Rootz

Where is this new consensus coming from, message boards? The problem with online polling is those who do not have issues with the drug are significantly less likely to post about it, or even be on a message board about it to begin with. There are several large scale, seemingly credible studies supporting the 2% figure. I think it's silly to overlook these results and instead try to draw statistical conclusions from various stories posted online. Don't get me wrong, I think Finasteride is a very serious drug that will alter the chemistry of your body in ways that can potentially lead to major problems. I think everyone who takes it has side effects. But, I think only around 2% have reactions significant enough to really be noticeable. I also think most or even possibly all of the horror stories about the drug are psychologically driven. Some of the things people claim the drug has done to them doesn't even make sense. I tend to think if some of those people had taken sugar pills under the same assertions they'd still have problems.

Everyone is superficial, and yet everyone pretends not to be. Yep same old story. The reality is hair has a huge impact on looks. Some people can look better shaved, but they're the exception not the norm.

I think you're being a bit paranoid. The hairline looks staggered/natural and the density isn't unusual or too high... I'd honestly have no idea if I met him without seeing this thread. People have different sized foreheads and hairlines. Many women who have had no hair loss have large foreheads too.

Thanks I did not know this was Paulygon, I'm looking at his photo album now and have to say his result is... inexpicably amazing. I don't think this post does the result justice at all. It's kind of weird there are so many more pictures available but the doctor just used a few which don't tell the full story. I still standby what I posted before, by the way. Which is that... it's hard to tell how good/bad the result is based on the limited pictures. Filling in the blanks by assuming the best and declaring "Great result" is usually a bad idea.

I think this is probably an OK result, but too many details are not shown. The hairline, temple corners, and top of the head are hidden by the angle and his hairstyle (combed forward). There's also no pic of his FUT scar area. It would appear this is a large surfiace area, but with no immediate post op pic it's hard to say just how large. Although his head was shaved short preop, he still had quite a bit of frontal hair left too. When limited pictures are posted and weak comparisons are made I tend to think things are being intentionally hidden. So I see no reason to give the benefit of the doubt when filling in the blanks here. I have a feeling if closeup pictures in good lighting were made of this patient with his hair combed to up and apart, the result would not appear nearly as good.

Looks good, and I agree very natural. Some closeup pics would have been nice though.

Thank you for the clarification, I am confused though how the low density in the donor hair would translate into significantly lower (and overall just "very low") density at the hairline. Although there was a big improvement, he still looks like he is rapidly going bald at the hairline due to the very low density. It looks natural, but I find it strange he desired this look especially since he was interested in improving just the front.

I feel like I'm looking at the wrong pictures based on the positive comments. What I see is definitely not impressive, in my opinion. First of all the transplanted hair doesn't accurately follow the hairline drawn in the preop pics. I don't know if the hairline was changed, or if there was a severe issue with yield. Also it looks like 3544 grafts should have been enough to provide a nice illusion of density with a strong hairline. However, you can see scalp in numerous areas in the transplanted zone and the hairline is weak. If the patient is happy that is great, but based on what I see I definitely would not be.

You ideally should be on Minoxidil and your other treatments for at least 6 months prior to the HT. Typically doctors will completely transplant over miniaturized areas, but if you've been on treatment for a while a lot of those miniaturized hairs could come back strong and not need to be transplanted over. You also said you've been experiencing a lot of hairloss lately, which to me sounds like you're not ready. You should try to stabilize your hairloss beforehand.

Shots with the hair pulled up showing the hairline would have been really nice. It looks like the grafts may have come in nicely, but I find it strange how the grafts were used. It seems like an overwhelming majority of the grafts were used to fill in the hairloss behind the hairline and a ways back towards the crown. But not a whole lot were used to frame his face, as he still has a similar hairline and level of loss at the very front (i.e. pic 7 of 10). For wanting to focus on improving things up front, I find this strategy weird. Maybe he still wanted to appear as though he was experiencing quite a bit of hairloss upfront still after the HT to look more natural.... I personally would not want that but maybe he did.

It's hard to say just how bad the result is for 1559 grafts, but based on the drawn hairline area (pic 3 of 10) this guy should have ideally needed around 3000 grafts. As a final result, this is definitely bad. For 1559 grafts, it might be decent.. but of course I find it hard to believe the patient was going for this low density look.

The chances you'll experience noticeable sexual side effects should be around 2%. The chances those side effects, if you experience them, would be permanent... probably ranges between 0% and some number barely larger than 0. I included 0% because I'm not aware it's actually been scientifically proven. The important thing to realize is if you give enough people fake pills (i.e. sugar pills) under the premise there can be sexual side effects... you will get people who experience permanent sexual side effects from them. Would you say the sugar pills caused permanent sexual problems? No. Not directly at least.

Great pictures, and I think the result is pretty decent for the amount of grafts... but I think the outcome is ultimately underwhelming. The transplanted area is too big for only 1559 grafts. His left side temple looks about par for what I would expect for this amount of grafts, but his right seems notcieably less dense. The very front of the hairline looks pretty good at a glance, but that's because he had a lot of existing hair there and the hairline wasn't lowered much in front. Overall I would call the transplanted density "low" and don't quite understand why the term "dense packing" was used to describe this case. I hope the patient and doctor both understood this was only enough grafts for a low density look. I personally would have wanted more grafts.

Looking at this again I think this might be the most density I've ever seen in a HT. Not sure how good Dr. Konior is at FUE but I can only hope he someday specializes in it.

Interesting, I would have expected a maximum more than 2000 grafts but of course different doctors have different ideas about target densities. Thanks

Without an immediate post op pic it's hard to tell how far back behind the hairline the grafts were put. One of the reasons it's hard to tell is because the pictures do not show a great comparison. The preop pics are revealing (hair standing up), whereas the post op ones are not (hairs combed over). But if I had to guess based on what I can see I still think is a pretty good result for only 2104 grafts. As a side note, I think his preop "I don't give a fack" hairstyle looked better ironically.

Thanks can you comment on what the minimum and maximum numbers recommended by the doctor were?

Did the patient realize beforehand that this was a low number of grafts for the surface area? I ask because if I was in his shoes I would have preferred to fill in the area with more density, which would probably have been around 2500 grafts. For the amount of grafts I think this is not bad. It looks like the right temple corner (his right) may have had some issue with yield though.

Really nice. Assume this is FUT?

Are you implying this result is dense then? I'm not saying the pictures are using a full blown comb over either, but a comb over method is used to create a better illusion of hair. Regardless of how much the HT has helped, I still think a large chunk of the improvement is due to severely biased comparisons. Is this supposed to be an infomercial or presentation? I don't think this is entirely true but I generally agree. Thanks. My main accusation was that this is extremely biased. I feel like it's pretty obvious and there's no point beating around the bush but maybe you're right.

Can't comment if any are fake, but the idea of showing what is possible by doctoring the picture would be extremely lame.

Roman I understand people grow at different rates, but to have something close to the final result by 4 months is a stretch, "Acell" or not. Either way it's hard to tell just how much the HT has helped at this point due to the nature of the presentation. I believe the majority of the difference between the before and afters shown by this case comes down to how the hair is styled and combed... and the after pictures themselves are far from revealing. Every weakness in the 4 month result is hidden as best as possible, whereas in preop it's the exact opposite. Why would I want to see an illusion of improvement? Doctor I don't understand how you came to this conclusion, in the first two pictures there is clearly a large island of hair. And he strangely has an outline of hair around his entire hairline preop. And yet you just claimed he has "No hair in the frontal and temporal regions" preop... Let's suppose he has no hair in his frontal and temporal regions. You are aware that combovers can be exclusively with hair from the sides of the head? Yes, he came in with his hair styled well because he wants to look good. I'm not surprised. But did you actually ask or try to get more revealing pictures when he took the trouble to come in? When he came in preop with his hair styled you didn't take pictures? You said you didn't even touch his hair when he came in for pictures... did you even know what was in his hair? What he using toppik? Did you ask? Really now? You don't have to make movies to be a movie critic either. If you say so yourself... either way, would your reputation be as stellar if you provided more revealing pictures and better before and after comparisons? You may be right that I am not fully appreciating the improvement of the HT itself. Maybe the HT is 60% of difference in the after pics instead of like 40%... if so my bad, but if the presentation wasn't so biased it would be easier to tell.

Something fishy is going on here and I dislike the presentation. At only 4 months there should not be a whole lot of growth, and yet the pictures attempt to give the impression there was a big transformation. For starters the before and after comparison is biased and very weak. In the before his hair is intentionally combed apart and/or wet to expose the hairloss... yet in the after it is styled impeccably in a type of comb over (it was grown out and now all going from left to right). For all we know if he grew his native hair for 4 months he may have been able to achieve the same comb over without an HT. Who knows? He also appears to have an existing hairline (from a previous op?) before this HT. How much of the hairline in the 4 month result pics was his existing, and how much is his new? Again, who knows. We can't tell. I guess we're supposed to use our imagination. Also, doctor I notice you routinely post results after just 6 months or in this case only 4 months. I'm starting to suspect maybe this is because the patient didn't come back for later pictures and you just want something to post and show? I don't have a problem with this of course, so long as the presentation is not biased. I'm hesitant to believe this patient is "extremely happy" after only 4 months... unless his expectations were low and the minimal early growth he is seeing already satisfies him.

I'm not seeing how picture 4/4 (result) follows from 2/4 (hairline drawn). The hairline drawn looks different from the outcome. He actually looks like he might have less hair post op. Kind of confused. It's also hard to see much in the result pictures due to the angles and hairstyle, the hairline itself is hidden. I'm pretty confident you could have combed and styled his hair preop to actually look better than the post op pictures... which is, kind of bizarre to say the least.

Interesting question. While having the hairline is nice for framing the face, most people associate baldness with that bald spot on the crown. If you just have a significantly receded hairline (i.e. NW3) people usually don't attach the "bald" stigma to you, but as soon as they see the bald spot on the crown... congratulations, you're now "bald." If I had to choose between having no hairline but crown intact (NW4A) or having a NW1 hairline with a big bald spot, and I couldn't get a HT or anything I would just be stuck as one or the other... I guess I'd choose the big bald spot. But if the decision was between having somewhat of a hairline (NW3) or the NW1 hairline + big bald spot it would be pretty hard to choose... I might just go with the NW3. Depends how big the bald spot was I guess.