Rootz

Hate to say it but people are just generally selfish like that. That's just how it is. People tend to come here when they need something, then leave and turn their back after getting it.

And some people who do in fact come back and post updates/results are sometimes doing so mainly for their own validation. We're all guilty of selfish behavior to some extent. It's human nature. Just sayin.

Finasteride.

*slowly closes book*

The. End.

I would think a FUT strip lowers the density of all nearby hair, but does so in a way that is more uniform and therefore subtle. When the skin is pulled together the surrounding skin is stretched out. The stretched skin should bounce back a little (in part to the scar stretching), but the overall density is still lower because there's less hair over the same surface area.

When the skin is stretched all hairs are being pulled away from each other in a relatively uniform fashion. Imagine if in FUE instead of plucking out entire grafts, they were all just spaced out ~10% more. The result is a very "natural" reduction in density as there are no holes or gaps (except for the giant scar itself lol).

I would think the same amount of grafts are harvestable with either FUE or FUE+FUT, but what it come down to is do you want a giant scar or possible a moth hole look? To me it makes more sense to push the boundaries with just FUE exclusively, and use FUT as a last resort. If you think about it, FUT leave a giant section of 0 density across your scalp... it's called the linear scar itself. So IMO the benefit you get from uniform density reduction is more than offset by this problem.

I agree with you, looks like you're thinning in a NW6 pattern. I think a lot of NW3-4 people would be envious of your hair though as you still have really nice coverage. If I were you I would definitely stay on Fin, even if you don't get noticeable new growth you will at the very least have significantly delayed if not outright stopped future loss.

During FUE surgery number 1 he makes 1,000 extractions. 10%** of the follicles are damaged during extraction so only 900 are useable.

 

During FUE surgery number 2, he makes another 1,000 extractions. This time it is a little harder as there is less hair to choose from and more guess work is required. 15% of the follicles are damaged during extraction so only 850 are useable.

 

During FUE surgery number 3, he makes another 1,000 extractions. This time it gets even harder as there is even less hair to choose from and scar tissue distorts the donor area slightly. 25% of the follicles are damaged during extraction so only 750 are useable.

 

During FUE surgery number 4, he makes another 1,000 extractions. This time it gets even harder as there is even less ideal hair to choose from and scar tissue distorts the donor area further. 40% of the follicles are damaged during extraction so only 600 are useable.

 

During FUE surgery number 5, he makes another 1,000 extractions. This time it gets even harder as there is even less hair to choose from. 50% of the follicles are damaged during extraction so only 500 are useable.

 

So the total FUE grafts obtained from the 5 sessions is 900+850+750+600+500 = 3,600 FUs

 

Compare this to 4,750 FUs that could have been obtained by starting with FUT.

 

So the reason why it is generally preferable to go FUT first: Every time you FUE the 'strip donor' area a percentage of it is destroyed.

 

Second point: the more you FUE the harder it gets to extract more hair. See example above. Furthermore, everyone has a certain limit as to how much hair can be taken before the donor starts to look thin. For the average density patient it is usually less than what can be taken via FUT.***

 

The particular example you give in Options 1 and 2 is quite conservative being only 2,000 FUs. It's when you get into the 4,000+ range it is better to start FUT (if you can) in order to get the most lifetime donor hair.

 

I could also add that FUT extracts from the safest part of the donor region but some of the so-called 'experts' and 'non-retards' won't like it:).

 

*According to Pathomvanic / Limmer / C.... (Atlanta) studies.

**Transection typically 10-20% for first time patient with some claiming <5% e.g. C... (Atlanta)

***BHR Clinic - Hair Transplant Clinic - FUE, Strip and Repair Surgery - Brussels

The hyperbole and generalization in the above explanation is kind of appalling. If you don't have some type of vested interest in FUT I would honestly be surprised.

The short answer as to why more people do FUT than FUE is, 1) People tend to trust doctors more than they should, 2) Most doctors do FUT and are more than happy to recommend it, 3) People tend to jump into decisions with improper research, especially when a doctor is giving them a thumbs up to do it

Looking for someone to go back in time and cure hairloss with. Must bring your own weapons. Safety not gauranteed. I have only done this once before.

It will likely be very red for many months, and the redness may linger on for a year or more. What I found to work was using dermablend lightly just on the area where the redness started, to soften the transition to red. I think if you're 10+ days out and gently wash it off at night you'll be fine.

Try to have the clinic shave only the transplanted area and keep the rest of the hair at length so that you have bangs. It may look stupid at first, having a ~2cm area shaved at your hairline then normal length hair behind that, but it will give you more options.

I agree it would only be a disadvantage. Also I can't help but point out you said HTs "cure" hairloss. Not necessarily, HTs address the effect but not the case. If you're a poor candidate and/or don't take the proper treatments (namely Fin) then you're just putting a bandaid on the problem and delaying the inevitable. Even if you take all the proper steps there's no saying your hairloss won't progress further.

On the morning of the surgery I designed an irregular undulating hairline just slightly lower than the existing hairline. HF requested a straighter hairline. I redesigned the hairline to accommodate creating something with a straighter design. WE then both had a good look to ensure the hairline was even. He signed off on the design and we proceeded.

Thanks for posting this, but I have to ask why was the assumption made that he wanted a significantly uneven hairline without discussing it first? And after he requested a straighter design, why was it still that uneven? I realize he gave you the thumbs up after the change, but when the doctor carries out a request by the patient there is usually a level of trust assumed that whatever the doctor did was for the best. You mentioned he continued to give you a thumbs up during various points of the procedure, but I think many people are sort of in shell shock during the process... and I assume he was drugged up as well.

I'm sorry to hear about your troubles. I agree the hairline seems sloppily drawn and imbalanced. Sometimes people like to have the hairline more aggressive on one side to accomodate their hair style while still conserving grafts, and doctors will recommend doing this. But I get the feeling that's not the case here, which is just not acceptable IMO. I would be unhappy with theat too. Also the idea of one doctor running 2-3 simultaneous transplants is disturbing.

I don't know anything about this guy, but has it been verified he in fact did a HT? The second pic isn't great quality but the improvement looks too good to be true for a HT, seems more like a wig. If the third pic is a HT I'd agree that seems to be a very solid HT.

FUE is better if you go to a world class doc. There are only a few of them in the world. Also per Theorem of Lorenzo,

While Dr. Lorenzo is in practice, FUE yields may be consistently obtained that are on par with, or arguably better than, the best possible FUT yields.

Yes to both questions.

But it's not bad, it's like getting blood drawn. I wouldn't worry about it at all.

None of those quotes are from world class FUE docs except Feriduni and Bisanga IMO, and their quotes aren't really conclusive of much. Konior specializes in FUT so I'm not surprised he has reservations about it.

Also... Theorem of Lorenzo

Try to get out of the habit of looking at your hair in mirrors for the first 4 months. Seriously. You're not going to see much and will just stress yourself out.

Bad FUT scars don't happen as much now days compared to the past, esp from top surgeons. Just like yield for fue is better now than it was in the past.

The thing is, a good FUT scar it still orders of magnitude more obvious than FUE scars. As for the yield, Theorem of Lorenzo. QED.

If you tap out on FUE (for most people this is 4000-5000 grafts) a strip procedure becomes out of the question, i.e. too visible.

Interesting how it seems your stance is that FUT is a perfectly good and even advantageous option for many, but if 15-25% of the donor is harvested then FUT suddenly becomes out of the question. It's mainly the length of hair that conceals a strip scar, there's already plenty of density there to conceal the scalp. This is why it is typically impossible to tell FUE harvesting has occurred once the hair is grown out again. If the scar is visible after harvesting, pretty sure it would have been visible before as well.

I'm a fan of Konior, and I think this is pretty good result, but to be honest I don't see what all the buzz is about with this one. For starters I think the surface area is a bit big for the number of grafts. However I'm also not sure about the yield of this one. There seems to be a noticeable number of grafts from the immediate post pic that did not grow out in the final results. Best examples of this are pics 14, 18, 24. Again I think this is pretty good, but the comments had me taking double takes at the pictures.

I was thinking this as well until I realized you couldn't shave down to the skin.

You can shave down to the skin with either FUT or FUE. It's just the FUT scar will be about 10x more obvious than the FUE dots. You can also medical tattoo the FUE scars a lot easier than the FUT scar. So while the exit strategy for FUE may not be perfect, it is certainly much better.

I have no idea what Rootz is talking about. Hair length will never be identical, however it is close.

I did not say it should be. A lot of clinics take their preop pics right after shaving down the hair for the procedure, and when the hair is longer it gives the appearance of "more hair." This is not always a coincidence.

The preop does not emphasize hair loss, neither does the post op hide it, it is simply a styled the way he presumably styles his hair.

Let's presume whatever fits our agenda. This is Lorenzo's case so there is likely a video showing everything anyways... meaning it probably doesn't matter that the hair was styled to layer up better post op in this one pic.

This is perfectly reasonable documentation... Ohh.....I get it, you did not realize it was one of his results.

You realize this one picture by itself is poor documentation, right? I don't know the full story either, including the situation with his Fin usage.

now you're suggesting that Lorenzo is using concealer in his result photos

The spin is real. Without seeing any other pictures/video, or knowing which doctor the pic was associated with, I wouldn't have ruled out the possibility.

KO, look at the picture I attached. Although, no hair was transplanted to the area I marked, the density seems to have got better as much as the transplanted areas?

Yes, most clinics skew the result in their favor by using methods to emphasize hairloss in preop pics and then concealing hairloss in postop pics. It's pretty lame, and unfortunately almost every clinic does it to some degree. There was even a doctor earlier this year posting photos that had been clearly computer edited... I wonder how just how many clinics use computer editing that haven't been caught.

In your pic the guy's hair is longer post op and it's combed more favorably so that the hairs overlap more. Who knows what else was done, maybe the lighting is better... could even be wearing concealing for all we know.

The redness will probably be pretty noticeable for several months and you likely won't experience significant growth until 4+ months. If you can't wear a hat for your interview your best bet might be just shave it down to guard 0 or 1 and say you had a bad reaction to shampoo. You might also want to apply some light makeup to the perimeter of the recipient area to blur in the contrast of the red line. I did this for about a month or so with Dermablend and it worked pretty well... I just made sure to wash it off before bed each night. I kept my native hair up top long and my recipient area was not as big as yours though.

http://cdn02.cdn.justjared.com/wp-content/uploads/headlines/2008/10/george-clooney-shirtless.jpg

 

Look at him here... Looks totally different..

That's the hairstyle he used for his role in the movie Men Who Stare At Goats. They shaved his hairline back like that on purpose for the character. He did a similar thing for the movie Syriana and also for the show ER.

You know you have great hair when they have to shave it back on purpose to look worse.

Let's think about risk/benefit:

 

After reviewing and cataloguing 2100 cases, 600 patient submitted, from the 5 major forums from 'elite' surgeons (yes I literally have data files on my computer with 50-150 cases per surgeon, stratified by graft count and technique), I've realized the chance of getting a wide donor scar are a fraction of the chance of getting low yield from an FUE surgery. The chance of a moderate, as opposed to excellent yield, from FUE is significant. I have seen this significantly less often with FUT.

Which elite doctors specifically were you looking at? FUE is a newer technique and one that is more difficult to produce results with, so if you're looking at a large sample size I would expect a noteworthy difference in yield.

I've realized the chance of getting a wide donor scar are a fraction of the chance of getting low yield from an FUE surgery.

Per the Theorem of Lorenzo you can consistently get exceptional yields from FUE. Convsersely, it is not possible for people in general to consistently get a narrow scar (also, for some people even a "narrow" scar is still too much to deal with).

... the chance of getting a wide donor scar...

I think regardless of if the scar is "thin" (i.e. 1-4mm) or "wide" (i.e. >4mm), if you shave down to a grade 1-2 the scar is probably going to be pretty noticeable either way. That's the problem with FUT scarring. You will likely never feel comfortable shaving down to a low grade. For some people that's acceptable... having a relatively huge scar that can be discovered by other people. And then of course, if you happen to produce mass amounts of collagen and/or have bad laxity there's the risk it could stretch considerably (>10mm) and turn into a nightmare.

I think it's natural, some people are just lucky like that. I saw a guy at the gym today must have been near 60 with Brad Pritt hair slicked back. Did a double take.