Melvin- Admin

 

To claim FUT is far less labor intensive than FUE is to have never performed either.

Fascinating point of view Dr. Feller, your insight is invaluable, it makes sense cause FUE surgeries usually run until night time, while strip surgeries are finished within a few hours, must be that FUE surgeons are just slackers taking the easy route by extracting follicular units one by one, when they could take the hard route and cut a strip of meat behind the head and have technicians dissect the grafts. I guess these peanuts just don't get it huh doc:)

Wow hairin, all done at once nice, eager to see your results, as a fellow high Norwood myself.

Thanks for the input The Spanish. Baubac is actually one of the most expensive I had contacted but soooooo little info on him in the forums...

 

I'm leaning towards Dr. Rahal right now, but he doesn't use all that ATP/ACELL stuff which I've heard is very good for fast healing and maintaining the grafts outside the body ( Shapiro Brothers do). Thinking of adding Dr feller to the shortlist now.. arghhhh:confused:

think at i will have to just pick one and take the plunge in stead of delaying the procedure!

Dr. Feller is good at FUT, he does not believe in FUE as a procedure, and I wouldn't want a physician that is not 100% positive he could get good results doing FUE doing my procedure.

I'm happy that there was improvement, are you still keeping your hair really short on top?

Hi HTsoon,

 

Please note that extractions and implants by Technicians are NOT a part of the protocol at the Darling Buds/Dr. Bhatti's Clinic.

 

Listing below the tasks performed by Dr. Bhatti for each and every Patient that gets treated by him:

85% work by Dr Bhatti (100% counseling, 100% anesthesia administration, 100% harvesting/extractions, 100% slit making)

 

In regards to Techie's HT progress, I also believe that he has a lot of growth to come in the next few months.

 

Best regards,

California

Thanks for your response California, that is refreshing to hear, he is in a very small club of physicians that do this, and no doubt the reason why he's had so many success stories on this forum.

I'm not gonna lie it does look a bit sparse at the moment, with that being said, you still have another 6 months of growth, hopefully you're a slow grower, have you mentioned this to the clinic? May I ask did technicians perform the extractions or did Dr. Bhatti? Also, one thing to consider is the length of your hair, I recommend not cutting the top anymore and letting it fully grow out that's how you get the most bang for your buck.

Thanks HTsoon.

I definitely want FUE so will double check with Dr Rahal and Shapiro.. i was going for them as they both seem to have great reputations, good results and experience/respect over a long time......Anyone know if they are still as good as they used to be?

thanks

Dr. Rahal is a great surgeon, but I think the majority of his work is FUT, if you look at most of his good results they're FUT, Dr. Shapiro I think is a better FUE Doctor, but not the best in my opinion, Dr. Lorenzo was the best, but now he has techs doing extractions, Dr. Umar is one of the few true FUE doctors that still do extractions, another thing to consider is how many FUE surgeries is the doctor doing a week, I don't think too many patients go for FUE for Rahal or Shapiro. I'm considering Dr. Bhatti myself as well as Dr. Umar, both of these doctors do majority FUE and have good results. I think when choosing a surgeon that does both, you have to make sure the results you're seeing aren't FUT.

The best surgeons are the ones who ACTUALLY perform the surgery, a lot of FUE surgeons in Europe don't perform the surgery themselves and many times do zero of the extraction, when considering doctors you need to find out how involved they are in the surgery, with FUE you can not afford to have it done by techs, FUT you could get away with it, it's actually the norm, but different story with FUE, I believe Dr. Umar does the extractions himself, Dr. Saifi in Poland.

I don't understand why everyone thinks that running a forum like this has huge costs. Even if it generates a huge amount of traffic and employs some people full or part time. What do you need? A domain, some dedicated servers, some development and maintenance and some people who work part time as moderators. Even if I assume 200k/year for operating cost - which is an overestimate imo - , if the 65 recommended doctor indeed pay 10k/year that would leave us with 450k/year profit.

 

Don't get me wrong, I don't envy them for making money, but I often read things that try to justify why they need to make profit to "protect the free speech" and to "keep this community running". I think it should be clear to all that this website is not mother Teresa, nor a non-profit venture. This is a for-profit business. And as such they will face conflict of interests and lobbying. How will they resolve it? I don't know. But in my opinion if you are dealing with such a delicate issue as hair transplant in such a notorious industry, and you state that your mission is to "educate the patients" then much more transparency is needed.

Paleo, what do you think would've happened if you posted this thread on baldtruthtalk? Let me tell you, first the post would be flagged, they'd notify Dr. Doganay to respond, once he would've responded, they'd then place you in moderation so that every single one of your posts would have to be approved by a moderator before being posted. This whole thread would've never occurred and you'd be looking like an obsessive HT patient with no patience, that's how it would've been spun.

Do you know where spencer lives? He lives in calabassas here in California, a very affluent rich neighborhood, I highly doubt bill or pat are living in mansions running this site. I do believe they want to do the right thing, and in doing so they've left this thread opened when they could've put you in moderation and let Dr. Doganay do all the talking.

Even if you're successful in getting Dr. Doganay off this site, guess what he's still on IAHRS, good luck getting him off there, like I said before, HT industry is shady as a whole, I do believe this site is one of the more ethical sites out there, but it's ultimately your responsibility to do your due diligence before having surgery done, you've accepted blame, but you continuously shift the blame to the doctor, the site, I know you were depressed dealing with balding, so was I I'm only 4 years older than you and a lot balder, like I said, I really hope you can put this past you and move on with your life and forget about hair. Focus all of this time and energy on things worthwhile, like relationships, careers, if you focused this much on anything else you'd be a big success, you're really young, time is on your side. Good luck paleo.

I found the recent FUE posters below without much difficulty (Poster ID withheld but you can PM if you want the list). I'm sure the list of posters complaining of poor FUT results with Feller pails in comparison.

 

Unfortunately people will continue to be duped by anonymous posters who claim FUE is as reliable as FUT. If you disagree then good luck and I hope you're not unlucky like the guys

Are you not anonymous?

Newbie I had an FUE with 2,050 grafts by surgeon Marwan Saifi in poland who performs both FUT and FUE. he maintained a good surgeon should be able to perform both procedures as good as each other. an ethical surgeon is one of the most important factors in deciding who to go to in my opinion.

I agree, Dr. Rahal, Dr. Shapiro, Dr. Diep all perform both procedures consistently. I can understand how some doctors don't want to bother, because here they have a procedure in which they literally just cut a strip out of the head, pass it to techs for dissection, they close the strip and suture it, techs implant the grafts and they get good yield, why would they want to spend hours individually extracting each graft, it's time consuming, in the time they did one procedure of 2,000 grafts FUE, they could've done two strips at 3,000 grafts each with less work. It makes sense from a business standpoint especially in new physicians, learning curve in FUE takes years, but I think it's incorrect to say one is better than the other, in my opinion FUE yields a better overall cosmetic result, the fact that I'd may need to use scalp grafts via FUE to cover up a scar is an ultimate deal breaker for me, self conscious about balding, get surgery then end up self conscious about the scar makes no sense for me personally, I don't discourage anyone from having the procedure though, it should be up to the patient to decide what they want to have done, since this is elective surgery, just like rhinoplasty, you can choose to have open or closed rhinoplasty, if the surgeon can't perform closed rhinoplasty you go to one that can but the best plastic surgeons can do both.

Dr. Blake - If this has been answered previously I apologize. I'm just curious, if FUE is so flawed, why name your new procedure "MFUE" after it? I've had FUE previously, but believe both strip and fue has it's place. Not looking to argue about the two, just curious about the "MFUE" name. Thanks

Clever marketing, jut like their FUTvsFUE bait threads, truth is it should be called "modified old punch graft transplantation" essentially it's like the old punch graft procedures except with suture closure.

I've always been very vocal about technician FUE. Extracting grafts via FUE is a process that takes a thorough understanding of what's going on, and will always matter more to the person who's name is on the door. Having said that, it's not a new phenomenon. Clinics have been doing technician FUE for DECADES. That's right, decades. People are only becoming wiser to it now because of the way it's shaping the market in certain areas of the world, but it's incorrect to correlate the rise in poor FUE results with technician FUE because it's absolutely not new.

 

There will always be those who truly want to believe in the FUE procedure and will subscribe to slightly skewed realities to justify subpar results. "There was a new tech on the right side that day, so that's why the right side grew poorer;" "I did X in the post-op period, so that's why I didn't grow in this area," "I was told the yield was only 80% because of Z;" et cetera.

 

We've heard them all. But there's a saying in science and medicine: the simplest answer is always the correct one. What is more plausible: that a huge number of FUE patients experience poorer yields on average because of a slew of technicians trotting the globe ruining procedures? Or that FUE patients are walking around smacking their heads carelessly after procedures en mass? Or is it more likely that there is singular unifying factor at play here?

 

The variable FUE results we're seeing posted are a direct reflection of the inherent problems with FUE. The technique places excessive trauma on grafts, creates a scenario where skeletonized grafts are sitting out of the body for excessive periods of time, and then calls for reimplantation of weaker grafts -- without the supportive material necessary for follicle health on the cellular level -- into unhealthy scalp.

 

This will always result in more variability and less impressive growth with respect to both quantity AND quality.

 

There will always be those who simply don't want to believe this and justify it in other ways, but the fact that this thread was created pretty telling. Thank you to FUE2014 for doing so.

Fascinating point of view, thanks for sharing Blake. Also, I would like to just add, there is no surgery without scars, while it would be wonderful to be able to buzz your head, it is simply not possible with FUE, please check out feller and bloxham FUT scars so small you'll forget they're there. Did I miss anything Blake? I love participating in these fascinating discussions with you and Dr. Feller.

Lmao Dr. Feller after being relatively quiet on this forum, he sniffed this thread out like a police dog at a Colombian airport. FUE2014, when you see the current trend of poor results, you'll see another common trend, which is 100% tech extractions, previously doctors like doganay were performing the extractions and creating the recipient sites, it's becoming more alarming that popular FUE surgeons like Feriduni and doganay are only playing a minor role in the surgery, no doubt this will inevitably create inconsistent results. FUT physicians can get away with this, because skill and time is not required with the procedure, but I see it like this, imagine if technicians were the ones suturing the strip, you would see a string of bad stretched scars, is that the procedure or the negligence of the clinic?

I still maintain FUE is a good option on par with FUT, however and that's a big however, the surgeon has to be the one extracting and creating the recipient sites, my first FUE surgeon did the extractions himself with one lead tech, my yield was good but who knows how it would've been if it were left to just technicians. HRN needs to change their criteria for FUE physicians, that's why the cost should be more with FUE, there is more time and skill involved, when you try and cut costs you end up with techs doing 75% of the surgery and you end up with bad yield.

I know a lot of guys who've had transplants without taking fin, one my bestfriends got FUT back in 2005, when he was 20, fast forward now he's only lost a tiny bit of hair in the crown, he's been on minoxidil ever since though, I think it's incorrect to say HT without fin is doomed, we need to take a lot of things in to account, expectations, age, and level of baldness, right so if there's a 50 year old guy with minor temple recession why on earth would he take finasteride, MPB is unpredictable, you can lose it quickly or slowly, my friend started balding at 18, I didn't notice it until 22, now that we're both 30, I'm Norwood 6 and he's still Norwood 2, he got a transplant at 20 with no fin, should've been a disaster right? Well it hasn't 10 years later still going strong. However, if I would've gotten an HT at 22 it very well could've been a disaster, my thought is that you shouldn't get an HT without fin until your hairloss has essentially hit rock bottom and your pattern is clear, in my case Norwood 6 so essentially, nearly all of my hair on the top was gone nothing worth saving anymore, but my expectations are low now and I'm happy with an overall thin look, which may be unacceptable to some so that makes me a candidate for hair restoration, but I agree with stig, given your age, balding pattern, and expectations you're not a candidate I hope you can put this behind you and move on.

After a week they're secure, I wouldn't worry about it, however what was your doctors washing instructions? I only rinsed my hair with baby shampoo in a bowl of water, I didn't scrub my hair until 2 weeks.

It's hard to say from that pic, can you post before and after photos, photos post op showing the areas that were transplanted, generally, with 75% yield the clinic will probably offer to do touch up work, who was your doctor?

That looks really good but he will probably regret this when he gets older. The middle is thin. This is not a knock on dr Bhattia he does great work. There is only so much a procedure can do and if he doesn't go on meds he will lose it. For 29 he has very aggressive hair loss from the top of his head in the befores I would have expected someone to be in their forties. This looks good for now but long term I am afraid for him. He is a future class 6 or worst a 7.

I think California said he was not on meds prior to the surgery, alluding to the fact that he's on meds now, he's definitely Norwood 6 prior to surgery he barely had hair on his head, I think he'll be okay, he's gonna definitely need more transplants in the future, but at least he knows where he's headed and he can plan accordingly, very impressive result from Dr. Bhatti.

I had . 1's: 592, 2's: 908, 3's: 402, 4's 218: Total 2120 grafts which breaks down to 4,486 hairs, I thoughy my numbers were kinda low too I think my average is 2.1 hairs per graft.

I can see both sides, being on the older young range (30) the way I see it, is that young men get surgery to look their age, older men get surgery to appear younger( generalization), there is a social dynamic in that statement, when I see 50 year old men getting surgery, I feel somewhat that it is more of a luxury as opposed to necessity in some cases for young men, I'm not going to downplay personal dilemmas with balding whether you're 18 or 60, I'm sure it sucks regardless, but we can not be blind to the social stigma that is associated with premature balding that's not viewed the same as slower progressive balding that occurs in the later parts of life. With that being said, I do see young guys get what I feel unnecessary surgeries, where a tiny bit of recession at the temples have occurred and this could be easily concealed with a different hairstyle. I did not choose to get surgery until my hairloss could no longer be concealed and I was essentially rock bottom.

Just something to add to the hairloss stack, theoretically even if it was half as effective as finasteride and had no negative sexual side effects it would be worth it, aside from the healthy benefits of reduced body fat, better sleep, and who doesn't like increased libido. But obviously, there'd have to be hormonal monitoring much like HRT, since progesterone reduces estrogen you'd have to make sure you don't reduce it too much, because just like DHT, the body needs estrogen to function also. I doubt I'd risk it sounds like a lot of work, but I'd still like to hear from anyone who's tried it, it's interesting to say the least.

I'm always weary of putting exogenous hormones in my body, but from what I've read progesterone helps regulate your estrogen levels and has no feminizing effects like finasteride, but I definitely need more research, I'd like to hear from guys who've tried this, something tells me there's a catch, otherwise no one would be risking their sexual health with finasteride and everyone would be taking progesterone and staying studs. It could be possibly that the synthetic progestrone that's taken orally is almost completely processes out of the liver, but what I've read the best is the natural progesterone cream. Most guys I know who've ran it have done it for fitness reasons but whilst researching I saw it was a 5-alpha-reductase inhibitor that reduces body fat and increase libido, like I said sounds to good to be true.

I didn't know that, PFS is terrible I feel for those guys, from what I've heard from guys who've taken it (non hairloss reasons) it raises your libido like crazy, hey if it can keep my hair and keep my libido strong it's a win win, but needs to be researched more, sounds to good to be true.

Have any of you guys tried progesterone for hairloss, Progesterone inhibits 5 alpha reductase like finasteride, however I've heard that it acts opposite to finasteride in that it actually elevates libido, progesterone is a precursor to testosterone, on paper it seems to good to be true, but not sure if anyone's actually tried this for the purpose of hairloss, it's well known that as progesterone levels drop common symptoms are similar to finasteride side effects, so for the guys who tried it, did it increase libido and decrease hairloss? And did you get your hormone levels checked prior to taking progesterone?

Ezel,

How was the pre-op with feriduni? Did he measure your donor density? Did he tell you your total donor capacity? Or did he basically just tell you that you needed X amount of grafts and draw the hairline?

Paleo, I think when a patient has a bad result the patient/physician trust has been broken, regardless of what's in the best interest for the clinic as a business the ethical thing to do is to refund the money, how could you put your faith or trust in a Doctor that's already failed? I wouldn't and it's not right for the clinic to expect that of you, especially when dealing with finite grafts.