Cryingoutloud

Joy I'm an Afro-Caribbean man. I've had two HTs. One with a forum-recommended doctor which gave me very disappointing results. As part of the deal I negotiated for my refund, I agreed not to name him publicly. My second was with another recommended surgeon - Dr. Patrick Mwamba and was FUE. That was just under 8 months ago and the difference in yield and quality compared to my first is like night and day. He is a consummate professional and his practice in Brussels, Belgium is run with military precision. Don't be afraid to get on a plane or even the Eurostar if you're in England. He's not cheap but this isn't something you want to cut corners on. I nearly cried when I handed over the cash but 7.5 months later, I'm happy. As a side note, DO NOT go with Dr. Vories. He's botched two procedures on African type hair both of which are documented on this forum. His theory might be spot on but his practice - which is what REALLY counts - leaves a hell of a lot to be desired. Do a forum search on "TygerD" to see how his procedure went.

It ain't a poor yield; the doc didn't place 3,000 grafts - NO WAY. I can understand the patient withholding the surgeon's name. It could be that he wants to bring the surgeon's attention to the thread and the opinions therein and using them to leverage some kind of recourse. That could be another procedure at zero cost if he still has confidence in his surgeon OR it could be a refund of his costs if he doesn't. Personally, I'd go elsewhere. The surgeon took a fee based on 3,000 grafts but delivered what looks like 1500. Why the hell would I trust him again? PS Yes it's quite clear who the surgeon is but I respect what the patient's trying to do so my lips are sealed

What are graphs?

SO you make the guy feel like shit and then wish him happy holidays?? The guy knows he got a crappy result - the last thing he needs is for you to rub it in with such an insensitive post.

Says the clown using kiddie text speak on a forum.

Ok well first thing, I didn't say he was somehow behind schedule at 7 months and, second thing, while the average observer probably wouldn't think "hair transplant", they almost certainly WOULD think, "something's odd about that guys' hair but I can't put my finger on it". Different opinions is what life is about so maybe you should start accepting that not everyone is going to agree with you. You can't speak for EVERY person who will see acegik's hair so you can't say "NO ONE" would ever know. . . even if you use upper case letters.

I think acegik is right to say that, in its current state, his hairline looks unnatural. Personally, I don't care much for the dead straight hairline but this should look good if the thickening goes full distance. @BUSA - I don't agree that people wouldn't suspect he's had something done. The thin, precise hairline with the higher density behind it has HT written all over it. Still, I think there's more growth and thickening to come so it won't look unnatural for long

Kick ass results for just 2,000 grafts.

Yes but he goes on to suggest that the apparent lack of visible growth may be down to fine calibre hair that can't be detected on the photos. The patient doesn't need straws to clutch on to; he needs support in his endeavours to get back on the right track. 8 months - no growth means it's a failure 99% of the time. There's no 12 month reprieve on the way so let's get behind this guy and stop feeding him bullshit

Stunning work. Highly refined. You'd never, EVER know she'd had anything done. She must be absolutely over the moon. Looks fabulous

What amount of time, in your opinion, should be allowed to pass before one "presses the panic button"? The guy's 8 months post op for Chrissakes; should he wait until month 12 before seeking a refund or organising another surgery?? Nothing personal here, GL but at the end of the day, surgeon reps are paid to reinforce the perception that hair transplantation is some sort of black art with roots in science, random fortune and black magic when, if we're all being honest, most of the failures are down to surgeon and/or tech error. Reps are paid to promote the integrity of the industry at all costs and to refrain from casting aspersions on the reputation of ANY surgeon. Now while I'm 100% sure you mean well, I can't ignore the conflict of interest between your position and that of the patients. Pre-op, the marketing machine is geared towards hammering it into prospective patients that growth will typically start in months 4 or 5. Post-op, however, the machine shifts gears to ensure that the expectations of the so-called "slow growers" and the "X Factor" patients are "managed" with phrases like "don't press the panic button" or "6/7 months is still early". Thomas1988, you absolutely SHOULD be pressing the panic button. You SHOULD be giving the surgeon HELL. You should be demanding an explanation and a refund. DO NOT accept free surgery from the surgeon. Get your refund and plan another surgery with one of the big shot surgeons in Europe.

Typically, when grafts are placed deeply enough into the recipient incisions, it's difficult to dislodge them 8 days post op but if they're not, the grafts will simply dry up and die. However, they won't usually fall out by themselves especially when the patient is being ultra-careful in the immediate post-op period. As soon as the patient gets a little more vigorous in his haircare after the first week, those grafts will fall out. This happened to me and I was getting grafts falling out after 10 days. They looked dried up as you can see below If they got into contact with water, they looked a lot like those in the sink in your pictures

That doesn't look like just hairs with the usual scabs attached. More than a few of them look like grafts. Of course, I could be wrong because the photo isn't hi res but I'm just saying what they LOOK like

Jesus !! I don't know about anybody else but it looks to me like there's a bit more than just hairs there. Definitely looks like full grafts. I was going to suggest that they wouldn't be so fleshy after all this time but if the sink still had some water in it, then the dried up, dead grafts could still absorb the water and look like fresh grafts.

Now THAT'S a presentation. The guy's pictured with his preferred hairstyle but the clinic has the foresight and openness to prepare several shots of his hairline. Kickass result for a relatively small number of grafts and no sign of elaborate comb over styling other clinics seem to have no qualms putting up

I'm just waiting for a surgeon's representative to rock up and say, "Actually, 9 months is WAY too early to be pressing the panic button" or for a mod to say "new hairs can grow 18 months post-op". One day, someone's gonna come out with "12 months is still early in the process".

Try not to worry too much, acegik. It's easier said than done, of course, but you've had some decent growth and still have a good 5 to 10 months of maturation to come.

Er ok, whatever you say but here's a tip; the subtleties of wit can easily be lost in clumsy use of the English language. I meant that I don't need surgeons' opinions on slow growth since AS I SAID - I was told I was a slow grower by my first doc. My second doc's expertise and competence has shown me that I an NOT a slow grower.

I don't NEED the surgeons' opinions. Most of us have seen enough results and the timelines associated with those results to know that minimal or zero growth at 9 months is tantamount to a write-off.

FUE/FUT makes no difference to me. As I've said enough times, the result isn't bad at all but if the surgeon doesn't show the hairline, it's typically because it looks like a dog's breakfast. I'm not going to sit here and say, "Oh it's H&W so, on the strength of previous results, I'll give 'em the benefit of the doubt that the hairline's great" . If faith was enough, clinics wouldn't need to show more than one or two cases. THIS patient's had 7,000 grafts but he still needs what looks like an elaborate styling technique to construct a hairline. If the patient is happy, fair enough but if that was me who'd done God-knows how much on a 7,000 graft HT, I wouldn't be.

The Belgian triumvirate (Bisanga Mwamba and Feriduni) seem to get great FUE yield but they're more expensive than the Turkish clinics. Still, their results appear to be more consistent and they do a lot more of the work themselves

Yep I almost fell off my chair when I read that. I think the verdict is that yes, slow growers do exist but, 9 times out of 10, if you're labelled one, there's a good chance your HT is a botch. Grafts are NOT going to be growing after 18 months in 99.9% of cases and bitchslap any surgeon who tells you as much

Meticulously maintained updates and kickass photos. Looking great and should be one of those "outta the park" results. Good to hear how careful you were with your after care and your acceptance of what's needed to keep your hair.

Still, I thought the statement that patients are still sprouting new hairs 18 months post op was a bit of a stretch.

There's absolutely NOTHING wrong with waiting it out. All I'm saying is that one should already have begun laying the ground work for a follow-up procedure (if you still have faith in the surgeon) or some kind of refund (if you don't). I'd be interested in your theory as to how, in my case, I was a "slow grower" for one doctor but a normal grower for another.