TonyStark83

So what is yield anyway?

 

1) Grafts lost in the process of extraction vs grafts that actually grew in recipient.

 

(IMO > FUE is a handsome winner)

 

Rationale - hundreds of grafts lost in strip linear extraction along periphery of the cut and lost as invisible 'vacant' follicles in the telegon stage unseen by the techs and yet contained within the extracted strip - into the waste bucket. More lost in the 'slithering' process. Typically the last in the row (slither) get lost.

 

1) Grafts extracted vs Grafts that actually grew in recipient

 

(IMO > Even , maybe slight advantage to FUE vs strip)

 

Rationale - Transection and partial damage to FUE grafts in extraction. Dehydrated FUE grafts lost in storage due to longer waiting period and less fat to protect them.

Matched by the figures of slithered or lost telegon follicles

 

2) Grafts planted vs Grafts that actually grew in recipient

 

(IMO > strip wins?)

 

Rationale - Once the grafts have been through the pipeline and are ready to go in, the FUE grafts chances of survival surely must be less than the strip ones on account of the fat?

In my case, FUE, the time the hair follicules were resting in recipeints before being put into my scalp was not that much.

If a surgeon is good enough to cause no damaga at all to gratfs while extracting them (which is more commom right now) then the yield is gonna be basically perfect.

Yet with FUT you can be the best surgeon in the world but it's inevitable the lost of grafts while using the blade to make the strip.

Well, you are saying three different things here.

 

1) the myth bit, why?

2) depends on the surgeon, which deflates the power of 1) as well as your next point

3) which is the badness of strip, (to which I thoroughly agree btw)

 

So if the doc is good, all strip problems go away??

Of course, I know you didn't mean that.

 

Anyway, I've long pondered the yield issue. It was always my belief that FUE looked a bit thinner, so I assumed that the bulbs got damaged as so a three hair grafts became a two and so on..

However, now my idea is turning not to yield and to something different, perceived volume.

The fat around strip follicles, sliced by a straight blade gives the shape of the grafts a squarish cushion and when that is squeezed into a slit, there is no telling how the hair trajectory will be, apart from of course, the slit angle itself. And the result of this is that strip transplants produce more of a spread, a kind of mushroom effect as the hair splays more. This has a huge benefit for volume once a certain length is reached, and if grown out, the weight of the hair negates the effect but retains the spring, hence the huge volume.

 

FUE grafts in the sub-.85mm range are much leaner and hence stay less springy.

It's a myth because if you have the best surgeons doing FUE and FUT the most probable scenario is FUT having the lowest yield.

I created this topic because one of my friends is thinking about getting a FUE procedure yet he was extremely worried because he checked on the web and this issue appeared.

I thought he was joking because I wasn't getting the connection.

Then I searched by my own and I was really surprised: this seems to cause a real debate.

So basically all this is pure nonsense, right? The only time it can cause problems with our hairs is a couple of days post-op, right? Nothing more at all?

I really don't get why some keep mentioning this myth about FUE having a worse yield than FUT...

This depends on the surgeon.

And not only that recent studies have shown that with FUE we get a better yield since there's no blads trespassing our scalp and cutting many grafts.

I'm very curious about this because sometimes I hear it's a myth (it seems it's from the "most official sources") and other times I hear some claim it's true.

If anyone has the answer can give as well reasons to why it's true or false?

Is there any colerration at all between both phenoms?

So what exactly is the answer?

No, I don't. I am on biotin and msm and my growth seems to be on schedule. I've considered starting minox but I don't know if it will make my transplanted hairs shed.

So basically you have been using hair products that help hair growing faster, right?

Does the degree of maturation vary between people? I'm approaching 8 months post-op and my transplanted hair, though wiry, looks just as thick as my normal hair. It would be great if I could expect it to get thicker but I don't know how much thicker it could reasonably get.

 

 

 

I have heard that minoxidil might cause grafts to sprout sooner.

Maybe that's why so many people get their hair grown pretty fast.

What about your own case? Do you use minoxidil?

That may be the case for a small percentage of the hairs. If supposedly 10% of your follicles are in the resting phase at one given time, 10% of your transplanted hairs could be in the resting phase. Although the resting phase doesn't last an entire year, some of the already grown in hair could shed and currently be sitting in a resting phase. Growth at any stage could have different explanations.

My trichologist said some months ago my hair was growing fine and at the phone other doctors from the same clinic, after watching the pictures I've sent to them marking the post-op after 10 months, said my growth has been normal.

Do the people who already have all their hair grown at 8 months use some special products that make their hair growing faster?

And what about hair cycle? Is it responsbile as well for many hairs still now growing up in 12 months?

12 months is not the official deadline. But it will certainly tell you where things are going. I say it takes a few more months then that, in general. Everyone is different though.

I made this thread because in my personal case, I'll reach the 12 months in 21th of September, I have hair growing in all places yet in some places it's very thick and there's a lot hair yet mixed with these areas there's even bigger areas with less and thin hair.

I agree Tony. When dense packing was the "buzz" in these forums some five years ago or so, many young guys were insisting they were going to get procedures with density as high as 70-90 FU cm2 which many of them if not all of them did not need.

 

So their goals were not to achieve the illusion of coverage, it became how dense can I get it because it was the buzz of the day.

 

And then there were guys appearing later complaining of the substandard regrowth and yields that were promised to them.

Yeah. In some cases with men with very thin hair and bad donor area (which thank God is not the majority at all) the trick is to give the illusion of hair density.

Yet in most cases the density we get from a HT is more than enough to achieve a similar effect to our originak density. For me that's not "illusion" because it's not "fake", it's real.

People only start noticing they are getting bald after losing 50% of their original hair density.

Are you thinking of the "stick and place" technique?

I really don't know the name.

cantdecide,

 

Just took a peak at your photos and what a transformation that you are enjoying. Congrats!

 

Guys, I know of a case of a true Norwood 6 with a slick bald top. He was wearing a hair system for a number of years and wanted freedom. I can relate being a Norwood 5 and having 6900 grafts total and used to wear hair systems too.

 

This individual had outstanding donor density and also outstanding hair characteristics. He had a high degree of coarseness and also a nice wave.

 

He had three procedures, all strip for a total of 7300 grafts and he looks totally restored. His last procedure was in 2007.

 

But as you guys stated, the goal is achieving the illusion of coverage. I remember looking straight down on his scalp one year after his last procedure and could not see any scalp yet the density was nowhere near the sides and donor zone. His wave really helped and also gave him the illusion of more density than someone not having these outstanding attributes.

 

He is the exception and not the rule by any means so it really varies between individuals.

It really varies with individuals.

What I was saying is that the expression "illusion of density" is a tricky pony. It doesn't matter if the density is the same as the original we had while we were younger, if the coverage is enough to not show any scalp then that's enough.

TonyStark83,

 

It really depends how much existing native hair is present. I would not advocate dense packing that area but rather establish a transition zone in case the area does thin or recede in the future.

I was asking this because I think I've read someone in this forum claiming doctors use some sort of technique that only takes a small amount of grafts to fill up temple points.

So everyone achieve the final results after 12 months?

From my observations, men tend to recede more on the side where they part the hair which could be either side. Many have temporal lobe recessionary patterns and some recede across the entire frontal plane of the hairline. Some have diffused thinning patterns.

 

You really want to look closely at the type of recessionary patterns evident in family history. And yes it would look very unnatural to continue to thin/lose the temple points after committing grafts to that zone. Many men recede in that area because with most men, it does thin and recede considerably as they get older.

Is it necessary a lot of grafts to restore or to pack more the temple points?

Temple points are most definitely affected. In most people, the right side recedes more than the left and as your hairline recedes the sides recede as well. This is not universal but it is typical.

 

However, I don't think your temple points are in need of any work. They are a bit thin but they are still cosmetically viable and I think they should be left alone.

 

 

To be clear, the area marked in blue is your temple point. The area in red is your temple proper.

 

 

If you are referring to your temple proper then I can see where some work would be justified, however, to answer your question "Should I consider transplant for the temples?"; Only you can decide whether you should or should not. We are here to only tell you if you are a candidate if you so decide to do something about it.

Then can't be a bit odd making a transplant to the temple points? If you lose the rest of your temple points then it's gonna look pretty odd.

No, I believe that they only do FUSS (FUT).

I was asking this because I thought by viewing their youtube videos they use FUE.

There's one thing I never fully understood: does Alopecia afect temples/sideburns?

Or in this area people never lose their hair?

I would say that you are a NW5. Would you consider Canada? Hasson and Wong do some great mega sessions. What are your goals?

Don't Hasson and Wong use FUE instead FUT?

So are there any more people who only started having better results after 12 months?

Show me one picture or video of the top of the head on a NW 6 under harsh floresent light or direct sunlight where no scalp at all can be seen. It does not exist. I agree under normal lighting yes, in many good HT including mine, scalp cannot be seen but not under these harsh lighting conditions.

What do you exactly mean when you say "harsh lighting"? The Sun?

And I don't agree with you, it does really exist so many cases.

But I can post inages nor videos in this forum, it's a policy of this forum. Unless if they changed the rules...

I have never seen a HT give a NW 6 density enough to where no scalp would show through even in the harshest lighting. It just does not exist. This is impossible IMO even with 10000 grafts. Almost all transplants are an illusion of density, not just extreme cases. The only cases where the illusion may not be applicable are those extremely high density hairline transplants (ex: 3000 grafts in the first 1.5-2 cm of a hairline).

 

50% is enough to hide your scalp but not to hide it all under direct sunlight for example in most cases.

 

I was a NW 6 and have only had 2 strip procedures. I am only one month post op from procedure 2.

I don't agree with you. You can see many videos of NW 6s having FUE and the density being perfect to any kind of light.

It's totally possible. It depends on the person and on the transplant.

"Illusion of density" is a tricky pony. If the density of your new hair is more than enough to perfectly hide your scalp does it matter if the number of hairs is the same as your original amount? Obviously not.

You can watch those videos and see those people using their cumbs and not any scalp is seen, only hair.

At 8 months, all my grafts had grown out and it was as thick as you would expect a 5229 grafts transplant on a practically bald scalp to be. That is to say, yes the density was very good but of course, as with all transplants, it was still an illusion of density. Under typical lighting, my scalp was and is not visible at all. In very harsh lighting, some scalp will show through which is to be expected.

It depends on the transplant. Many transplants can make a totally bald person having a full head of hair with no visible scalp at all.

Doctors say that with 50% of your normal density that's enough to make your scalp "disappearing".

"Illusion of density" is more in the extreme cases.

You've made a FUE transplant? You were a NW 7? You can put even more grafts if you whish, right?

I was a pretty fast grower. I think my growth was done at 8 months but the hair matured up until about 18 months.

Really? But at the time of 8 months was already impossible to see any part of your scalp? All the hair was alerady extremely thick?