redlonghair

Hi All,

It will be great to hear any feedback on these two DRs in the San Diego CA area and I really appreciate the info. Thanks.

trapezemit,

 

Your logic seems backwards unless I'm not understanding you properly. If you are basing your post on the assumption that more natural hair may have fallen out since the time of his hair transplant, then the results are even more superb, not less. Moreover, there is a clear improvement in the after pictures whether it was 1, 3 or 20 years after surgery. Thankfully, hair transplants do stand the test of time. Everyone is still at risk of future hair loss, which hair transplants don't cure. But non-surgical treatments often complement surgical hair restoration for this very purpose.

 

Best wishes,

 

Bill

Hey Bill

What you mean by "natural hair" may not be the hair I was talking about, which is the weak-gened hair. If this person was not on meds to maintain those weak-gened hair then its not easy to tell the improvement, because you would have those weak-gened hair falling while transplanted hair growing and end up roughly about same density. But it depends on areas, frontal seems to show much better results then crown given the same amount of hair, quality of hair..etc. This person had more hairs put in the front and less in the crown. If he was not on meds during the 3 yrs then some hairs would've fallen from crown while transplanted hair would've grown out in crown and ended up not much difference. If he was on meds during the 3 yrs then he may have preserved some weak-gened hairs to fall while gotten transplanted hairs to grow.

3.5 yrs after procedure is long and some of those hairs genetically programmed to fall would have fallen during this long period, hence the improvement from visual based on pix is not that valid as far as i am concerned, unless there is proof that other meds have been used to maintain those hairs that are destined to fall during this long period, for which the crown area then shows basically no improvement but areas right outside crown show some improvements. last pix even has frontal hairs combed back to cover crown so crown "looks" less thin, but is actually not so much thicker than pre-po. most improvement is at front.

looks nice but the post-op pix show hairs that are longer than pre-po pix, so it's hard to tell the level of improvements unless hairs are parted to explicitly show the insides. also, the hairs are thick and not 100% straight so visually it looks nice.

overall looks nice. pix 16/18 shows some scalp at front, so density is not high, pix 17/18 confirms low density once hair is parted, pix 18/18 shows this person seems(to me) to have good donor hairs for future procedures

Overall look nice. plz note because this person's hairs are not pure straight therefore it provides better looks from visual standpoint. from post-op pix i can still somewhat see the scalp via full grown temple areas hairs and that mean the density is not high.

These photos represent the 7 month results from one procedure, a maximum harvest, whose top priority was to create the hairline drawn and whose secondary priority was to thicken the hair mass behind the hairline. She plans another procedure to further thicken the hair mass in the frontal forelock and the vertex. She is happy with the results that one session achieved in the hairline and I don't necessarily disagree with that feeling. However, I think there is always some refinement possible with a second procedure to at least some areas of the first procedure results.

Hairline of this case looks not natural, just my personal feeling via my own eyes based on the pix.

This result has to be in the top best results...

not so much for me, it's b/c this person has curly hairs, and before pix show shaved scalp whereas the after pix show extremely long hairs. i bet you would see not so bad overall bald if you could see this person with all hairs growing long and dry.

Class 3 MPHL

2000 grafts transplanted in frontal and crown area

11 months post op

first the pre-op pix are all like wet hairs that are parted to show thinning areas explicitly, whereas all the post-op pix are all dry hairs that are much longer and not much parted to show the inside scalps. not good comparisons. if post-op pix were same length same wet condition same parting of hairs there would be not much difference.