CuriousJungleGeorge

Looks OK in the picture, but, hard to tell from the single angle. *By the way, it isn't a "scar," yet ??” .

F.U.T. ("strip-harvesting")? F.U.E.? Other? Just thought this might be fun (I expect plenty of "First strip, then F.U.E." responses, but I might be surprised). *I couldn't figure out how to make this a poll. If a moderator could transform the thread into one, I'd be appreciative of his or her ("her": right...) taking the initiative to do so.

F.U.T. ("strip-harvesting")? F.U.E.? Other? Just thought this might be fun (I expect plenty of "First strip, then F.U.E." responses, but I might be surprised). *I couldn't figure out how to make this a poll. If a moderator could transform the thread into one, I'd be appreciative of his or her ("her": right...) taking the initiative to do so.

Everyone is different, so all anyone (including a physician) can tell you is what your "odds" are of harming the procedure by performing physical activity. As I see it, it's all right to get back in motion a couple of weeks post-op., but, of course, you'll have to be careful not to stress the scalp too much. It's a tough decision to make, but you'll have to decide on which side of safety you'd rather err.

Again, it's "stupid" is that it can drive away potential patients, but, in this same vein, perhaps not so stupid for the doctor who has a long line of clients waiting, and doesn't want to "waste time" with persons not sure enough of whether or not they'll have the procedure, to put down a couple of hundred dollars toward it (if I'm not mistaken, initial-consultation fees go toward the cost of operation, if one is performed). For the patient, yes, it seems to be a terrible deal... .

Along these lines, is it possible to reposition transplanted hair, say, using F.U.E.?

Have you considered continuing medical therapy, if at lower dosage?

I think it's a little nuts for doctors to charge high consultation fees (and it seems, if there is this sort of fee, it invariably is high), but I suppose those who have enough patients coming in benefit from charging them both by making a little extra cash and by weeding out people who aren't "really" interested in the procedure. Of course, this is elective surgery, and, I imagine, lots of people go into an office not totally sure of what they'll do afterward. Hell, a good idea may be to meet with more than one physician, even if you are strongly intent to undergo transplantation, in which case it stings to have to shell out a couple of hundred dollars per meeting. If you're uncomfortable with such charges, just rule out offices that favor them. In New York, I think, Drs. True and Dorin, Feller, and Beehner offer free consultations (perhaps Dr. Epstein, too, does).

Understand, one of the reasons no doctor can tell you, just from an on-line evaluation, what might best suit you, is he or she won't have gotten a sense of your donor area ??” density and thickness in that region will have an impact on how to fill you in now. If you happen already to have low density, placing 2,500 unit into your hairline, at this stage, would be a terrible idea; if you're very likely in that regard, maybe 2,500 will be OK (though, to me, it still seems excessive). Of course, different doctors will prioritize the procedure differently. For instance, Dr. Bernstein (New York City) might not even consider you to be a candidate for surgery, at this point.

Based on your pictures, I think 2,500 grafts is pushing it, but, then, one (including a doctor) cannot tell everything from images.

It should help you make up your mind when you meet with Drs. Bernstein and True. I'm not implying one is good, the other bad; I'm just saying, meeting with doctors ought to help you understand with whom you feel comfortable. As far as price is concerned, I believe Dr. Bernstein is most costly (and, he charges a consultation fee).

Which Indian-film actors have come out and said they've received hair transplants by Dr. Armani? Can you post a link to one of the interviews you mention?

Thank you. Is there a typical amount of time it takes for hair to "soften" in this way?

Is it normal for transplanted hair to come in much coarser and nappier than surrounding (recipient-area) hair?

Is it normal for transplanted hair to come in much coarser and nappier than surrounding (recipient-area) hair?

Yeah, it doesn't get said very often, but the current "gold standard" in hair-transplant technology appears to be less "perfect" (even in the recipient areas) than is often claimed. You're right: hair tends to be coarser in the donor area than at the front, and thus transplanted hair, even placed by the best hands, might not look totally "natural" on some patients. That said, if you do undergo the procedure, completely ignoring the temples and just filling in the rest of the hairline, too, will lend to an unnatural appearance.

It's fine.

But, by mixing 2% sol'n. with 5%, one ought to end up with more minoxidil (medication) than in the 2% (3.5%) and less propylene glycol than in the 5% (mid-way between the quantity in either). Right...?

Hey, no offense, but you sound like a promoter, not a patient. Please, post some photographs of your eyebrows before and after your January, 2009 procedure with Dr. Epstein, or let us just assume you're simply plugging (ha, ha) his practice.

Yes, that makes sense. Unfortunately, it also indicates hair transplanted to the temple region will always be of a different quality and texture from that native to the region.

Is it acceptable to mix 5% and 2% minoxidil solutions to one stronger than the latter but less irritating than the former? Thank you.

No, your body will reject it.

To JSSeaDub06: I understand your concern, but I warn you to be wary if you suddenly find a doctor who's willing to give you "exactly what you're looking for." In a sense, your job is to be unhappy with your receding hair-line and to want it moved back to where it was when you were sixteen; it is a competent physician's job to understand how you feel, then tell you it is grossly irresponsible to give you what you want. Think if it this way: you're pretty young, right? Yet, you're already experiencing hair-loss. Chances may be, then, you'll lose plenty of hair. If you use your donor supply now to fill in (perhaps close to all of) what's missing, you'll end up with nothing to fill in what goes missing later -- and you don't really know when "later" will be. You might figure, "The hell with forty-year-old me": fine; but, what about twenty-six-year-old you? That's not so far away. Just try to be careful with what you do. This is surgery, and there's not much way to "change your mind" once you've enacted it.

First, I don't know that we should rule out the possibility of competent transplant surgeons in India. But, second, good facilities don't point to a demand for the procedure. The better doctors are likely to be where there is a greater number of prospective patients (i.e., people who want the surgery and can afford to have it done, regardless of whether or not they need it).

Bill, how does transplanted hair acquire the characteristics of the hair in the recipient area? I was under the impression its resistance to doing so, the retain its own nature, is what permits it to continue to grow once re-located.