KO

Again, to do it like Wesley Schneider, you need to plan your surgery very differently. The way surgeons do FUE, they focus on moving a lot of MFUs which have a lot of spqce in between them, so you will have these big thick shafts in areas that are shiny bald, it will not look natural. Schneider had a decent forelock, may be on meds, and his surgery was planned so that he would maintain a buzz cut.

Yes this clinic is well known. Do note how the patients look after they buzz their heads.There is a visible density difference between sides and (reddish) top, and the hair on top really sticks out. Remember surgeons are cherry-picking MFUs to go on top, and when you buzz down, it will look different from the sides. If you are planning on buzzing your head after FUE, there is a different strategy for graft placement, unit selection, hairline design etc etc.

No, even with FUE, a short buzz cut, while without a scar, looks unnatural. Just look at SamB's photos. There is an obvious difference between the donor and recipient regions, with the recipient regions looking very sparse and the hair groupings looking very odd compared to the high density parietal and occipital scalp. FUE tries to homogenize follicular density but does not actually do so. He still looks visibly bald but with spotty hair on top. What people forget is that if you want to maintain the buzzed look after surgery, it demands a different strategy during the hair transplant in terms of how to distribute grafts. If you have significant loss on top and crown, buzzing your head after FUE will not look natural. With FUT, if you are going down this route, you are not planning on getting a buzz cut. People talk about having the option of shaving down,but rarely ever do so.

You are not a NW6....if you are planning to go down the surgery route, finasteride is your best bet.

Is your hair caliber relatively fine/thin?

I have a financial interest in dutasteride and get a paycheck from GSK? I'm amazed. Keep talking. This is truly hilarious. You made a foolish post because you lacked knowledge on this topic, and you cover it up by accusing me of being paid to represent a drugco. Bravo.

For an old school plug technique, this looks surprisingly natural. Thinning obviously, but definitely not an obvious HT.

It is specific to women. If a woman takes your blood then she can risk BDs for the baby. Reality is, you made a foolish post, posted an inflammatory title about a property of finasteride that is well known, and then decided to tell everybody that it was a poor idea to recommend fin based on this fact you suddenly "discovered". A better title could have been "don't donate blood while on fin", that would make a lot of sense and been helpful, but hey this is the internet.

Yes this is true. It will be very obvious you had an HT even if you buzz it down after an HT. You'll have this sparse "spotting" on the top, and visible follicular density on the sides. It's far from homogenous with FUE. If you want to shave your head, do it now and move on with your life.

I watched the video, and I also watched his latest video. Shaved head after getting an HT does NOT look natural. It looks quite odd to see the distribution of hairs, and you still look bald. His result is very average. He tried to cover a large balding area with FUE, and he has sparse coverage and a very high hairline. It's not bad, but not great either.

I am curious to know Blake's opinion on this as well as in the past he has stated that he believes sharp manual punches are the ideal harvesting method.

This is a good example of how shaving your head after FUE does not look natural if you have significant hair loss. There is a massive disparity between the donor zone and the recipient, a lack of miniaturization at the hairline makes the hairline and temporal work will always look too harsh. The way the hair groups doesn't look natural either. "Shave my head after FUE" is an option primarily for the NW 2-3's that are considering HT's, not for anybody above that, especially if they have significant crown loss.

I think you are planning it exactly the right way. Start with the meds, if all goes well, go ahead with the HT. Demirsoy is a great choice!

I think mods should delete this thread. It is intentionally inflammatory and misleading. Birth defects happen if a pregnant WOMAN is exposed to the drug. This is something that is very well known and has ALWAYS been part of the literature for finasteride. If you were not aware of this, it is YOUR fault, and YOUR lack of knowledge. Do not cover up your own ignorance by claiming this advice is irresponsible. It will not happen because you take the drug. Furthermore, there has to be a certain threshold of exposure before the effect is significant. Just because you are taking finasteride doesn't mean that your kid will have birth defects. Now if your wife starts popping finasteride, then you have a problem. This is stupidity. Um...before posting an obviously inflammatory title, could you please try and actually think about the topic?

Nice. Hair loss is unpredictable for sure.

I think we should wait a bit and allow the doctor to post more results before deciding.

Fue is cheaper in places where they have heavy tech involvement. So you will have a team of techs extracting, while doctor implants. Add low labor costs etc.... I think Feriduni's FUT results are a level above his FUE results, but he is doing mostly FUE these days, so why not go to a surgeon that does heavy amounts of FUT? Plus that yearlong wait list is just too much. In Europe: Bisanga, Devroye, and Maras look really good. Or you could save up and go to Konior and Hasson...

Dr Feller, could you post a before/after of your own HT if you are OK with it? Just out of curiosity.

*Is there a correlation between yield and quality of graft obtained? Yes *If we put aside cost and even scarring, can FUE produce the same quality of hair / graft? No *To last point, how much of the hair quality can be predicted before extraction? Experienced surgeons can tell ease of extraction *is there any difference in hair re-growth rates by method? FUT is better for yield *Is the scarring over-hyped when in the right physicians hands? Scarring is unpredictable. However some factors can be determined, for example better laxity may help scarring with FUT. *How long is your recovery actually with FUT? A lot longer than FUE *If youre unhappy with the appearance of a scar with FUT, couldn't you get it lasered? *Is the SAFE method as effective for FUE? If you dont have to shave your head why do it? *Is FUT more low risk? (opinion) No, FUT is probably a higher risk, higher reward proposition. *Were their any findings at the recent ISHRS conference worth sharing?

2k FUE

It should look sparse though, I mean this was hairline to crown, if this was part 1 of a 2 part process, it would make sense?

"It sounds like, even within the debate, that at this stage, an expert FUE surgeon can produce long term results/benefit with FUE that can match FUT." I think this is untrue, top FUE guys cannot match FUT results (Note you compare top FUE guys to the general FUT pool, not top FUT guys like H&W). However, your case is so small, it doesn't make any sense to cut your head open. If you were a NW4+, then you'd have a decision on your hands. Just go FUE and run with it. That said, there are guys who have gotten great FUT work done for smaller sessions than yours. Take Spanker for example. But that is all academic.

If you are paying for a consult, no, it is not a waste of time.

Fantastic work.

Before picture has hairpiece, after doesn't?