newbie33

The very simple answer is that hairs on the back and side - the 'safe zone' - tend to be resistant to DHT. But the older you get, the more these hairs also tend to thin out, through DHT's affect or for whatever other reason. So as I see it, the advantage of taking fin after a HT is primarily to maintain your native hair - so you don't get a nice bald ring around the transplanted hair in your lateral humps region.

Hi Marek,

As the others have pointed out, it's better to try fin first and see if that gets any results and/or stabilises your hair loss before you get a HT.

Did the doctor say you have 3500-4000 grafts in total able to be used for transplant? I guess that's on the low side, but could probably do the hairline and mid section. Good luck.

Hi Dr Beehner, was the plan always to get a second session soon after the first?

Good luck getting any objective evidence in answer to these questions!

No risk, no reward, right? Plus, something is going on with his hair. I think he wears some sort of system.

http://plasticsurgeryproof.com/users/1/images3/enrique-iglesias-bald.jpg

Strange comment.,,,, I joined in to make the statement I made and the point that I made about people loving to see others lose hair period. I could not care less about Taylor.... Some people have great hair, deal with it and stop rejoicing in their hair loss. One thing that I have learned in losing hair is that I am sick of those who seem to find humor or comfort in the fact that I lost hatir... Lets not do the same to others just because he happens to be famous.

So did you see anyone loving the fact he might be losing hair and rejoicing in it? I didn't. I read guys posting about hair loss on a hair loss forum.

Esrec,

 

As you've probably noticed, you will receive differing opinions on this matter.

 

I'm sure you want all the information you can get, so I'll give you mine as well:

 

For a case of this size, I think you'll see better results from FUT opposed to FUE. Though people do disagree on the yield issue, the available data shows that there is more of a difference than we'd probably like there to be. Check out this study done by Dr Beehner (a Coalition doctor here):

 

 

What he did in this study was compare skeletonized (FUE) grafts to "medium/chubby" (FUT) grafts and evaluated survival (and, therefore, yield).

 

As you can see, the differences were statistically significant.

 

If you do still want to do this as an FUE, you may want to look into breaking the procedure up into two smaller parts. I think most agree that the best procedural technique and overall outcomes with FUE are achieved when really only dealing with a small number of grafts daily.

 

Good luck with your research. Hopefully this adds a bit of a different perspective and helps you reach a decision -- be it FUT or FUE.

 

Feel free to ask any additional questions!

Not sure I understand that table. Does the 'survival rate' really mean 'growth rate' ? (Surely you can't have an increasing survival rate over time - if the graft survived at 19 months on they must have survived at month 14 too).

Also, why are some of the numbers doubled in the right-hand columns I.e 55 grafts then becomes a score of X surviving out of 110. Is that the number of hairs that survived?

Also, is it Enrique Iglesias? And was he your hero?

He said his hair loss had stabilised and was taking/going to take meds. It hadn't and he didn't so his hair loss continued. I'll guess he went for fue too.

No offense guys but worry about yourselves instead of some NW1 who may be losing some early hair. It gains nothing but I guess misery loves company...

Is this why you joined in? ;-)

Ezel

Feel your pain, man. I'm sure most guys want one pass at this and to not think about it again for at least ten years. I suspect most guys who don't get great results stop posting for whatever reason. There are a number of those from most doctors.

There aren't many Feriduni NW3-plus results. Mostly as I'd imagine he wouldn't do fue for such cases. I"l send you a private message to discuss more anyway.

What happened the first time round with Rahal, Home?

Ezel, missed your response. How goes it now?

I've watched quite a few of Dr Feriduni's fue results as he's one of my preferred doctors. He seems like a stand up guy and I liked his bedside manner. I also consider him one of the best I've seen in terms of results and his hairlines are probably the most natural I've seen. But I've also seen a number of results which need 'touch ups'. Yours, sadly, appears to be one such case. Having gone through it, what do you think caused that? On the face of it, you seem like a pretty good candidate.

Ezel, missed your response. How goes it now?

I've watched quite a few of Dr Feriduni's fue results as he's one of my preferred doctors. He seems like a stand up guy and I liked his bedside manner. I also consider him one of the best I've seen in terms of results and his hairlines are probably the most natural I've seen. But I've also seen a number of results which need 'touch ups'. Yours, sadly, appears to be one such case. Having gone through it, what do you think caused that? On the face of it, you seem like a pretty good candidate.

Can't hear the sound as I'm on a train, but that fue scoring video is of a motorised device, no? The shakes appear to be down to the fact it's rotating, probably not helped by the distance from incision point at which its held. But I can't see how those things can ever work with the degree of accuracy that's needed to get near 100% undamaged grafts removed.

Nobody wants their stamens twisted ;-)

 

I do not comment on results of specific patients of specific doctors unless they present them during discussion/debate specifically to be critiqued by others like Dr. Bhatti has with his video. It is far better, more educational, and objective to discuss the actual techniques used, rather than subjectively look at photos of results.

Thanks again for the answer, Dr Feller.

On the point above, I didn't name any doctors or cite specific results for the very reason that it's unusual for doctors to comment on each other. But the point I was getting at is that your previous assertions about FUE yield and thickness/naturalness of hairlines compared to FUE - that statement is based not just on your own results, but on the results you've seen in general, including from the 'best' FUE doctors?

It's implicit in your statement, but I think it's important clarify that it is the case.

Thanks David, Dr Feller.

Dr Feller, the kinky hair from FUE - that's down to the 'skeletonisation' of the grafts?

And when you say it's always a lower yield, would I be right to assume that includes results you've seen from what you and most of us on this forum would consider the 'best' fue practitioners?

And if you'll permit me a third, why do you think some doctors report no difference from their strip and fue results, or only a marginally lower yield from fue? A few have told me this face to face.

 

3. I have rarely seen an FUE hairline that compares to an FUT hairline in fullness or naturalness.

Dr Feller, when it's all grown out, do you believe you can a) tell when someone's had a HT and if so, b) what procedure they had (strip or FUE)? I'm not going to test it - just curious to know if you believe you can tell.

What happened to the 'Ask Dr Bhatti' thread. I can't find it. In any event, Dr Bhatti - can you tell us what your typical yield is for an FUE procedure. Also, how you calculate the yield.

Thanks.

I'm sure she's thrilled, surely ;-)

Bugger it - why not a third point.

3) All this searching for motives and conspiracies and hunting for contradictory statements are all basically the result of there being hardly any proper empirical scientific evidence.

Two points.

1) Dr Feller is not saying anything especially different now than he was then. He'd do 600 fue grafts on the right candidate then and now.

2) If the facts change - and with more experience and knowledge that's entirely possible in any new medical procedure (or even an old one) - what would be wrong with changing your opinion?

A scar.

No idea. In the immediately post-op pics, the one on the right looks more densely packed. That might suggest 'healthier' FUT grafts as they may not require as much blood supply to survive and grow.

But difficult to see from the grown-out pictures which had better yield/result as the hairstyles are different.