Rootz

At only 6 months I can see why he's happy, looks natural and is a big improvement. Frames his face a lot better. I think this was a good strategy.

I agree. To the point where it may be unhealthy for expectations of future patients.

My opinion is relative to other results I've seen, so I wouldn't say my expectation is unrealistic. Rahal himself has had better hairline results. I'm not saying this is a bad result, but just OK. Like a 6-7 out of ten.

I think it is more helpful to be critical of results posted by doctors, than it is to walk on egg shells. And I'm not just talking about the outcome itself, but also how it is presented. If everything half decent posted by doctors receives raive feedback, there's less incentive to provide better documentation and even better results.

If I was just starting to learn about HTs and was viewing this thread, personally I would find it more helpful to know that while this is a pretty good result, it probably could have been even better. And of course I would like to see media indicative of the actual result with proper comparisons of before and after. Not saying this case had that problem, but it is nonetheless a problem I see too often.

Overall I'd say this was OK. I think there was a minor issue with yield. In the final result his center forelock looks solid, but that's probably because most of that is his pre-existing hair. Fanning out from the center, the hairline looks a little on the light side, even for having some gel in his hair. This is me being very critical... it's pretty subtle, but there.

In the above shot you can see scalp shining through in various areas in the transplanted zone. For 3321 grafts in that area I would have expected a better illusion 14 months post op from Rahal.

Wet vs dry comparison, all things being equal the dry will look a lot better. But I still think this was a nice result for the surface area and grafts.

Doesn't really make sense how you could get a trojan from just opening and reading threads. The popular internet browsers out there have pretty good (and basic) security features to prevent this. If the virus scan program you're running is bogus, it could be looking at your internet browsing history and using a random website you visited as cause.

One word...."JohnnyB"

 

Hair Restoration Journal for Johnny B - Nearly 2 years

I wouldn't say this guy was a slow grower though, his 4-5 month results looked par for the coarse. By 9 months he already had a knock out result. But I do agree the result is amazing nonetheless.

Is this FUE?

The result looks great but the pictures don't show a case requiring 3000 grafts IMO unless all of the existing hair infront of the bald patch was transplanted over, which would seem like overkill to me. An immediate post op pic would be very informative.

I don't think an entire graft can come out without blood, unless it's maybe the day of the operation and it hasn't even had a chance to take hold yet. By day 8, your grafts should be fairly sturdy and if the entire graft did come out there should be blood.

The picture quality, hairstyle, and limited views obscure the result. I'm glad at least the doctor posting this openly admits this is basically a presentation of "the bet case scenario" of the result, as the hairstyle is tailor made to conceal flaws specifically in yield and lack of density. Might as well throw some concealer in there while we're at it... just be sure to add, "Note how the concealer makes his hair transplant appear more full."

I mean if someone really takes the time to contemplate a recommended surgeon against a non recommended surgeon, reads experiences, looks at picture, etc, and decides to go with the non recommended doc for whatever reason... at least they probably made an informed decision. The list of recommended doctors isn't the end all be all list, it's just a good reference IMO.

I'm more concerned with those who go with doctor X because... he's the closest and has a cool website. And that's about the extent of their research. I think one of the reasons this happens is people want to fix their hairloss "now"... we all get that impulse sometimes of wanting to do something "now," but it's obviously not always the best instinct.

I was on a waiting list for over half a year and flew to the other side of the planet for my HT. Yeah I could have gone to someone nearby sooner and probably even saved some money... but what's waiting half a year when the result is lifelong. I don't see the point in sacrificing the result to save money when we're only talking a few thousand dollars... just save up your money until you're ready. Twenty years from now do you really want to be thinking, "... Not entirely happy with my HT, wonder if I would be happier if I had just saved up for a little longer and gone with the more proven doctor."

An immediate post op view showing where the grafts were placed would have been helpful, but just eyeballing it for 3781 grafts his hairline seems a little light. On the plus side it looks natural and it's a nice improvement, but I would have expected a little more density.

Yeah I've noticed a little swell of posters latley doing this. I also can't relate to the logic. If you're going to make a huge decision like this, why not spend the extra time and possibly money to ensure a good result? Some people come here realizing this, only it's too late... but then you have the ones that are already members and posting about going to X doctor because they saw them on an infomercial or local advertisement and it's like, have you read anything on here?

How old are you by the way?

I don't think it's a question of if you will lose hair in the future, but rather how much hair. It is very rare to not experience significant hair loss as you age. If you're banking on it not happening, that's a very bad bet. I'm assuming you're around 18. In all probability you will be NW2-3 by 25.

The only way a reputable HT doctor would do work on you is if you're at least 18, have been on a solid treatment plan (with Finasteride) around a year or more, and then only for a conservative approach like maybe the one I suggested.

In other words, if you find a doctor to lower your hairline as much as you've shown, it will probably turn out poorly because the doctor will be a hack... not to mention you will have set yourself up for a nightmare later on down the road.

My honest opinion, your hairline does look high but just slightly. I think it's for two reasons: 1) the right side of your hairline is higher than the left, 2) your hairline seems to go up towards the center (instead of downward).

I think if you were to hypothetically get a HT, you could just match the right side with the left, and then level out the front so that it dipped down slightly instead of up, and you'd probably be pretty satisfied.

The amount you lowered the entire hairline is very extreme and unnecessary IMO. I don't think you would find a doctor who would do that, but even if you did it's better to start out conservatively. For example, if you did what I suggested above and like it... great, you're done. If not, you can still go from there.

With that said, because you're interested in getting a HT your first coarse of action should be to get on a solid treatment plan. A HT is a lifelong commitment. It is a big responsibility. If you did a HT to accomplish what you showed here, but did not do sufficient preventative measures, you would dig yourself into a big hole. The hairline you have now will recede. How much? Only time can tell. There are plenty of celebrities who were NW1 in their mid to early twenties and then suddenly over the course of a few years receded to NW2-3 or greater.

Don't take for granted what you already have

Good stuff overall, I agree with 1 week being the magic number for swelling... that's what I noticed for me at least. By day 5 most of the swelling was gone but it was still noticeable. If anyone I knew had looked at me I'm sure they would have said something. But at day 6 you could no longer tell. Some people do not experience swelling, but I believe most will.

I think if you can possibly avoid shaving off most or all your recipient area hair it's worth it. Shaving everything off tends to look better immediately post op, but quickly goes out of the style as the scabs/hairs in the recipient area fall out and then you're left with obvious red areas that you cannot cover.

I had ~2550 grafts in the hairline and temple points, but left as much hair as possible up top uncut. Right afterwards it looked like I had a very bad hair cut by someone who didn't know what the were doing... the top of my head was shaved unevenly and did not blend. But once I was able to put my hair down the next day, the only visible part was a small portion of the temple point.

It's been a few weeks now and no one I know has any idea I had it done, not even my roommate. I put just a small amount of dermablend on the outside of the visible edges of the temple points, so that the transition to red is more subtle. I wash it off before bed each night. Visited the family and they had no idea. But if you pull up my bangs, it's very obvious.

Unfortunately it looks like your hairloss is very aggressive, in the pic seems like a NW6-7 balding pattern and you're only 22. I think the best thing you could have done is get on Fin/Minoxidil, and you've already done that so that's great. Look into Nizoral shampoo too. At this point it's way too early for a HT, you should wait and see what happens and try to stabilize your hair. I'd give it a year minimum. You want to see how your hair continues to progress after it's stabilized.

Transplanting into the crown area anytime soon would basically be a misuse and waste of grafts. Reinforcing the hairline to help better frame your face might be a reasonable option in the near future (again I'd wait at least a year, preferably longer).

You may very well experience a lot of regrowth on your treatment, so remain hopeful!

Awesome, looks very nice

It definitely makes a difference, the doc has more to lose than a tech who could just quit and find another job if the results turn out poor.

What is this based on? Just Lorenzo? I agree his results stand out, but it's unclear why exactly and he's just one case.

All things being equal I'd rather have a doctor insert grafts into the pre-cut holes, but the whole process is a team effort. No doctor does 100% of everything. The top tier doctors make sure their techs are highly qualified. At Feriduni's clinic his head nurses have been there for years, one in particular I think 17 years. They're like a family. I think it comes down to... do you like the results of the clinic and do you trust the doctor.

Inserting the grafts is more of a physical ability than anything else. There's not much thought involved. It's sort of like saying a basketball player needs a degree in order to shoot the ball. Nope.

I agree with Spanker, just because the person doing the insertions is not a doctor doesn't mean the results will suffer. The insertions are done quickly just seconds apart. There is obviously a technique involved, but I think it comes down more to consistency than technique. Who has steady hands and can carefully repeat this process thousands of times? Apparently Lorenzo is one of the best in the world at doing this, the fact that he is also the doctor is just an added bonus as you have a better idea of who is doing it... there's probably doctors out there who do try to "do it all" at the cost of results because honestly they're just not great at it.

Did your hair stabilize before getting your HT? How long were you on Fin beforehand? You say Fin has seemed to lose effectiveness after a few years, how long exactly are we talking and what makes you say that? Like, how much loss have you had while on Fin?

My thought is that it's pretty safe to go down the HT route if: 1) you've been on Fin for a long period beforehand and stabilized loss, 2) do a reasonable HT for your age and level of loss, and 3) continue Fin.

But I would also say the less aggressive the hair loss, the less risk there is too. A 30 year old who is a NW2 is probably not going to be losing much hair in the near future, even without medication. Whereas with a 30 year old NW4, future loss is more volatile. He could potentially be NW6 in 10 years, although on Fin I think this is highly unlikely it is perhaps still possible.

I think some would say FUT is more effective at harvesting and using grafts but I personally don't think FUT has a fundamental advantage anymore. The difference in yield between FUT and FUE at the highest level is basically non existent.

As far as maximizing the absolute number of grafts you can harvest, you should get the same amount if you first harvested everything possible with FUE followed next by FUT, and vice versa.

I personally think it makes more sense to start out with FUE (with a top doc), and if you eventually exhaust all your FUE donor then and only then worry about FUT.

The only exception I suppose would be if you're looking to spend the least amount of money, refuse to travel, and don't care about the possibility of having a large scar on the back of your head... in which case, you're not serious enough and shouldn't even be getting a HT anyways IMO.

If you've chosen a doc, you'll definitely want to email this question to em. But I think most docs lift the no physical activity and hat restrictions by 2 weeks for FUE, so more than likely you'd be fine. I think the main issue you would have is if the lining in the hard hat where it connects with your head directly overlapped some of the grafts... if it did, it's a bit risky just 2 weeks out IMO. Otherwise, I think you'd be fairly safe. But definitely ask a doctor when you can.

I thought the density of the hairs right before they fell out shortly post op was much less than the actual final result. At least that's what I remember seeing when looking at before/after pictures. The scabs in the recipient area might give an illusion of density, but if you look at the actual hairs the difference should be night and day with the final result. My guess is many hairs have either fallen out already or didn't continue to grow (and are too small to see before falling out). Maybe the hairs that grew before falling out are the ones that will come back first.

Interesting, I may just forget about concealers then and come up with a story. The one about shampoo seems plausible, thanks GoForIt.

I did exactly what watch4norwoods did and it worked pretty well. I've had a total of about 1k grafts into TPs. Using vitamin E or Emu oil can help with post op redness, too.

 

Though it's too late, the only thing I could have recommend is a procedure with Dr. Konior as I had some temple work done by him early this winter and after 4 days there was only a very slight hint any work was done at all.

Didn't you still have scabs 4 days post op, or did it not matter because were they covered by your other hair?

How many grafts are you going for Rootz and who is your surgeon?

Somehow missed your post, I'll try throwing vitamin E into the mix. Just got back from surgery with Feriduni and the total grafts were ~2500, about 600 of those went into the temples.

Is MT2 the tanning injection? I don't know, think that would be too extreme for me. I did grow out my bangs, but the temple work I'm doing will go down to the sideburns so I a large chunk cannot be covered. I'm hoping I can cover the exposed redness with liquid Dermablend but I get this feeling the redness will still bleed through.