adonix

Not bad, but very see-thru from most angles. It needs at least 3000 more to look ok.

12 hours ago, Der3k7 said:

Yeah my hair causes me anxiety and insecurity every day. I think about it every day throughout the day. Every time I'm in the bathroom, see a mirror or reflective surface 

12 hours ago, Der3k7 said:

Yeah my hair causes me anxiety and insecurity every day. I think about it every day throughout the day. Every time I'm in the bathroom, see a mirror or reflective surface 

Are you on finasteride?

3 hours ago, Guy73 said:

I agree with the other guy. You should have done about 3500 the first run and then go back. I don’t blame you I would blame the doctor. My doctor advice to me was doing that way is a lower risk of low yield. Doctors that just want to try and do a home run everytime with that many grafts seem to be the greedy ones. Just my opinion. But hey if joe Tillman Can get his hair back after a donor deficit then so can you!

Exactly.

I did 4000 in my first pass. The doctor said normally he would advise 3500, but would see how it goes with extractions and donor. I wanted to do ‘as much as possible’ in one go thinking it was a long trip and did not want to go back for the second pass soon. It went well, and I would say the yield was >95%. 

Now that I went through and know more - I would limit the surgeries to 3500. There is simply no reason to risk the yield, and none of us will ever be ok after only one surgery and will eventually have to go back.

54 minutes ago, Der3k7 said:

"Art", especially in the context of any cosmetic surgery, is much more closely tied to natural science than you would think. There is a reason why certain hairlines, noses, lips, etc are perceived to be more aesthetic and "Natural" than others. Certain growth patterns of hairlines are found in nature and others simply are not. If someone has a hairline transplanted that is completely not like anything that would occur naturally in nature, I garuntee  if you saw it you would be repulsed. This is our evolutionary psychology kicking in. The "artistry" of mimicking a natural and aesthtic hairline is based on what is found in nature and what is perceived as optimally attractive. Certain features are perceived to be more attractive than other features because of evolution. Evolutionary psychology/evolutionary biology or whatever you want to call it. We tend to find physical characteristics that signal physiological health and vitality as more attractive than physical characteristics that are a result of physiological disease or that *might* signal physiological disease...even if it actually doesn't. So yes, even the "design" of a hairline, which is often said to be the least scientific aspect of a hair transplant, is actually rooted in natural science.

To address your statement that it is a game of protocols and probabilities, yes that's true. But so is any surgery. So is any prescription medication. Protocols and probabilities are everywhere in any scientifically based venture. This is non contradictory to something being based on scientific principles. And also the fact that there are lots of variation of blood supply to different individuals scalps and various people's physiologies have different thresholds of what they can withstand...how is this not in the realm of nature and reason? This is a matter to consider in any surgery...In any prescription of medication. That is exactly the scope of medicine and science. To understand nature and all its variances. Engineering, surgery design, and pharmacology all consider these variances in nature and work to design or solve  a problem and manipulate nature to achieve a certain goal. Everything about our bodies are within nature and the realm of natural science. We are a physical system and everything about the methodological process of taking out hair cells from the back of our head and sticking them into the front of our head has the ability to be analyzed within the framework of reason and science. Even the process of optimizing the human element of the process of undergoing a team or non team based surgery has the capability of being analyzed with reason within the framework of understanding nature and processes, even man made ones, and how things work. This is the fundamental broad definition of science. Now, of course in doing a surgery you are not "doing" science. But everything about the procedure itself can be analyzed within the scope of nature and the scientific method.

Also the only scientific literature I have seen has stated that yield is related to how densely hair follicles are transplanted not that it is related to how many total hair follicles are transplanted. I would be willing to bet that yield is much more closely related to how densely hairs are packed vs how many total hairs are transplanted. 

To demonstrate this, imagine both extremes. For the first case take 1000 hair follicles and transplant them all within 2cm^2 or as small an area that they can physically fit. There is not enough room for each follicle to have enough blood supply and settle in. It is unlikely that many will survive. Now for the 2nd case transplant 5000 grafts spread out globally across the entire head. I bet the yield on the 2nd case will be higher. This observation would be consistent with the idea that yield is more closely related to the density of transplanted follicles vs the total number of transplanted follicles. 

Q.E.D.

Lol

If you dont get why two surgeries of 3500+1500 are much safer and less risky than one 5000 surgery, I cant help you. 

Keep looking at the mirror, read ‘scientific’ papers and wonder.

1 hour ago, Der3k7 said:

I disagree. Literally everything about a hair transplant can be considered scientific. Even the "artistry" of it and I can explain why if you don't see it.  

Also, I have read a study that shows as you transplant more hair follicles per Sq cm the yield goes down. But i think I remember that the yield only goes down marginally and that the density to where it starts going down is already pretty dense. Meaning you can dense pack and still get 90+% yield as long as everything is done correctly 

So is it scientific or artistry? Those two are almost diagonally opposite.

The problem is not in dense packing. Like I said it is a game of protocols and probabilities. One body can take 20 hours of a surgery over 2 days, or 10000 incisions and holes, etc. Other body might not. One hair graft might be fine after being kept for 5 hours in a solution and waiting for placement, other graft might not. One scalp has enough circulation to accept 5000 new grafts and quickly create all necessary bloodlines, other scalp might not.

Why risk 5000 grafts, when you can do the first pass of say 3500, and do 1500 later, if needed. That approach will always yield better results, and will be better for your donor management as well.

2 hours ago, Kraistoff said:

Is this scientific fact? If so you would hope the surgeon would advise accordingly 

 

 

Scientific? What about hair surgery is scientific? Its a game of protocols and probabilities. You are right about one thing - you would hope the surgeon would advise accordingly. And guess what - some do.

9 hours ago, Der3k7 said:

Yeah I've invested 30k across 2 hair transplants and am going to have to do another one for another 15k with hasson 

Your yield looks like 30%. I would strongly advise anyone considering a FUE not to do more than 3500 grafts in one surgery. It is an unnecessary risk and the probability of lower yield is much higher when you go for 4500 or 5000.

12 hours ago, Melvin-Moderator said:

I cant say that's true about Lorenzo, I've heard differently. It is hard to discern what's true and what isn't on an anonymous forum. 

That is a cynical response to an honest account.

Nothing is really anonymous. As a forum mod you would know that. All of those fake reviews of ‘recommended surgeons’ are very easy to trace..

50 minutes ago, Adam87 said:

I will do a 3 month update in 10 days time. This is just for experience members who i am pretty sure have answered this many times, but i havent been the greatest responder, there are hairs there, but i cannot see that much growth or not as much as i was expecting, the secretary of de freitas said de freitas patients hair usually starts coming through after 3 months. If anyone can just help me with this or share experiences i would be greatly appreciated. I know fast responders "apparently" get the best results, even though i am not entirely sure this goes for everyone. Thanks for any help or any advice to calm my fears. 

1/ thee months is when it (slowly) starts; six months is when you will be able tell if you are on a good track; 10 months is when you will be able to see about 80% of the outcome.

2/ ‘fast responders’ get best results -  not true. Mine kept improving even after 12 months.

Hope that helps

Below are my pics from my first surgery (about 2k in frontal 1/3), after 5 months and after 8 months.

Melvin, some of these forum members mentioned that Rahal spends 30 minutes in the room. If true, that is disturbing.

FYi - Lorenzo does most of the work on his patients. His techs do extractions, but he keeps an eye on it. He does the placement with the implanter tool.

Did you get an estimate how many grafts you have left?

Looking at your pattern, in about 3-4 years you may need another 4000 to fill in mid scalp and crown.

Here is a picture of back with a bit longer hair

2 hours ago, n00b said:

great result!

all other fue results i see claim a lifetime donor of ~6000 grafts. but you already transplanted 6000 grafts and have another 5000 in back? what kind of sorcery is this???

It all depends. There are many examples where guys had more than 8-9k extracted. 

It comes down to the size of safe area, density, hair color/contrast, etc. 

lorenzo estimated my donor having about 5k left. But im not sure if I would want to extract that much. I will go for a smaller surgery (1-1.5k) to fix some weaker spots. And hopefully that will keep me good for some time.

I am 43 and on finasteride, forgot to add that.

I had 4000 FUE surgery in Sep 2015 and 2000 in Dec 2017. Here are my current photos and my situation pre-first surgery.

First photo is in almost direct light - back and sides cut to #1.5

2nd photo is room light of front hair combed straight

3rd photo is under strong light

4th and on are various photos with my natural hair (slightly curly), and one straightened hair.

last two photos are pre any surgery

i still have some week spots in the mid scalp and might add another 1000 grafts in right back-middle area.

Lorenzo said i have another 5k grafts left.

Thanks for the comments guys!

 

Adonix,

 

Good question, I’m glad you asked:-)

 

The short answer: FUT versus FUE.

 

The long answer: Actually according to my calculations, this patient had around 9750 hairs compared to your around 9300 (from one of your posts) but there is a difference in the hairs per graft or hair/graft ratio as you observed. You had noted in that post that your hairs per graft (hpg) was 2.33. This patient’s hpg is about 1.75. For a FUT procedure, I would say his hpg is on the lower side, he had a higher number of single hair grafts. I would estimate most FUT cases would fall around 2.0 hpg give or take. With FUT, we are taking out the strip and are presented with a distribution of grafts, we do not have the luxury of selecting only the ones we want. With FUE, we can “cherry pick” only the grafts we want. This allows the doctor to determine exactly how many of which type of graft he wants. So for FUE, he would likely harvest a higher number of 2 or more hair grafts. After rebuilding the hairline, he will want/need very few if any single hair grafts. As I mentioned in another thread, if we have a higher number of single hair grafts in a FUT procedure such as this case and we are done rebuilding the hairline, we will often place 2 single hair grafts in one incision to create more volume and density in a given area outside of the hairline.

Thanks. Makes sense.

I had my second surgery, 2000 grafts / 4900 hairs. So my total is 6000 grafts / 14200 hairs. Is it correct to say that equals to 8000+ grafts FUT? This isnt FUT vs FUE thing, just it helps when people look online for result examples..

Nice. But why such a low hair/graft ratio? I got more hairs from my 4000 grafts transplant than this guy in 5500+?

There is one good thing in this.

 

If much less than the promised were planted, you wasted less of your precious donor at a bad clinic. Furthermore, if you just count the # of grafts you can user this as a measure for the refund (50 % of grafts approx. 50 % of refund).

 

Good luck!

The way it looks he had around 35-40% growth, probably less than 20% in the hairline.

I would completely disagree with that measure -- % of growth = % of refund, especially when growth is less than 50%.

Lost grafts are priceless, and any reputable clinic that cares about its patients wellbeing should go above and beyond in making things right - including full refunds in cases like this one.

That entire story of 'wait another 3-4 months' is just buying time - hoping you would give up. No new hair will grow in the hairline after 10 months.

On another note - if I was the OP, and wanted to go with FUT again, I would go only with dr. Wong or dr. Konior.

That hairline is conservative, but in no way 'too high'. It does its purpose - it frames your face nicely.

At this stage, you should relax and hope that everything grows well. It is always better to start with a conservative hairline, because the fact is - most people do not have enough grafts in the bank for more aggressive hairlines.

Do you Think you have close to 100 % growth ?

I would say I had 90%+ yield

And did you suffer from shockloss in the reciepted area from your natives hairs?

I did not notice any shockloss, but then my crown was pretty bald to start with. dr. Lorenzo was careful and did not go much into areas where i had healthy native hairs.

And did you notice Any improvement AFTER Month 10?

After month 10, not much to be honest.

For me the timeline was like this:

Fairly quiet until month 4.5-5.

Then between month 5 and 7 everything grew.

Between months 7 and 9 things got more mature.

Between months 9 and 10 the cycle seemed complete, and the transplanted hairs felt and looked fully mature.

Great results! Lots of coverage given your starting point! If you wanted you could go back for additional density.

 

Are you on finasteride??

 

Also, I like the hairline design! Was that Dr Lorenzo's choice or did you request it that way.

The hairline was planned in cosultation, we discussed options, etc. i really did not want it low, and i think this is the perfect design for me.

I am on fin.

Cool.

I Think the hairline is a bit thin, what do you Think about the hairline?

But overall there is defently a lot of growth.

The hairline is ok. It is a bit thinner on the right side, so i might do a touch up there. My hair is blonde and wavy, so the contrast is not high and the illusion looks better. I dont think I need very high density.

I have to say I don't get the plan why not address the frontal third and then come back to do the crown. because now it looks thin in the middle and not in the front and the crown unless it was a personal choice of yours.

The goal was to achieve as much as possible in one go. I know i need another ~1500grafts in the middle / front 1/2 to make it perfect.

Congrats on your HT.

Do you have some pictures taken post op Day 1 - 14 or something?

Here is day 7 picture. Lorenzo put most of the 3-4-5 hair grafts in the crown and single and double ones in the front. This means that 2000 multi-hair grafts in the crown are comparable ~3000 standard grafts.

Hi everyone,

Just wanted to post a review of my experience with dr. Lorenzo. In short - it was great. Great surgeon with a great team.

Below are my pictures, pre-surgery and 12-months post surgery.

4000 grafts, 2.33 hpg, total ~9300 hairs

~2000 grafts in crown and ~2000 in frontal 1/3

Did not touch mid-scalp, might go for another session to add some additional density there

Pre:

12-months result:

Cheers,

Jon