TonyStark83

I believe that 18 months is when you will realize 100% growth and maturity. 12-18 months is a very productive timeframe for slow growers and crown trasplants.

Yeah, I heard crown transplants (which is the 3rd session of FUE I'm gonna do some weeks from now on) are slower.

So what has happened in your own case? Was it finished during the 12th month?

I'm asking this because rom what I've been reading and from my own case it seems that 12 months is still too early to get the final result after a FUE.

I've done in 2 sessions a FUE in 20 and 21 September of 2012, 12 months in the next 21 September.

However, despite of having a giant amount of new hair my 2 previous receding entrances still don't have the same amount of hair as in the middle of my head.

When I use my comb my hair looks perfect, even after getting some amount of wind in my hair. However, if I stir a lot my hair there's still many spots where it's obvious the hair still hasn't grown up.

Many spots are erratic, big pieces of strong and tick new hair mixed with spots of thin and sparse new hair.

But this is normal, right? I remember the doctors said to me, with 10 months of post-op, that I should wait to 12 or 14 months and that my hair's growth looked normal and stable.

So isn't the "12 months deadline" a bit misleading in some cases? Or is my hair's growth just a bit slow?

Regards.

I was having a procedure done by the same clinic, Harley street hair clinic and by the same surgeon as he had, they don't give a price per graft cost they give you an estimate on grafts and a price for roughly that amount, if they put more in on the day then you don't pay any extra, however there very.m conservative with numbers and rarely do above 2000 grafts a on total or above 1500 in one day!! The cost I was going to pay was ? 8500 for 1500 grafts, I'd imagine it would be closer to ?10000 now due to the increase in its popularity as I know a couple of years before that it would have been about ?6000 for the same procedure, I eventually went with dr Feriduni after cancelling with Harley street a couple of months before my op and am very glad I did!!! Nothing against Harley street hair clinic as they were very nice with me, even when I cancelled but they weren't as flexible as dr f in their approach and their consultation wasn't any where near as in depth or thorough!! They do however seem to produce the best results in the uk via fue, along with some good ones from dr reddy recently!!

So it's not that amusing the prices in that clinic are so crazy.

prices range from the sublime to the ridiculous, in Ireland Hair Restoration Blackrock charges €10 per graft and thats FUT Strip, absolutely crazy, i guess when your clients are famous like James Nesbitt and Louis Walsh you can get away with that but its certainly not within the range of what the ordinary man on the street can afford.

 

In Wayne Rooneys case the accuracy of the media reportage in the UK has been very poor, from the knowledge shown about the procedure itself to the huge differences in prices being bandied about, its quite embarassing really.

 

I guess the old adage of ' never believe what you read in the papers' comes to mind so i wouldnt get too caught up in it dude, the best way to find out would be to email harley street with some pics and see what they come back with in terms of cost, number of grafts needed etc

And by reading the UK press about the procedure it's obvious they have no clue at all how the FUE procedure works.

There are several docs that cost that much. Dr. Feller is, or was, $10 per graft for FUE.

 

Dr. Lorenzo, I believe, is over $9 per graft FUE (this is in US dollars).

 

 

There are others that are in that price range, which makes a 3000 graft procedure perfectly likely.

That's what I was thinking all the time. It must be something with crazy prices some doctors may practice.

However, I've read some people who alleged that have done FUEs in that same clinic in London and say the real price of Rooney's FUE was somethign like 6K.

6K is a value that makes perfect sense to me.

Dude he was definitely bald enough to warrant 3000 grafts or more, and at $8-$10 a graft it is entirely reasonable to conclude that he spent at least 30k

Dude, how can 3000 grafts cost 30K?!

From my HTs I got more grafts and no way it cost as much as that. It's insane.

Wayne Rooney was not bald enough to get procedures with he cost of 30K.

He made that one and recently, I think last June, he has made a second procedure.

I've made two procedures last years (20 and 21 of September) and this year I'm gonna get a 3rd one.

I would go with that then. There are a LOT of other things to consider than spending much too much time and worry on this.

And thinking about that if it was true that it would happen or be noticeable to most people theb hair transplants should be redundant and a charade.

Where did you read that?

From this forum what I get to understand is that it only happens to some people. And my trichologyst said it's not gonna happen.

But from what I've been reading and hearing only a small percentage of people, even older than 60 and 70 years of age, suffer from thinning in the donor area.

Tony,

 

Prices will vary. In general, FUE procedures (which is what I believe Mr. Rooney had) are more expensive. Large FUE procedures could potentially reach this level, but $30,000, but it's definitely not the norm.

He has made FUE. But how can he pay a lot more than the usual client who suffers from a similar level and gets the same results?

I really wish you guys would stop saying it only happens in men in their 60's and older. Please go back and read the first paragraph from Dr Konior where he states "men in their twenties, thirties and forties may experience it too.

 

You can also view my photos for proof. The latest ones that show the sides are from 2009 when I was 42. I should ad some new ones as the entire area has thinned noticeably more since then.

 

It's easy to pass something off as rare as if it shouldn't matter to anyone, but you don't know if the person you are telling that to will be the one with the condition. When you are the one it happens to then the "chances" are 100%. What I mean by that is no matter what the chances are, each single individual is concerned about if will it happen to them. For the sampling size of 1 (me) the rate of occurrance is 100%. It really doesn't matter how rare anyone else wants to think it is. It is not rare for the one who has it.

 

AL

But do you think overall it makes a lot of difference to your own hair or the differences are just tiny?

How in the bloody hell has Wayne Rooney's FUE HT cost him 30K like it has been said on news?! Sometimes they say 10K...

Yet that's surreal. I've read some people claiming it really was only 6K since they made FUEs on that same London clinic as well.

Why and how 30K? How is this even possible? Or because he's a celebrity he gave extra money for publicity or something?

Or are these just fabricated numbers made by the press?

:confused:

Sorry, I was doing more than one thing at a time and that was not meant for you.

Don't worry. I was just curious.

It's good having that spirit.

Hi Tony,

 

Just a quick reminder that, in general, outside links are not permitted on the forums.

 

Having said that:

 

NW 7 is actually not a typical hair loss pattern. A NW 7 means that an individual is actually experiencing recession in the universal donor region. The follicles in the safe zone are supposed to be highly resistant to DHT, so these individuals, for some reason, have follicles in that region (usually on the fringes of the occipital and temporal scalp) which are still susceptible to the balding hormone. Frankly, the vast majority of men who truly "go bald" (as society defines it) really reach a NW 6 pattern. This pattern represents a male who has essentially lost all hair aside from the permanent donor region, but is experiencing no thinning in the safe zone itself.

 

Hope this clarifies!

Thanks for the response!

Well, so I can't post anything outside of this forum? Even articles talking about HTs or hair loss? It's more difficult to show my point then.

About this: so basically NW7 is quiet unusual...

But isn't this debated amoung doctors? I mean, the doctor who made my FUE sessions and my trycologyst stated I have NW 5 but I can reach NW7, however they stated my donor area is excellent.

So this made me extremely nervous and I was in panic. So I asked to my trycologyst if I can reach the NW7 pictures from the NW scale or if I can turn to be like the first man I've put in this topic in my first 2 pictures.

The Trycologyst said hell no, he explained to me that my hair loss pattern already has been defined (I'm 30 years old) and it's not gonna change.

And my pattern is nothing like NW7, it's more like NW5-6. I have a lot of hair in my donor area and my balding pattern is similar to the one from my own father which has a lot of hair in the donor area.

So then I asked to the trycologyst if NW7 means having only this amount of hair (how can I put an omage in this forum?):

http://www.greathairtransplants.com/images/norwood/norwood12.jpg

He said no, that NW7 is just being totally bald.

So it seems that the concept of NW7 varies from doctor to doctor, right?

I have A LOT of hair in my fringe, sides and in my back hair, and my crown balding pattern is way smaller than the one which is displayed in the NW7 scale images.

So basically NW6 is NW7 to many doctors and people?

hahaha

Hahaha what?

Hi Tony,

 

In general, follicular unit grafts used during hair transplant surgery are extracted from a region of the scalp called the "donor region." The reason why this area is called the donor region is because the follicles in this part of the scalp are highly resistant to dihydrotestosterone (DHT) - the hormone that directly causes follicles to "shrink" and stop functioning (i.e. stop producing visible hairs). These hairs retain their donor characteristics (a phenomenon called "donor dominance"), which means when they are implanted into balding scalp, they are still resistant to DHT and will NOT shed. Long story short, they become permanent.

 

As Spanker said, they are some individuals who do tend to recede into the universal "safe zone" or universal "donor region," and this means some of their follicles may not be as resistant to DHT. However, this usually only applies to follicles on the fringe of the safe extraction zone, and most hair transplant surgeons would not utilize follicles like this, as they know they would be prone to future loss.

 

Just for reference, here is a case from Dr. Meshkin, where he presents a patient who underwent hair transplantation at his clinic 18 years prior. As you can tell in the "after" images, his hair still looks excellent nearly 2 decades after the procedure.

 

I hope this helps. Please feel free to ask any additional questions.

Thanks very much for the response (and to the others as well).

Then I guess I can be happy since the doctors who made the 2 sessions of FUE on me 10 months ago (I'm gonna do a 3rd session, the last one, in September or October) didn't extract any follicule from my fringe on the safe zone.

And like I've suspected it's only fro some individuals and it's not the norm, that's pretty good.

Thanks!

I knew that video was fake because it made no sense at all.

Why being in that position while the doctor is inserting into his scalp grafts?

And how can he feel that much pain? Who made that video forgot we get injections to not feel pain.

By the way: how in the bloody hell has Wayne Rooney's FUE HT cost him 30K like it has been said on news?! Sometimes they say 10K...

Yet that's surreal. I've read some people claiming it really was only 6K since they made FUEs on that same London clinic as well.

Why 30K???

Maybe someone else will chime in.

But what you've said is not the norm, right?

Most of the people that you know are not in their 70's.

 

I think that it is a general rule that if you live long enough, all of your hair will thin, but not necessarily noticeably.

When I said most people I know I was precisely talking about 60 and 70 years old guys.

I only know one person with non-thick hair and he's not my relative. At least my trycologyst says that doesn't happen.

But don't forget that the article i posted in this topic is talking about permanent hair falling apart, not just getting fine.

No, only yhe first group is NW7

So what are the others? NW6?

I'm asking this because ti seems many doctors clla to all of them NW7s.

This is something I never really get. It seems it varies from person to person whenever I talk about hair loss.

What exactly means Norwood 7?

So how does this exactly work?

Are all of them NW7? Shouldn't exist a NW8 level? The first man I've showed is totally bald and has a very small donor area and it seems like it should be a NW8 or something.

That's what I really never get: in the NW scale NW7 means the side hair and the back hair areas need to be extremely small or is it irrelevant to the NW7 level and only refers to being totally bald?

:confused::confused::confused:

Transplanted hair that grows back is as good as the hair on the side of your head. If hair on the sides of you hair thins 15 percent at an elderly age (over 60), than expect your transplanted hair to thin that much as well. This is a non-issue for most people though.

I thought that transplanted hair would never thin at all... I thought it was permanent.

But what you're saying is the rule or is just for a very small amount of cases?

Most people I know have their back hair as thick as ever.

Matt, I did understand what you wrote and thanks a lot for explanning, when you said my donor is avg

Attention: Matt was just giving hsi own opinion based on your pictures.

Only a doctor after seeing you can say if your donor area is poor, average or good. I actually think it's good but it's just an opinion.

This is a question which has been bugging me a bit sometimes.

Sometimes I read that transplanted hair can fall in the future.

Just check this out:

"

Misconceptions

One common misconception regarding hair transplants is also something that potential patients ought to know. Hair that is transplanted via grafts is not, as many people believe, necessarily permanent. Transplanted hair can, and often does, thin after the procedure. The transplanted hair, however, is generally more resistant to falling out and almost always remains much thicker than the individual's natural hair.

"

So is this true at all or just a myth?

:confused::confused::confused: