GNX1

From memory I think it was in the 5EURO range per graft but it is a progressive rate, after a certain amount of grafts it drops to 3EURO per graft and Hariri mentioned that that is a static figure that remains if and when you come back for a subsequent procedure! So if you go in for 2,000 grafts and return a year later, those grafts will be at a reduced rate. I'm not 100% sure on the rates though.

Lorenzo for me is in the top 1 in the world He spent some time with Erdogan in Turkey and he said Erdogan's work was 'amazing'. He has even visiting Hasson and Wong recently.

I think he could be a little more agressive with his hairline placement which is why personally I dont think he is the best in the world but two each his own....

looks decent. it looks like ur gonna need another 2500 grafts tho. their patient photos look like comb overs. there just isnt a lot of quality HT doctors in the UK.

I dont get why ppl over there just dont jump on a plane and fly to turkey, belgium, etc.... its so close.

Even Dr. Lorenzo, whom I consider the best FUE surgeon in the world praised Dr. Erdogan's work.

but I've never seen any nutritional supplement that was recommended to help hair-transplant patients in the post-op recovery phase. Have you?

Hi again,

Somehow I'm still not getting the hostile vibe, but let me try this again . . .

Years ago, following one of many small HT surgeries, I noticed my new grafts seemed to be growing in much better/quicker than usual. I went in for a re-check just so Dr. Peterson (Newport Beach at the time) could verify, and he called me his "miracle-patient." I had been using an unusual supplement for other health-issues, and next time around, maybe two years later with Dr. Zehring (who took over Peterson's Newport Beach practice), tried this supplement again and had the same result- the tiny grafted hairs seemed to not fall out, but started growing quickly following transplanting. And when new grafted hairs sprouted, they weren't the thin, colorless temporary usual ones, but thick, colored, normal.

When did I ever mention anything that would magically "grow back" anyone's hair? I did some research and found a few interesting facts and also testimonials leading me to think that using a quality, "undenatured" whey-protein supplement as a post-op regimen following hair-transplants might improve and speed-up the growth of TRANSPLANTED HAIRS FOLLOWING SURGERY. AGAIN, NOT A BALDNESS CURE BUT A POSSIBLE SUPPLEMENT FOR HAIR-TRANSPLANT PATIENTS. Are we good now?

many of us have been in the this game for 15+ years and have heard at all.

Why did that made you LOL?

I had a consult with him years ago and he stated FUE doesnt work....lol

and now ppl think he is a world class FUE doctor. hardly. they perform FUT and limited FUE so that hardly makes them world class FUE doctors. their website says this is a relatively new procedure. maybe to them its new but to actual world class FUE doctors it isnt.

I have yet to see one large FUE case that either of them have done and their prices are laughable. $8-11 per graft makes me LOL again. if ur gonna charge that kinda money you better be able to back to it up with consistent great results like Dr. Umar does.

Tru & Dorin.

Be wary of doctors who tell patients what they want to hear to get them in the chair.

Wouldn't it be ironic if snake oil actually cured cancer or something but folks wouldn't listen to an honest testimonial backed by some interesting data on snake oil chemistry because they had closed their minds already? I honestly don't get all the weird negativity around here!

most of us have been around the block a few times are are realists not dreamers that some stupid product u rub on ur head or pill u take is gonna make ur hair magically grow back....:rolleyes:

you have come to the wrong place if you think ur gonna pull the wool over our eyes and cure baldness with "miracle-grow" like u use in ur garden to grow corn.

and propecia is toxic to most people that use.

if I rub snake oil on my head will all my hair grow back?

Which bht is better to have on the scalp....chest or leg hair?

I think it really depends on what ur leg or chest hair characteristics are like. my leg hairs are thicker then my chest hairs so I would chose leg hairs over chest hairs personally and could care less if it took another 6 months to grow compared to how long my chest hairs would take.

id say most people's chest hairs are going to be thicker then their leg hairs on average tho. chest hair is the preferred BH to take by most HT surgeons.

Which bht is better to have on the scalp....chest or leg hair?

I think it really depends on what ur leg or chest hair characteristics are like. my leg hairs are thicker then my chest hairs so I would chose leg hairs over chest hairs personally and could care less if it took another 6 months to grow compared to how long my chest hairs would take.

id say most people's chest hairs are going to be thicker then their leg hairs on average tho. chest hair is the preferred BH to take by most HT surgeons.

You are totally and utterly correct, it is necessary for a good result, however there are patients that are put off by this and I do feel obligated to list it in the attempt to be truly unbiased.

the entire HT itself is an inconvenience but necessary to achive the desired result if one is looking for grafts to grow to restore their hair back which is the whole point of a HT.

numbing multible areas of the body vs. if BH's are taken (beard, chest, legs, etc....) is an inconvenience but certainly does not equate to a disadvantage.

I dont think it is appropriate to cross what may be an inconvenience to what may result as a disadvantage. bad scaring from FUT is a clear disadvantage not an inconvenience. stitches and lots of pain are disadvantages. the ability to only harvest grafts from one area of the body when performing FUT is a disadvantage over FUE being able to harvest grafts from anywhere. etc....

You are totally and utterly correct, it is necessary for a good result, however there are patients that are put off by this and I do feel obligated to list it in the attempt to be truly unbiased.

the entire HT itself is an inconvenience but necessary to achive the desired result if one is looking for grafts to grow to restore their hair back which is the whole point of a HT.

numbing multible areas of the body vs. if BH's are taken (beard, chest, legs, etc....) is an inconvenience but certainly does not equate to a disadvantage.

I dont think it is appropriate to cross what may be an inconvenience to what may result as a disadvantage. bad scaring from FUT is a clear disadvantage not an inconvenience. stitches and lots of pain are disadvantages. the ability to only harvest grafts from one area of the body when performing FUT is a disadvantage over FUE being able to harvest grafts from anywhere. etc....

Have added "Head must be shaved for anything more than very small sessions" to the disadvantage list.

Have added "Head must be shaved for anything more than very small sessions" to the disadvantage list.

Gostei muito do resultado .

Sou Tricologista no Brasil e vou fazer um curso de Tricopigmenta??o .. pretendo colocar excelentes fotos aqui.

Realmente me preocupo com a tinta e suas mudan?as.

GNX1 I disgree with the notion that most Doc's use the same punch size. Even Doctor's that use the famous CIT manual punch all have different opinions on what punch to use. Alot do use a variety of punches depending on if they are extracting a triple hair graft or single hair graft etc but some like Dr De Reys state they use only a .8mm punch. Some Doctors go from .75mm up to 9mm while some go from .8mm to 1mm etc. Slight discrepancies but quite major in the scheme of things.

a 1mm punch would not be used for a single follicle graft these days.

scaring will likely be more evident with over harvesting then punch size unless the HT doctor is using some huge punch for ALL grafts and if thats the case then he shud be avoided.

Bisigna has already demonstrated 0.75 - .8mm punch can remove a 3-4 hair FU's without peripheral damage to surrounding FU's and no visible scaring to the naked eye.

overharvesting, extraction pattern and hair charteristics seem to play the greatest role in whether or not scaring will be evident with the average caucasion patient.

FUE is still a new enough medical procedure that has growing success.

how ur skin heals plays a huge role. if ur asian or black ur more likely to see visible scaring. hispanics have more hair per square inch then others on average. the question is not whether or not you will scar cause anytime you cut the skin and it heals there will be scaring.

the question is will the scars be visible and there are many variables. obviously the punch size plays a role but most top FUE doctors are using about the same punch size these days so thats not gonna be the primary detremining factor.

the density of the donor zone will play the biggest role imo. less density means you have less hair there and therefore the more hair removed the less dense it will be.

it also depends on how many 1's, 2's, 3's and 4's are taken from the donor zone and the size of ur head plays a role in how many grafts are needed to cover an area. not all head sizes are the same and therefore some may require more grafts to cover a blading area.

the thickness of ur hair will play a role as well. and then there is own body's ability to heal and sometimes the "X" factor comes into play. many variables.

plenty of FUE doctors are taking 3500-4000 grafts these days without leaving noticable scars on ur head as long as ur have somewhat dense hair and a good supply of donor hair.

the beauty of FUE is ur not limited to the head. u have beard/body as well.

Why did our clinic switch exclusively to FUE?

 

The advantages of FUE, compared to FUT, are easily discerned. The lack of a visible donor scar (with punches smaller than 1.0 mm) is the most common reason patients come to our office. But is the theoretical advantage of FUE that is the most exciting. Many clinics like to quote that FUE should delegated to small sessions only, and they can't move as much hair as FUT. This is simply not true. The real power behind FUE is the enormous flexibility over the size of cases. With the extraction devices we have now (which will only improve over time), we can extract between 0% and 100% of the donor bank. Our current understanding is the donor bank becomes noticeably thinner at 50% depletion, so theoretically this flexibility leads to the potential of large cases. We recently finished a 5125 graft session (over 11,000 hairs) in a patient, whom is documenting his experience in a blog. With the possibility of performing large cases with FUE, the last drawback was removed, and for this reason we stopped doing FUT cases. Many on this forum may not agree with our reasoning, but we simply felt the benefits of FUE outweighed FUT.

but, when u incorporate the beard/body the grafts may be unlimited so FUE does have a huge advantage there. as time goes on FUT will likely only be reserved for very large cases with limited beard/body hair. that is the direction we are seeing these days.

who is ur clinic?

I agree ur donor zone is questionable for a large FUE seeion but tough to tell from the pic u provided. FUT is out of the question imo. what does ur beard and body hair look like? how many grafts do u need?

temples are kinda high.

very impressive. too soon to tell if or when you will need further work. you might want to add a few to the crown maybe. post up some pics of the beard and head donor zone after it heals up.

so which clinic performed the work? I was thinkn Bhatti has doctors workn for him or something but it appears as tho you went someone where else. do tell?

thats quite cheap. like $4900 for 5500 grafts. that sounds so absurdly cheap but earning $5k in one day is pretty good money by anyones standards. one a day is $25k a week. not a bad weeks pay....:rolleyes:

was there a price difference between head and body grafts?