JayLDD

Just a pointer, he's not 6 months in as everyone is saying and as he said, in that photo he's less than a week after 5 months in. Look at the date in the thread heading. When I said this poster is a liar this is what I meant, there's a difference between being anxious and agitated (as I am being 3.5 months in and anyone who has had a transplant has been at some point) and outright making things up to stir the pot, especially seeing as everyone automatically assumed the 6 month number was correct which is unfortunate. In no world is 5 months and 6 days 6 months.

I'm happy to leave it to the 12 month mark to voice my opinion and state the facts about the situation, and I'll make sure to voice it with emphasis when that time comes. "but the density had to blend with the forelock which already had a high density." I also agree this should be the expected result and goal, but I take serious issue suggesting that it was already a high density. The forelock is visibly diffused and this is shown here and from a variety of angles. Having had a procedure myself with grafts in-between and in front of a remaining forelock my experience was that it able to blend naturally with transplanted hair without a distinction as a a forelock and some strays either side. If the goal of hair transplantation is a natural result then that isn't it, and if it is due to a large area to cover (I've seen enough results to know that isn't the case here) then more density should have been focused at the front to have a more seamless blend of transplanted and native hairs. On top of that, when OP inevitably loses the forelock from progressive loss, what is this going to look like? I won't comment further until 12 months but I do take issue when people act like something is a success or looks great when it clearly has a long way to go, and potentially mislead a patient into thinking they can't expect more or that it's close to what an acceptable full result should look like.

You still clearly have quite a lot of hair, smartest move would be to grow it out a bit more so it isn't visible (I doubt it would take that long) and get on finasteride to help maintain what you currently have. Laser isn't a great option when you have a significant amount of hair in the area and in a few years the SMP is will fade by itself.

Imo Konior is one of if not the best surgeon in the US for this type of procedure. Baubac in LA also does very impressive hairline work and is worth looking at. The two Sean mentioned also good consult options if you're in NY.

HnW showcase thousands on their website and there are another 30 or so in this graft range and similar loss so there's plenty to there to base my point on. I agree that there's likely still improvement to come over the next few months though.

Honestly this is a case in which either a surgeon who has experience with high graft numbers via FUE like Lorenzo or Erdogan is ideal if you're going with FUE, but you're ultimately going to be better off opting for FUT. Especially considering you're looking at HnW you are probably better off just getting the absolute largest FUT session you can with them. 2000-2500 grafts would be of minimal cosmetic impact. When you say you want to be realistic about results, you could still get full coverage in the frontal third,midscalp and some of the crown with a hairline where it currently is but you're looking closer to the 5k graft mark. In terms of the diffusing I've had hair placed in much denser areas than yours on multiple occasions and never experienced shock loss, it's less of an issue than its made out to be. If you're going to go for surgery to begin with, you may as well go for a surgeon that is suited to your case and isn't overly tentative about it as 2-2500 grafts would be.

To be honest I would be expecting a lot more growth for that amount of grafts. I don't really see a major cosmetic improvement, most of the hair there seems to be the original forelock. https://hassonandwong.com/hair-transplant-results/patient-1933/?_sfm_number_of_grafts=4000+4500 https://hassonandwong.com/hair-transplant-results/patient-1898/?_sfm_number_of_grafts=4000+4500 You definitely have a strong hair quality, these results show how far that amount of grafts can go so I would have expected a bit more. Not trying to be negative for the sake of it but I'd definitely see if Cooley can do a graft count to see what your yield was if you go back for a follow up.

Not even close to a NW1. It's a NW2.5 going on 3. In terms of LA clinics I would stick with Dr. Baubac.

Most people that go to a clinic like that aren't doing serious research, and in the case that they get a bad result will probably like you did just assume the doctor was honest and did their best, and poor results are not anyone's fault. Its indisputable that doing a second procedure 8 months post a first hair transplant isn't ethical, but even if you shout that from the rooftops if he keeps advertising and paying sites like Realself to delete bad reviews (that's reality) it isn't going to matter, people will probably still go to his clinic. He wasn't jeopardising anything in that sense. The fact that he resides in an affluent area and advertises heavily is even more reason to suspect that people will go to the clinic without bothering to research and expect good results. You say you believe the clinics despite evidently having at a negative experience and result, well that's why they get away with and are happy to be dishonest for money, because a lot of people unfortunately automatically trust someone because they have a degree on the wall and "Dr." in front of their name. It doesn't mean a whole lot. I find it hard to believe HnW would be happy to do a second hair transplant in the same area as the first less than 8 months subsequent to the first. By the way I still find your photos confusing, in the one directly above you seem to have hair in an area that is completely bare in the initial post.

The thing is that your last surgery hadn't matured yet and you can't expect full results 4 months in, there was still significant potential for improvement and growth behind the hairline. The one thing to note is that potentially the shock loss areas at the front could grow back at a similar time to the transplant growth, but your time frames that you're using are very out, no one has full growth by 3-4 months, that is the VERY BEGINNING and in some cases people have no serious growth at that point but at the 8-9 month mark have an impressive result. You're judging your hair based on results that haven't had long enough to finalize, you need to do some more research into this and you'll find that you're way, way, way overestimating how quickly growth occurs. What your current surgeon did was EXTREMELY unethical.

You should name and shame any surgeon (including those if they are listed on this website) that would propose a revision surgery three months after your first surgery, because its blatantly unethical and no honest surgeon would do so. The reality is the Canales is an unethical scum bag for doing a procedure four months post-op, its just plain wrong and these people were happy to lie to you for business. Whether or not others did too (I find this seriously unlikely to be honest) doesn't make him offering to do so any less unethical. Results do not fully mature for most until the 12 month mark, growth continues for most until even the eighth month and this is widely accepted any serious surgeon. Also based on the photos above I find it hard to see why you needed a revision surgery, you looked to have a full head of hair after the surgery with Diep and the hair texture and growth was likely to improve even more as you were still early in the process. You shouldn't feel loyalty to Canales because he deliberately harmed you knowingly for money and is the definition of a bad person, he should give you a refund with no questions asked or should be sued, this is what blatant medical malpractice looks like. Clearly he is aware considering he is working on a refund agreement this early in the process.

Nothing of this patient makes sense. Checking his previous posts he supposedly had a procedure with Diep less than a year ago that from the looks of these photos had virtually no growth, but also here says he had full growth in a previous transplant, and now says he had surgery with another doctor within 6 months of that procedure. On top of that suggesting doctors have told him that if there is no growth at 4 months the procedure is a failure and that this one is working on a refund. Seems like a bunch of nonsense tbh.

We must have got the procedure around the same day. Honestly I feel more nervous than I did last time in the sense I really would like this to put the issue to rest for a while and have high expectations based on the last procedure. Legend made a thread about a seemingly large amount of results from top surgeons being bad or unimpressive this year and I agree up to this point. As one gets better at research they tend to look for and focus on the bad results more and the success rate of "perfect" procedures in this industry even with top surgeons isn't great.

At about 3.5 months now, sprouts just starting to appear and in a similar fashion to last time. A couple of gappy bits in the original hairline caused by accidental buzzing it when trying to get the recipient area even and remove a few of the lengthy strays that didn't fall out originally. Crown looks quite good, I can't notice any growth but somehow maybe it looks better than it did 6 months ago even. The photos in brighter sunlight are from the first runthrough at roughly 7 months, I've added them because it really shows how the texture changes beyond that point even when most of the growth is done, the initial plugginess gone in the ones from today and the redness directly where the follicle protrudes through the skin too.

I think you misinterpret what I'm actually saying because despite the very contrary tone I agree with virtually everything you said and haven't said anything especially the the contrary. The specific point that you seem to miss is that there are virtually no singular FUE cases by top surgeons (show one if I'm wrong) where someone can grow their hair out for a month (post healing) and there is significant evidence of a procedure or scarring. This simply isn't true for FUT for which regularly on this site and others there are scars from top surgeons where the scar elevation and width makes it visible even after a month of growth. I'm not talking about bad recipient results either, of course every top FUE surgeon has plenty. All you have said in regards to a blind punch vs stereoscopic dissection, yields, and most efficient use of the donor I agree with you on, the only point that I don't think is raised enough is just how regularly singular FUT procedures with top surgeons result in scarring is well out of the range of acceptability. The numbers are incomparable in terms of people that end up with the same level of cosmetic donor damage via reasonably sized manual FUE punches. Again that isn't to say that for 19/20 people that FUT is in a technical sense the best option and will do the minimal damage to the donor, but that the magnitude of the risk for a single procedure of FUT is larger. Also you can say it all you want but assertions don't suddenly go from opinions to facts because they're in peer reviewed journals. On top of that if you've read the current published studies the level they're at is absolutely juvenile. They lack basic controlling of variables and note an extremely limited amount of hours of experience in FUE prior to their testing.

Vox is right and I have no idea how he wasn't already banned. He's literally been advertising for a trashy clinic and making inane, meaningless posts for a year now. Not sure how "come on" is ever considered rude either, considering how long he'd been around clearly posting for advertising purposes I think its fair to suggest the spam isn't helping anyone and he's being given a free ride for his clinic. It's not a big deal and it's not like Vox has a history of malice so seems a little silly to interpret it that way. And surely mods would prefer it being brought to their attention rather than not, "come on" seems mild as anything to achieve that. Fairly sure other spam profiles have been banned before, this one just seems very bad at directly advertising (which is clearly its intention) which somehow let it slip through the cracks.

The multigrafts in the hairline are definitely an issue (and there are definitely a lot, almost without differentiation in placement), but personally I think the biggest negative is how poorly the hairs placed in the break from hairline to temple region looks. They are taken too low and rounded almost like a female hairline, and obviously that area requires even more softness and precision in angles to look natural but it looks quite odd. There were likely never hairs in that area to begin with even prior to hairloss. Dr Couto in Spain as you mentioned gets incredible results but his waiting list is 4 years so likely out of the question. Dr. Alexander does good work although I haven't seen any repairs from them and as does Hasson. Cooley also does impressive repair work. Personally I would get the hairs in the temple area removed because they look very much out of place , and across the rest of the hairline have single hairs placed in front of the old hairline, and add density in general. I think it makes sense not to name the surgeon, it gives leverage to get a refund potentially that you don't have if you instantly out them.

"Don't kid yourself Jean -- it's not that people that agree with you are open minded and unbiased and those that disagree have financial motives." FUE proponents don't have the same amount to gain or lose in the sense that most of the top options are in Europe and due to significantly lower rent and staff costs can provide surgery at low enough prices that people will come regardless of whether they think they are getting the absolute best results. Its not a conspiracy, its basic economics and its how the world works. The stats also show that FUE is already extremely very popular (the majority performed procedure) and getting even more so, with FUT only hanging on primarily in the US. Saying "EVERYONE" has financial interest and bias is the same as saying that the risks across both procedures are somehow comparable or equatable, it's just oversimplification for the sake of it. On the statistics its clear that FUT purists have been fighting a losing battle at least in the marketplace and that it is losing ground, not the other way around. I agree that peer reviewed studies rom some of the names taken more seriously in FUE and impact of various techniques (Stick and place, implanter pen vs forceps) would be worthwhile, but a reasonable judgement at this point can be made from doctor and patient posted results considering how common FUE is at this point. Saying you don't care doesn't suggest someone as objectively minded as you're trying to portray yourself as; the earth doesn't revolve around the sun because scientists say so in a peer reviewed journal, rather It's because the data itself shows it to be the case. The experience and claims of surgeons like Vories, Erdogan and Lorenzo aren't just "opinon" because they haven't been published in an American peer reviewed journal, more specifically. "I do trust the opinion of Konior more, as he seems to surpass those two with his patient posted FUE results,": The second point just isn't accurate, Konior has less than 20 FUE results patient posted or otherwise online. Vories and Keser equally have probably 5x more, certainly a significant number above. Also I don't disagree with anything Konior has said about the benefits of FUT over FUE, for the vast majority that aren't unlucky enough to have significant scarring or permanent donor it is the better procedure. What goes unmentioned are the people that go to top end FUT clinics and still get horrible donor results that can be seen on this forum for example on a regular basis. I have never seen a result where a person went to a top FUE clinic and came out with a situation where their donor looked awful after a full month of growth beyond the initial healing period. There are endless FUT examples of that situation. I do agree that ultimately it is a matter of picking your poison, they both have individual benefits and risks that can't be equated and will appeal to different people.

You're definitely a typical Keser case, there a plenty to look at similar to your situation. Your temples and forelock aren't too bad either which helps, along with your hair type. "I have high expectations and I expect a perfect result. I’m 27, I do not want to go through two or more surgeries. " No matter who you pick though I wouldn't convince yourself that its a one and done or that you won't ever need a second procedure, this isn't reality in any sense. You will inevitably lose more hair in the future which presumably you will want to address also. Even the best transplant in the world isn't going to bring back your natural hairline, it will always be less dense than nature can provide and lack the same irregularity and softness a natural hairline has. There should be a high probability of a significant cosmetic improvement though.

Seriously though, I want everyone to get the best results possible, I would 100x prefer if you got a result you're happy with than feeling like you made a mistake. It doesn't change the fact that fretting over things you haven't researched or considered fully and turning this into criticism of the clinic can be misleading to people who are new to HTs in general. You've got a long while before you can start making any conclusion about whether it was money well spent.

Enjoy criticising a clinic for procedures that you were made aware of in consultation emails, is widely available through a basic Google search and is an industry standard. And no, you don't need my permission to make yourself sound like an idiot, have at it. By the way I didn't realise that editing a post for changing a few words and adding that I accept that the first 5 months post-op are very stressful and cause people to be on edge was "manipulating reality" or was evidence of "shady intentions". Thanks for the tip off, and have a nice life.

"You can believe me when I say that you are putting people off in posting and yes, the thing that people that just had the HT done need the least is what you give them." Thanks for offering absolutely no proof of this, and not mentioning the fact that I've absolutely NEVER criticised someone for saying their results are bad or they aren't happy with them. The cases you're referring to specifically involve people outright lying and making things up, resorting to hysteria within 4 months and attacking the clinic for something like tech extraction which is made quite clear in the consultation email and you would be made aware of with a basic Google search. There's nothing I have done that involves attacking people for complaining about legitimate issues with their procedure and I have helped and encouraged many to take up issues with the clinic, particularly at the 9-10 month mark when their results are clear.

I didn't call anyone a crybaby the first 5 months post-op are stressful for everyone and that's understandable, although I have called some people liars because they very clearly lied and on a number of ocassions. I've already said I'm not going to respond to them anymore and I'll gladly do the same in your case because you're clearly not thinking rationally or looking broadly at whether the issue is normal or acceptable. Someone has stoked the fires and you've jumped right in. The idea that I've put anyone off posting results is absolutely ridiculous, I have many times supported people for posting poor results and that they should engage in an appropriate procedure of waiting to the 12 month mark before taking qualms up with the clinic, and in all cases the clinic should work to help them. The problem is you and others are jumping to outright hostility within 4 months, in your case 10 days purely out of emotion. If you don't listen to the advice that basic research offers to wait an appropriate length of time before making a judgement and then criticise the clinic due to your own lack of understanding, this should 100% be pushed back upon. You're effectively saying that you should be able to bash doctors due to personal lack of research and understanding, and then not be corrected on why your criticisms are misfounded. I genuinely hope you get good results, but for anyone who doesn't the reality is that YOU made the decision to have the transplant and cough up grafts and money, no one else and not the surgeon. If you don't get the results you hope for (at a point where its fairly clear how it will turn out such as at the 9-10 month mark at least) you are welcome to and should bring this up openly and be free to discuss it on the forums, but endless complaints literally 10 days after a procedure don't look bad on anyone but yourself, and they give a dishonest and purely emotional view of the situation that will manipulate others that are noobs in this into believing your criticisms are legitimate. I'm well aware that I've helped a significant number of people and that many enjoy my bluntness which is often lacking because they've said as much in PMs and elsewhere, so don't act like my honesty isn't helping people.

Says the one who criticises what I wrote by literally saying absolutely nothing, including how it isn't constructive. Nowhere does it explicitly say that Erdogan does extractions or implantations, in the consultation email it is made quite clear that he only does consultation and incisions. This is absolutely never brought up in regards to Hasson and Wong, Diep, Feriduni or Lorenzo's clinic, all of which are double or more in price and not all of them explicitly mention they do not engage in extractions either. Its legitimate to ask what you actually want or how it would change your mind in any way; for example if on the website it explicitly said that Erdogan did not do the extractions or implantations, would you suddenly opt for a doctor only clinic like Lupanzula's or Konior's who are literally twice to three times the price? The answer is almost certainly a no. Why are poor results of doctor only clinics blamed as freak accidents or patient physiology, but those of one of the most consistent surgeons in the world who uses technicians to extract as being a problem of using techs? How is this anything but nonsensical? If it doesn't explicitly say anywhere he does the extractions, it is industry standard amongst many top FUE surgeons not to do extractions, its clear in the consultation email he doesn't do them + it's a team approach and a five minute Google search to look at patient experiences will tell you he doesn't do extractions, what more do you actually want? Your lack of desire to look at widespread facts and complaining about something that is absolutely never brought up with other top surgeons is hardly constructive. Hair transplants are an inherently team based procedure, if you aren't aware of the underpinnings of this well you have some basic responsibility and reason to do basic research on the matter if you're going to fork out that amount of money on it. No one is forcing anyone to go to this clinic at gunpoint like you seem to suggest and a lack of basic reading comprehension and five minutes of research is hardly the clinics fault. It's very, very hard to take the idea that you would fork out 10k on a procedure you didn't read the consultation email for and did absolutely no basic research on (Even a simple Google search). If you don't like the approach (the same approach as Lorenzo and Feriduni who absolutely never get called out on it) then maybe you should go to another clinic, and enjoy paying twice the price.

He doesn't do the extractions, this was my experience and that of hundreds on this forum and elsewhere. There is no legitimate reason people are getting so uptight about this issue either, its industry standard outside the United States for techs to do extractions including at various top clinics such as Hasson + Wong, Lorenzo's, Feriduni's and even Diep in the US for example. In the consultation email sent by the clinic it also does not state that Koray does the extractions, only the incisions. It's hard to have sympathy for the those that suggest that its anyone else's fault but their own for not reading the consultation email properly or reading at least a single patient posted experience on a website like this before they fork out 10 grand. Is there a reason this is never brought up for various other clinics some of which do not explicitly state anywhere the doctor doesn't do extractions? The answer is no, people are clearly just looking for something to complain about. If people care about this so much they are free to choose another clinic or pay 3 times the price for a surgeon like Konior that is involved at every stage, otherwise it is just illegitimate complaining for the sake of it.