothesis is that these super responders have better graft preparation. I think there is an "X factor" that docs do not have direct control of -- and that is the skill of the technicians. Lets say a team has two new technicians (from a group of four) and they are roughing up or transecting a large % of the grafts. If the grafts these techs cut have 50% growth (lets say every 4 hair FU they cut, only 2 hairs grow), then the overall procedure will be in the 75% growth range -- which is still pretty good IMO. By counting the growth locations (recipient sites), it may appear that a very high % of them are sprouting hairs -- and they may be. The grafts these techs produce may appear good -- but how would a doc be able to correlate poor growth from one technician when all the grafts are mixed together? (And even if there is a damaged graft, it behooves them to implant it.) I am harboring the belief that when you pick a doctor, you are picking a team that includes the skill of the technicians. When we see a "Domie" or "Bushy" or "Nic Nitro" or (insert any of a number of H&W patients names) its because all the stars align, the techs have an on day, there is no infection (in the office or on the flight), they are healthy, they didnt touch the grafts, diditn smoke cigarettes, you name it. Its got to be next to impossible to verify accurately a % growth with high accuracy of a large mega procedure and there are so many factors influencing growth, you just need to hope the stars align. I'd really like some more objective data in this area. I think it would be the end of a clinic if they stood up and admitted they werent getting 95%+ growth almost all the time, because all the other clinincs are making the same claim. I'd like to see some research into the many factors influencing growth. My bet is that the skill of the technicians is _very_ high in importnat. Everyone has seen poor yield results (fewer from good physicians), so doctors must have identified or at least (i hope) try to identify those factors causing poor yield. I wish there was more discussion on this.

There was a study a while back about skinny grafts vs chubby grafts. They found that "chubby" grafts with lots of excess tissue had a higher yield, presumably because there were dormant folicles in the tissue. In fact, if they transplant slivers of non-follicle tissue that is normally thrown away, they will see some growth! My hypothesis is that these super responders have better graft preparation. I think there is an "X factor" that docs do not have direct control of -- and that is the skill of the technicians. Lets say a team has two new technicians (from a group of four) and they are roughing up or transecting a large % of the grafts. If the grafts these techs cut have 50% growth (lets say every 4 hair FU they cut, only 2 hairs grow), then the overall procedure will be in the 75% growth range -- which is still pretty good IMO. By counting the growth locations (recipient sites), it may appear that a very high % of them are sprouting hairs -- and they may be. The grafts these techs produce may appear good -- but how would a doc be able to correlate poor growth from one technician when all the grafts are mixed together? I am harboring the belief that when you pick a doctor, you are picking a team that includes the skill of the technicians. When we see a "Domie" or "Bushy" or "Nic Nitro" or (insert any of a number of H&W patients names) its because all the stars align, the techs have an on day, there is no infection (in the office or on the flight), they are healthy, they didnt touch the grafts, diditn smoke cigarettes, you name it. Its got to be next to impossible to verify accurately a % growth with high accuracy of a large mega procedure and there are so many factors influencing growth, you just need to hope the stars align. I'd really like some more objective data in this area. I think it would be the end of a clinic if they stood up and admitted they werent getting 95%+ growth almost all the time, because all the other clinincs are making the same claim. I'd like to see some research into the many factors influencing growth. My bet is that the skill of the technicians is _very_ high in importnat. Everyone has seen poor yield results (fewer from good physicians), so doctors must have identified or at least (i hope) try to identify those factors causing poor yield. I wish there was more discussion on this.

I was browsing the H&W site and I found the Blog section. There are two guys "Domie" and "Shuffle" who both had very early growth. It started coming in strong by month 3. (Most people dont seem to kick in until month 5) They also had phenomenal results -- amazing density for around 5000 grafts. Are early growers better responders? Is the reason they got more early because there is much higher yield? This is an important question! I know the docs are all saying 95% yield for almost everyone, but then you get a handful of guys who are so far beyond the others in results. . It makes me think they just got better yield.

I was browsing the H&W site and I found the Blog section. There are two guys "Domie" and "Shuffle" who both had very early growth. It started coming in strong by month 3. (Most people dont seem to kick in until month 5) They also had phenomenal results -- amazing density for around 5000 grafts. Are early growers better responders? Is the reason they got more early because there is much higher yield? This is an important question! I know the docs are all saying 95% yield for almost everyone, but then you get a handful of guys who are so far beyond the others in results. . It makes me think they just got better yield.

I am thinking about getting a HT within the next year. I am on proscar quarters, and tried minoxidil way back when it was released. Quit using it because it was messy and took forever to dry. Now that Im thinking of spending serious bucks on a transplant, im wondering if I should give the foam a try. I'm a difuse Nor5 and most of the top is gone, but I figure what have I got to lose? If I pick up some new hair or retain existing ones then I am moving forward.

I am thinking about getting a HT within the next year. I am on proscar quarters, and tried minoxidil way back when it was released. Quit using it because it was messy and took forever to dry. Now that Im thinking of spending serious bucks on a transplant, im wondering if I should give the foam a try. I'm a difuse Nor5 and most of the top is gone, but I figure what have I got to lose? If I pick up some new hair or retain existing ones then I am moving forward.

Bill, Your HT looks excellent and is a good example of proper planning. It appears that you have maybe 70% density in front transitioning back to about 40% in the back. Everything is connected. It looks like you have mild thinning but the hairline placement looks just right. Your hair appears like it could have occured naturally. You look like a normal 30yo guy. It may be that Dr. Hasson could have gone more dense in the front or lower at the expense of the back, but I agree your/his decision.

Without seeing the guy im talking about, its hard to see what i'm saying. There are two other HT guys in my company that I am aware of. They too opted to build up the front and mid section with some in the crown (perhaps native hair), but because they have not receded down so far in the back and sides, it works for them. The guy I am talking about goes down pretty far in the back and the bacj/sides, so when you look at his profile, the new hair in the front is only connected to the rest by perhaps about an inch. Again, it doesnt look terrible, but ANYONE who has looked into HT knows what it is. I dont think the additional front density adds much if anything to his look -- maybe only when hes looking in the mirror. Hes still got a big(wide) bald crown. The other guy I had always suspected had a HT and one time he buzzed too low, I saw the hat-head U-shaped impression. Very good work though. Lots of density in front and well connected to the back.

Theres a guy at work whose HT Ive been watching grow. The work is good, the hairline conservative, but because the bald area in back is wide and goes down pretty far, you can tell its a HT. I'm not saying it looks bad, but in this case, the conventional wisdom to build up the front makes it more obvious. Had they spread it out over the top, you might just think that he's thinning, but I believe the thinning hair would have still "framed his face." Given the strategy that he went with, I think it looks as good as it can. I hope he is planning for a second. I believe had he planted more in the mid and crown with it growing forward, it would have looked more natural. Theres only so much a nor6 can do. So this begs the question: Given that a guy with a large bald crown and nothing in front is going to need 7K grafts over two procedures, is it better to just do the front and save the crown for a second procedure, or go sparse overall and plant in between on the second? In this case I think he should have opted for the latter, maybe gone back another inch on top and sprinkled the crown as well. What he's got now would never have occured naturally. In this case, the doc has shown the abilty to create more density than what would be optimal.

There are a few guys at work who have HTs that I know of (maybe some that I dont know about). The reason I can tell they are HTs is because they've got the tell-tale thick wall in the front with density that tapers off as it goes back -- usually a bald or sparse crown. I'm starting to think that overall even coverage will look the most natural. Hairs in the crown/midscalp are angled to grow forward, so spreading them out a bit more might not be such a bad idea. Its the same ammount of hair, the question is, do you want a thick non-see-thru hairline and a bald crown, or a see-thru hairline with coverage overall. 5 Years ago I would have said thick hairline, bald crown, but the girls didnt really mind the thin hair so much, however a bald crown is just that -- BALD.

This doesnt make sense. So youre saying that Farrell's result may be one of the only good FUE results, therefore he is unwilling to post it and make the other surgeons look bad? So in other words, he's suppressing objective evidence of the success of his procedure to retain a revenue stream? (from his most prominent advertizer?) Why then didnt he just have A do it? If that kind of collusion is going on, I dont want to be part of THAT forum -- and having watched THAT forum for the last few months, I suspect something is going on. The only successful FUE I have seen is when significant existing hair is bolstered in the front with FUE grafts. I really want to know if FUE is the future of HT. If they are getting 90% growth, not transecting other donor hair, and getting the prices into the $5/per range, it would be worth it to wait on strip. But it seems FUE has been the rage since 2004, and im still waiting to see a transformation. Has anyone seen a full Nor5-6 transformed to non-bald? According to certain doctors, they are moving 6000 grafts over two days -- and we all know that 6000 grafts in the right hands will make a significant difference. There is that patient of A who has the teenagers hairline and is see through everywhere else. It looks like he got maybe 60% growth compared to an equal # of strip grafts.

Matt, I'm sorry to hear youre having side effect. I forget to take the propecia for weeks at a time. I do not believe I have had significant side effects like yours and attribute slight reduction in desire to aging. One thing I can recommend is to hit the gym and start pumping iron. You dont have to get huge. This should increase your libido. Also abstinance from any sexual activity helps too, but given you are 20, you should probably be able to go 5-20 times a day as necessary. Another thing to consider is that anxiety causes depression which can decrease libido. Lots of things do actually. Drinking, drugs, etc. I think Im going to stop taking propecia on principle. I never noticed a yield from it and most of my thin areas are mostly bald -- and the not bald areas are still thick. Doubt it is helping much.

Probably. Everything I have seen indicates strip is the way to go.

Hi, I am transplant from another HL forum and I am interested in people's opinions regarding the role of web advocates for HT physicians. This is a new era of commerce and non-traditional forms of advertizing (web) are probably more important that traditional media (TV infomercials.) Let me start by saying that I know this forum is a commercial endeavor, that doctors help sponsor the forum. I do not have a problem with this as long as the forum is objective and adds value to the customer. On another HL forum, the moderator had a small FUE procedure and has not been willing to show the results, even though it seems one of his primary sponsors is a FUE-only physician. The debate rages about FUE vs. FUSS, and the forum moderator has been unwilling to show his results. For me, this is a huge red flag. Since the web site is a revenue stream for the moderator that is probably contingent upon it being pro-HT (and even more so pro-FUE), is there negative incentive to mask poor results? Can one really trust a forum to get an accurate cross section of results?

Hi, I am transplant from another HL forum and I am interested in people's opinions regarding the role of web advocates for HT physicians. This is a new era of commerce and non-traditional forms of advertizing (web) are probably more important that traditional media (TV infomercials.) Let me start by saying that I know this forum is a commercial endeavor, that doctors help sponsor the forum. I do not have a problem with this as long as the forum is objective and adds value to the customer. On another HL forum, the moderator had a small FUE procedure and has not been willing to show the results, even though it seems one of his primary sponsors is a FUE-only physician. The debate rages about FUE vs. FUSS, and the forum moderator has been unwilling to show his results. For me, this is a huge red flag. Since the web site is a revenue stream for the moderator that is probably contingent upon it being pro-HT (and even more so pro-FUE), is there negative incentive to mask poor results? Can one really trust a forum to get an accurate cross section of results?