Rootz

It's actually a good idea to get a nice tan before the operation in the area so that the redness contrasts less. I went to a tanning salon and tanned nothing but my forehead area for about a month beforehand, I think it definitely helped. Covering the whole area with like a tanning cream for prolonged periods after the OP is probably safe but I personally wouldn't risk it.

The redness in the recipient area can easily take over half a year to fully fade. It is not uncommon for there to be lingering redness even a year postop. I'd say you're probably ahead of the curve on the redness healing based on your pics. The best thing you can do besides being patient is avoid prolonged sun exposure and apply aloe vera to the area daily.

They can't even figure out hair cloning, so probably not!

If you see this as a long term thing, I think you should tell her but only if/when you're certain you will going for the 2nd HT. Otherwise, I wouldn't say anything unless she asks or it just comes up on it's own. I think the concealers are a nonissue that isn't even worth bringing up either way. If you do tell her, don't make it seem like a big deal. Don't build it up and be like, "Babe I've got to tell you something... I don't know how you're going to react blah blah blah" just be nonchalant about it as though you're talking about the weather.

I believe everyone has side effects from the drug, but some more severe than others. Like you said, it messes with the chemistry of our bodies on a fundamental level... how could you NOT have some type of side effect? I think in the overwhelming majority of cases the side effects are minimal enough not to be a problem. I don't know how many of the doomsday stories from people with permanent debilitating side effects are real, but what I'm sure of is that many of these (how many? I don't know) are the placebo effect manifest... so I tend to take stories with like those with a grain of salt. This is unfortunate because I would bet some major permanent problems are in fact directly related to the drug. When I was researching this heavily I remember there being at least 3 large clinical studies that seemed credible. One was related to Merckx, and of course I was dubious of that one, however the other two were not as far as I could tell. If I remember they were all independent of each other and concluded somewhere around 1.5-3% chance of side effects. Why do you say the 2% figure is bogus? I mean should I believe scientific studies involving thousands of people, or...?

Really nice coverage and density for the grafts

Not very clear over what area the grafts were placed, an immediate post op would have been helpful.

I agree about follicle survival rate but if you see a top end FUE doctor like Lorenzo I think the difference is very insigificant if not outright negligible. At that point it's a question of do I want like 0-2% more grafts to survive, or a major scar. In a 2500 graft case 0-2% is 0-50 grafts. I'd much rather risk losing up to 50 grafts in that hypothetical. It is interesting Lorenzo does not gaurantee above 85%, but I suspect his survival rate is is still very high. Regardless of whatever the numbers may be, I see Lorenzo get coverage and density that I'm not even sure any FUT doctor could get. I'm sure his survival rate is very similiar if not the same as the best FUT.

Yes to all the above. Been on fin for about 5 months and I don't think it is improving my situation much, but I didn't expect it to. More than likely it is preventing future loss and that my friend is a wonderful thing

Are there any credible clinical studies to back this up? Stuff like this is generally either a flat out scam or of such minimal benefit it's not worth the effort.

Fin is a very long term investment, it's mainly for preventing future loss and maintaining what you have. So take comfort knowing that you're on the right path. I think very few people see significant improvement from their starting point, and that's after probably 6+ months. For the first few months your hair could very well look a bit worse as the weaker hairs shed out before coming back stronger.

I mean, can you really be sure you won't ever want to wear your hair short? And what is "short?" If your scar turns out badly, short may turn out to be rather... long. I would agree with FUE being more of a gamble if you were to blindly select a HT surgeon at random... but if you do your research and are willing to pay a bit more, I think it's definitely the other way around.

If a rep responds with a case, they're a troll. If they don't, it's because they can't prove you wrong. I guess they can't win! There's plenty of grade A work that has been posted here that looks very natural. As hsrp10 alluded to a recent female hairline case by Konior is a good example of such. I linked it below, http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/175789-raymond-konior-md-chicago-female-hairline-restoration-2161-grafts.html Like I said, pretty much all of Lorenzo's hairlines look great... watch some of the videos posted here or on his website. Here's a few examples from Feriduni. If I met any of the people in the following cases without knowing about their HT, I would think, "Those lucky bastards!" ... I'm sure I'd have no idea. http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/171400-fue-performed-dr-feriduni-%96-2972-fu-two-days-session.html http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/168409-fue-performed-dr-feriduni-%96-2485-fu-single-day-session.html http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/168070-fue-performed-dr-feriduni-%96-3112-fu-2-successive-days-session.html http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/161602-fue-performed-dr-feriduni-%96-1441-fu-single-day-session.html

Overall for 1730 grafts looks nice and natural, but I'm curious what his hair looked like preop. Did he any have more native hair in the frontal region than what's shown immediate post op? The work on the temple points turned out really well. It's interesting that the left and right temple corners were designed so differently (pic 1 vs 3), yet when they grew in the difference is insigificant.

If lower density is the desired outcome, an appropriate amount of grafts is used, and the pictures are honest then I have no beef. Unfortunately you rarely ever see doctors clarify, "Ok the goal here was mainly coverage, we were aiming for low density." It also doesn't help that most the time the pictures are biased and the flaws of the HT (including low density) are concealed. And, like in this case, there is often no immediate post op pic so it's unclear where exactly the grafts went. So yes, I like to point out that the density is low... in this particular case the last picture looks great but it should be noted the real density is lower than what that image portrays. I think your 99% figure is definitely an exagerration as I see plenty of cases on here with higher density. There are also many cases of NW4-6 becoming NW1-2, with higher density.

And what do you use to make the existing frontal forelock disappear right before surgery, then reappear?

Going from memory of when I watched the video, it didn't seem like he gained a whole lot on the last 1 or 2 revisions. But who knows maybe he thought it was worth it.

If most of those hairs up top are transplanted hairs that's really good growth for only 4 months. Usually the hairs are still pretty wispy by this point. You also seem to be healing very well. It might just be the lighting but I don't see any redness, it's like you never had a HT and hairs just magically started growing.

I was pleasantly surprised when I got to the last picture, which is a great shot of the entire hairline itself. Awesome. The main problem I see is the frontal forelock as a whole lacks density. The hairline itself is well defined, but the whole thing is relatively weak. The last picture I was talking about gives the impression the density is higher than it actually is. But if you let the hairs stand up it becomes rather see through, as seen in the 2nd to last pic. This is probably a pretty good result for 2700 grafts because of the large surface area, but it's hard to say how large the surface area was (no immediate post op pic). On an absolute scale, however, this isn't a particularly good result, and if I was the guy I would be planning a touch up in the front.

As it stands this is not an impressive HT. However at 8 months post he probably will see more improvement in the coming months. The density is currently too low and contrasts with the native hair (temple points in particular). There is no immediate post op pic so it's unclear how exactly the grafts were spent, but I think if the grafts were spent efficiently it should have been possible to get a nicer result. Hopefully he gets a better result in the coming months.

Good result, but weak density and not very natural... check. Wait, what? :confused: Well, if you say so! I think this is probably a nice but subtle improvement for 1538 grafts. But it's difficult to see the result because the pictures are not the best quality.

One moment, let me add your website to the list of places to NEVER go to... not for a HT, or any reason whatsoever. Appreciate it.

I've seen many high end results that look really natural IMO. I don't have any particular cases in mind, but most of the hairlines done by Lorenzo are both dense and typically indistinguishable from naturally occuring ones. It's hard to define "natural" though because hair naturally takes so many different appearances. I don't think anyone can accurately determine whether some of these top end results are natural or not without very close inspection. The best doctors already do staggered hairline lines and patterns. I take it you're suggesting the use of nape hair to simulate miniaturized hair? I think that could be beneficial, but at the same time I'm not sure having miniaturized hair is a requirement to be natural. But even if it was, I'm not sure it would be really necessary. Is there a case with nape hair you can link? Now with that said, I agree most results I see online (including here) have the "HT" look to them... it may be subtle, and maybe no one in the real world would ever suspect anything, but it's usually there and you can pick up on it if you're looking for it. I'm mainly talking about the hairline. The most common tell is hair line itself being too consistent... as in the line is too well defined and/or the hairs are placed in a synthetic looking pattern. One way to avoid the above problem is to intentionally transplant at very low density. This gives a result that looks like the person is still losing hair, but can be very hard to detect if done right. Of course, people generally don't want to look like they're still losing hair or thinnin, so this is not necessarily a good idea but can still offer improvement. I've seen low caliber work that while I would not necessarily call good, sometimes looks very natural... for whatever that's worth.

Obviously a really nice result, but even though he had 4 touch ups I think Lorenzo has had better hairline results. Video is a little blurry, a bit hard to see clearly though.

I think this is a nice improvement but the quality of the HT as well as just how much he benefited is unclear. He had quite a bit of hair up top preop and it was cut short (pre) vs long (post), so it's hard to tell how much the top of his head benefited from the HT. It's also hard to tell how much the hairline improved because his hair is concealing it. Wonder why only four pics could be posted.