T. Galloway

Please see my response posted to Questions for Physicians.

Hopefully, this will serve as a reply to those who were kind enough to respond to my post. I did not intend to cause such a stir or create any consternation or anxiety, but the fact is that I simply do not have anywhere near the thickness or coverage that I had 1-2 yrs. post-ht. Perhaps, a little background might help. Twenty-four years ago I received approximately 48 conventional graphs ("plugs") in the temporal area. They were not only placed too low, but I was entirely too young to have them in the first place (23). Nonetheless, they grew quite well and never, at least in 20 some odd years, lost their density or thickness. Eventually, most of the plug hair was removed through electrolysis, since the hairline they created was far too low to incorporate in to any normal looking hairline that may be achieved through FUT. At age 41, I decided to get another set of graphs using the "new method" of FUT. I had been on Propecia for approximately 2 yrs. prior to the surgery, and have been taking the drug for approximately 3 yrs. since. Post-op, I did experience some chronic redness, which seemed to clear up after a treatment or two on oral antibiotics, otherwise no serious illnesses or injuries. I purposely waited 5yrs. to go back to the Doc. who performed the FUT (actualy like most ht. Doc's in this area, he only harvested the donor strip, his staff actually performed the ht.)before considering another FUT. I wanted to get an idea as to how well this "new method" withstood the test of time. The DOC gave no explanation to nor even acknowledged the seemingly lack of density or coverage from the previous 2100+ graphs, however, in fairness to him, he never saw the results when the hair growth was at its thickest. His overall demeanor was pretty much business as usual with no indication that the coverage or lack thereof was nothing out of the ordinary for 5yr. old graphs. A second opinion from another highly respected and experienced ht. Doc. produced no concrete explanation nor concern other than that the graphs appeared to be spaced fairly far apart and seemed to have an inordinate amount of single hair units. I have scheduled another surgery, but am skeptical of the long term results, which appear to be from my experience not worth the money for the net results.

Five years ago received 2168 FU from very reputable and experienced HT Doc. First, 2 yrs. had excellent results, but past 3 yrs. have been marked by significant decrease in density, thickness and coverage of transplanted hair. Now question the viability of FUT for the long-term. Any comments or similar experiences?

Five years ago received 2168 FU from very reputable and experienced HT Doc. First, 2 yrs. had excellent results, but past 3 yrs. have been marked by significant decrease in density, thickness and coverage of transplanted hair. Now question the viability of FUT for the long-term. Any comments or similar experiences?

Five years ago I received 2168 FU from very reputable and experienced HT Doc. First 2yrs. had excellent results, but past 3yrs. have been marked by significant decrease in density, thickness and coverage of transplanted hair. Now question the long term viability of FUT. Any comments or similar problems?

Five years ago I received 2168 FU from very reputable and experienced HT Doc. First 2yrs. had excellent results, but past 3yrs. have been marked by significant decrease in density, thickness and coverage of transplanted hair. Now question the long term viability of FUT. Any comments or similar problems?