Jump to content

generic1

Regular Member
  • Posts

    29
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by generic1

  1. I'm sure this question has been hashed over already.

     

    Can anyone point me to some links on the forum discussing how long the recommended wait period is before a second HT?

     

    I'm finishing up on month 9, and it's doubtful the three remaining months will yield satisfactory results.

     

    Is there a standard duration? Or does it vary from surgeon to surgeon?

  2. Is there anything to be done about this?

     

    I went to a top 5 clinic, and 8 months in, I'm very disappointed that much of my new hair grows in an unnatural direction.

     

    From the temples, a significant number of my transplanted hairs grow forward, pointing towards my face. Others straight point out, perpendicular to the skull, and don't follow the natural flow of my native hair. The same problem goes for the hairline. If I would've know this was going to be a problem, I'm not sure I would've taken the leap.

     

    I'm thinking maybe using that high-powered relaxer stuff that African-american women use, but I don't have any experience with it.

     

    Thoughts? Suggestions?

  3. Originally posted by TheEmperor:
    Originally posted by Severn:

    Who did you have your first procedure with?

    He is a top-5 doctor and I dont think he did anything wrong. I think my expectations for density were set a bit high, and there may have been some reduced growth in the hairline. I have seen him use "jaggies" on other patients and it looks good, but for whatever reason, in my case they seem pronounced.

     

     

    By any chance, do your "jaggies" look anything like mine? I'm only 2 months post-op, so you'll only be able to see what mine looked like the day after the procedure. I've always thought of them as "piers" because that's the way they look on a map.

     

    http://tinyurl.com/jaggies

     

    http://tinyurl.com/piers482

     

    Like you, I've seen my top-5 clinic produce good outcomes using this method. But I wasn't aware of their "jaggy" technique until after the procedure and have no small amount of anxiety about what the result will be.

  4. Originally posted by mmhce:
    Apparently Minoxidil says, on it's packaging, that its not for receding baldness, only for the "vertex" of the scalp, the crown or back of the head.

     

    This has to do with the control boundaries that were set up during the initial pharmaceutical research. The pharmacological effect is potent throughout ALL areas of the scalp.

     

    Is this true? I should be applying Rogaine to the hairline too?

  5. ??? While the actual photos that H&W chose to use for their estimates did not include my whole face, they did indeed receive a number of pictures separately that showed my face in its entirety.

     

    ??? The Epstein pictures were taken by the patient coordinator, so I can't speak to those. I'm guessing not.

     

    ??? The Shapiro photos included my entire face, and were edited by me afterwords.

  6. Of course I'm not going to go for the full Mike Ditka, and I understand the notion of saving donor hair to guard against future loss.

     

    But I do question the received wisdom that a hairline at 34 can't reasonably look the same as a hairline at 64.

     

    I look at Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, Alec Baldwin, etc. Putting the issue of density aside for a moment, their hairlines did not recede or mature at all, and I don't recall them suffering adverse consequences -- quite the contrary. Their very success depends on remaining in the public eye. No one mentions their "immature hairlines."

     

    These are not the majority of men, sure. But I see these Stalin-esque hairlines in men over 50 all the time. And even the Shapiro estimate isn't that aggressive.

  7. Originally posted by HairHope:

    Did you get graft estimates from each doc. For you to lower your hairline as in the one which is most extreme would be a megasession, maybe two.

     

    I did receive graft estimates.

     

    ??? Hasson & Wong recommended 1500 for the hairline and a minimum of 2000 grafts on the crown.

     

    ??? Epstein recommended 2400-2700 for the hairline, with little or no work recommended on the crown.

     

    ??? Shapiro Medical Group recommended "1500 -2300, maybe 2500" for the hairline and 800-1000 for the crown.

     

    Before going further, I should mention I have a very rare learning disorder called dyscalculia.

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyscalculia

     

    Numbers, spatial relations, even reading a map, is very difficult for me. So if there's ever a discrepancy regarding numbers, it's usually my fault. Anything that has to do with the abstraction of quantity is very hard for me to understand.

     

    That's kind of why I needed the pictures. It was easier for me to figure out how the numbers corresponded to the hairlines. Still, the large variation in graft recommendations was pretty distressing.

  8. Originally posted by Mane Attraction:

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears that the H&W hairline was also drawn onto his photo digitally. It seems they just took additional time to define the exact shape.

     

     

    Hasson & Wong are the only ones who offer this service as a function of their online consultation, so yes, more time was taken in the process of rendering the photo digitally. But I wouldn't penalize the other two in comparison though, being as how they don't normally offer the feature. I liked the service so much that I requested it from the other prospective clinics, and they were kind enough to accommodate me. I think everyone should offer it. It's a great way to manage expectations.

     

    ??? The Hasson & Wong photos were taken by me with my laptop camera. After looking at the lighting quality of some other photos on this site, mine left something to be desired. So if there's an apples-to-oranges effect going on here, I apologize.

     

    ??? The Epstein photos were taken by their patient coordinator on a visit to me here in San Francisco. They were more for the surgeon to evaluate back in Miami, than for the me, the patient.

     

    ??? The Shapiro photos were taken by myself after I went out and finally bought a digital camera. (Which I should've done in the first place.)

     

    Originally posted by ShavedDethMonk:

    I like the lowered hairline ... only because that is what is bothering me about my hairline .. the "high forehead".

     

     

    Yes, absolutely. It's tough for those of us born with huge, high foreheads to resist thinking of hair transplantation as a cosmetic way to mitigate that fact, instead of just the hair loss, (which is what we should be focused on). It's not that we want high-school hairlines per se (a la Robert Pattinson) we just wish for more natural forehead-to-face ratios.

     

    (And no Mane Attraction, I have had no previous hair transplants. Virgin scalp, for the moment.)

  9. when clinics like Bernstein's don't even allow for a mere *comment* or critique of their work by patients and prospective patients alike it is a slap in the face and serves to stymie the forward progress that Bill works so hard for, and that we all look forward to.

     

    It's also much more concrete than that. It's stymies the doctor's bottom line as well. Each prospective patient who reads these comments represents, literally, thousands of dollars. Why they wouldn't want to remain competitive is beyond me. It amounts to leaving money on table. But I'm not a businessman. Maybe there's some part of the equation I'm missing. But I certainly appreciate Bill & Pat's efforts. I'd be lost without this site.

  10. What TC17 said.

     

    It seems his status in limbo. "Under review." This review process appears to be a case where Bill just needs a few more data points in order to identify a trend.

     

    It's very frustrating for everyone involved. I was this close to choosing Epstein earlier this month, but this thread spooked me. I'd specifically like to know more about the alleged "6-7 cases." And I'd certainly invite anyone to email me privately with stuff they feel uncomfortable displaying publicly. Seeing is believing for me.

     

    I'd really love for the whole issue to be resolved, or at least have it be resolved that it's going to be unresolved. (Which is the same as a tacit no-vote, in my opinion.)

     

    I have a hard time believing that a top surgeon could suddenly go bad, but at the same time, anything less than a categorical endorsement from Bill speaks volumes and I trust the majority opinion of this community explicitly.

     

    Is he a good doctor or not? Whether he was good in the past is immaterial once you're under the knife.

  11. "medicine cannot predict how any individual is going to react to any given treatment"

     

    Sure it can, within a fairly close range, and it does so all the time. Otherwise, what's the point of testing treatments at all?

     

    That's why it is also an art. . . trying to figure out what is going on and how best to deal with a particular situation.

     

    I think you're confusing "art" with "estimation".

     

    Medicine simply at this point does not have a good enough understanding of the underlying science of the human body for it to be anything more than an art.

     

    This has not been true since about the end of the 17th century.

     

    Just because a field of study does not have complete predictive power, like say, higher mathematics, it does not then follow that that thing is therefore "art". We can't say for sure what the effects of Viagra are going to be in advance, but we can get pretty close a majority of the time. That's why we hypothesize, test, and draw conclusions.

     

    But performing surgery and curing disease and prescribing medication is not art. Theater is an art. There's a difference, and anything less than a clear division lets practitioners off the hook.

  12. Originally posted by Hoping:

    Medicine is an art not a science.

     

    I know what you're getting at, but this is not definitionally true. "Medicine" is, literally, applied science.

     

    "Surgery" can have elements of art insofar as "art" is the process of deliberately arranging elements in a way that appeals to the senses. But the relative proportions of facial measurements to hairline are quantifiable and fairly objective.

  13. Originally posted by PLEASE GROW PLEASE:
    We do appreciate the time that have put into your responses and are thankful for your contributions to this forum.

    We are? icon_smile.gif

     

    The "we" may not extend to you personally, but the plural pronoun is required when more than one person is regarded in the same category.

     

    So, yeah.

×
×
  • Create New...