JayLDD

I largely agree with you, it's more of a general rant of what seems commonplace here than specifically against you (although the specific comment in question seemed odd), overall your opinions are very much worthwhile and well informed. I don't at all want to argue because again largely I think you're a top-end poster but I thought this was a little disingenuous too when it effectively its just playing semantics. "deeply minaturized state, diffuse loss is just one way the loss shows itself but it doesn't necessarily mean the hair is in an advanced stage of minaturization" I would also agree that Erdogan does err to the side of allowing higher risk decisions than other surgeons and allowing the patient to take responsibility on this end, when other surgeons might avoid these actions entirely. Personally I don't consider that a negative if he has a strong track record of success in actions many typically regard as high risk (eg. 5000-5500 graft FUE megasessions). People can make up their own minds.

Also this from you in another thread "As for other doctors who would be good to consult with as a diffuse patient. Dr Lorenzo, I had him as my doc and I'm a diffuse patient he's got lots of vids on youtube showing his work with diffuse patients" I respect your opinions and you obviously have a good knowledge of what you're discussing, but don't be a bullshit artist because clearly that's what's going on here. This is a post from a day ago of you admitting that you had a transplant as a "diffuse patient" (miniaturised hairs), and yet here you are criticising Erdogan for doing so. Laughable hypocrisy. When Erdogan uses his coverage value system which typically results in higher potential graft numbers than other surgeons it ALWAYS results in criticism. When Lorenzo uses the EXACT SAME SYSTEM and gets the same giant numbers, absolutely no one complains. When Erdogan operates on a 22 year old like I was, he cops criticism for being unethical or reckless. When Feller or Hasson and Wong do the same with a hairline no less aggressive or dense than mine was, they receive zero criticism or simply mention that they were on medication and understood the risks and its all fine and dandy. When Erdogan gets a very rare poor result while being one of the surgeons with the most results available to view online in the world (up there with Lorenzo in regards to consistency of high yields also) people tend to jump on the trash talk bandwagon. When Feriduni or Lupanzula get a bad result (and boy are there a lot of them), no one gives a shit. "There are risks with every surgery, you'll likely need another pass". Of course this is accurate, but where was the same comment in the case of Erdogan? And of course here, in the thousands of Erdogan results I have seen there isn't a single case where a person has had visible issues with permanent shock loss or brought it up. Of course however he gets criticised for implanting into diffused areas by someone like yourself due to riskiness, when you LITERALLY HAD THE SAME THING DONE TO YOURSELF BY ANOTHER SURGEON. lel.

I had a reasonable amount of grafts into miniaturised areas and it worked out very well, there was no noticeable shockloss even in the short term. I didn't really have a choice because if I was to have a thick hairline and frontal third it wasn't going to work with a thinned out and sick looking forelock. I disagree its "like playing with fire", his clinic has had the same approach for years and years and I've genuinely never see a single person have an issue with permanent shock loss at ASMED. If you can find one from the hundreds and hundreds of Erdogan results online that include placement into areas of miniaturisation then feel free to share it, but otherwise it just sounds like fearmongering. Plenty of other surgeons work on patients with diffuse pattern hairloss also, there is a 5000ish graft Arocha case on a patient with diffuse and it had nothing but compliments, being a strong result. Of course its more acceptable blame someone breaking the rules when they're a Turk rather than American. But genuinely, if people are going to make the shock loss argument to a surgeon that has had this approach successfully for so long they better damn well show some evidence using results of the surgeon they're critiquing.

I didn't agree with your Lupanzula comments specifically because I can tell the presentation of results is geared towards showing the results exactly as they are in regards to lighting and before/afters unlike 95% of even the best clinics, but this is hugely uncalled for. Honestly if this isn't just an accident of some sort I think I'll stop posting and recommending this as a resource. This site seems to have less people posting than usual lately with a slow downtrend and this is a truly stupid thing to do if you want the community to be worth anything at all in the long term.

Interesting that I was talking to a female friend recently and mentioned I'd had a transplant which she said she was impressed by and that "It looks a lot better than Elon Musks". (Transplant or hairpiece?) We started talking a bit more about celebrity transplants and she has a bit of a love/hate obsession with Peterson, so I mentioned his and she said she didn't even realise he'd had one. I think most people who have seen a lot of transplants and look at that hairline design would know instantly its a dead give away along with the lack of soft single grafts and poor temple density, so anyone who's a little worried about their transplant being spotted or the design not being perfect, the general public probably have no idea. A mediocre or imperfect transplant can often still be better than the alternative of no hairline at all, which I think most would agree with looking at his before photos.

Hmm, well since you're an asshole and came here with your mind made up maybe I'll try some reverse psychology so you piss more money down the toilet on shitty results. DON'T go to Dr. G, his results on you were terrible! You don't want more bad results do you? Go with a good doctor like Hasson or Wong! Avoid Dr. G he doesn't know what he's talking about!

Do you have a thread of your results up?

I went with Erdogan so keep that in mind, but overall I would suggest him over Lorenzo specifically because he would opt for larger 2 day megasessions in the 5-5.5k range in contrast to Lorenzo who would opt for two procedures for this number. Neither are are among the very best hairline surgeons in the world but Lorenzo is typically more conservative. Both are sharing some use of protocol, have a massive amount of documentation and high level of consistency, if you're not convinced in one direction by one or the other I would consider especially that you're likely to get a finished product in a single surgery from Erdogan, but not in the case of Lorenzo because of their seperate graft numbers approach. The post-op period is even less fun than it sounds and less time dealing with travel, time off work, risk of complications and damage to your social life the better. Also you say you don't see many higher norwood cases with Erdogan, definitely check out the international hairloss forum (just Google that) because there are a huge number there

Probably good to just come out and say it, your current surgeon doesn't know what he's talking about. Your first set of results were not disastrous but they are poor, there's a reason why people are telling you to go elsewhere. There are physical limitations, and there are limitations based on the talent and skill of particular surgeons, of which yours appears to have little. Not every surgeon is equal, there is no standard protocol and particularly in the US and UK the majority of surgeons are behind the times and virtually incompetent. You've made multiple threads about it as if the people here are idiots and don't know what they're talking about, do some of your own research looking at the work and opinions of other surgeons. If you can't handle the truth or this annoys you, then go back to the surgeon who did your first procedure. Enough people have informed you on this at this point.

Agree with your point on first procedures, it's the route I've taken in my case and its worked very well, I am going a tad more aggressive the second time round but not hugely. Especially in your case it wouldn't take an excessive amount of grafts to get things absolutely perfect ( just from my perspective), and you're in a very safe position considering your age and perfecto first procedure.

I'm not saying this to be insulting, but while your result in regards to yield and density is incredible and you've had a massive cosmetic improvement, its a perfect example of a hairline that clearly looks too high to be natural. In reality men don't have hairlines that straight, even and "perfect" looking at that conservative height. A less conservative approach and lower hairline in your case would actually look more natural, not less with such a level of density. Again not trying to be insulting at all because overall its a very strong result, but you open yourself up to that blatantly visible critique when you are on the offensive on this issue. Same situation for many younger guys, a transplant with strong hairline density but a conservative placement and design on a twenty year old in particular has the potential to look completely ridiculous. Do you genuinely believe they're better off spending two decades "growing in" to their conservative hairline which often doesn't look natural to begin with? It's silly.

"With respect to the comments of Mr. Hassler, I question his rational in believing that every man with an early pattern will progress to an advanced pattern as I have many long term patients over a 30 year career who have never progressed beyond a lower graft classification. I question the comment that this patient will eventually look odd as I have many patients with lower classifications who have been restored to a more youthful hairline position while looking quite good for decades." This response is the difference between a doctor that has faith in their work and one who doesn't. No one one would suggest Brad Pitt, Tom Cruise or Clooney look ridiculous with juvenile hairlines into their 50s, in fact it is the undisputed opposite. The only ones to suggest this are surgeons who don't believe they have the talent level to consistently provide strong results for a dense and youthful hairline, or patients who are jealous of what has been achieved in cases like this. The truth is that this man will be slaying into his fifties if he stays on finasteride. He looks a million times better than 99% of conservative cases and on the balance of probabilities will continue to for decades to come. The other comment about long term risk management in general is also very worthwhile and rarely discussed. This is a personal choice and for many individuals the risk/reward and cost/benefit of opting for a transplant or in particular an aggressive transplant in their youth can be a far better option than opting for something more conservative, or not undertaking a transplant at all. If I'm looking for a surgeon I want someone who shows long-term consistency and has faith in their work, not a baby sitter telling me that they can't achieve something others clearly are achieving or that they know better than my own gauge of my personal risks and situation. Certainly Konior would be one of the first I would trust in a case like this.

Refund, opt for another surgeon. If I was in your case I would probably try FUT rather than FUE to maximise my chances with someone like Konior or Hasson/Wong. If you're set on FUE I would definitely suggest Erdogan strongly, specifically because you have quite a large area to cover as well as thinning way back in the midscalp, which ought call for a larger megasession than most of your other options opt for in FUE cases, including reinforcement of thinning areas behind the hairline.

You don't actually say what the issue is though. Guarantee if he posted these same photos from a Belgian or Spanish surgeon you wouldn't be saying that because quite frankly its 100% baseless unless your expectations are way off the mark, which by the sounds of things they appear to be. You say it's wrong for a doctor to admit that transplants aren't a magical cure-all, and then that your own doctor basically promised the world and it would be perfectly natural acting like this is a better alternative. Makes absolutely no sense. Are you honestly naive enough to believe that it is possible to achieve the same density and hair texture of the natural hairs prior to hairloss? This is just silly. "It's a good transplant, but aesthetically it fails to satisfy." What does this mean though? I don't think the hairline design is perfect, however Koray looks over it twice, including before and after the hair is shaved. He specifically asks for input, as do the patient assistants. He isn't a child, this result is consistent with other work from top surgeons and Koray, if he didn't like his hairlines he could have looked elsewhere and more importantly he had the ability to offer input, which he didn't. He even said he wasn't happy about the design so asked his assistant but made no comment on it himself. He also says he didn't say anything because he didn't know anything about how it should look, but as soon as it was created he magically knew perfectly well he wasn't happy. On top of this earlier in the thread he says he can see through it and it doesn't stand up to harsh lighting, yet in the last page he says its so dense that it looks like he is wearing something on his head. Huh? Come on, this guy was a problem patient waiting to happen. Red flags galore. "where do novices seeking out information find similarly experienced people who can provide a counter" If you don't like it, choose a different surgeon. The nape hair option is a bad one because typically they are well known to be less stable in regards to miniaturisation than the rest of the donor which you admit yourself. Very few doctors dispute this, which is why they typically avoid this. You can't get hairline hair to place in the hairline once you've lost it to begin with so it will never be as natural as pre-hairloss. Some people have significant differences in hair texture, thickness and colour in separate parts of the scalp. This can't magically be fixed by a surgeon. On top of this OP still doesn't post clear pre-ops despite being asked in multiple posts. Why does he hide the situation if he's so adamant that he has a problem? The reason is obvious.

This plan should work well, but definitely get on finasteride to preserve what hair you have left and keep it looking natural as possible, which is hard if you've lost everything on top. Finasteride is going to do much more for you than a transplant, and potentially may mean that you'd get acceptable results without even needing SMP.

You will need in the range of 4000-5000 grafts for full coverage. Look into doctors with experience at higher norwoods and large megaessions such as Koray Erdogan for FUE or Hasson + Wong at FUT. Don't waste time with the same doctor who did the last transplant.

OP made it clear it was his choice so one cannot blame Gabel. He was providing a service asked for by the patient who asked for it adamantly and did that effectively, it just wasn't the best solution. And I've seen plenty and plenty of "professionals" with years of experience in hair transplants butcher, scam, and harm people such as in a recent Beehner case and of course Doganay, both of which are very competent doctors and have had a track record of strong results and knowledge. There are a number of "professional" surgeons recommended here who believe FUE cannot achieve the same results consistently as FUT as well as shouldn't be used for megassessions and to do so is unethical. Other surgeons on the recommended list here believe that FUT is no longer a procedure worth opting for in the vast majority of cases and FUE results can reach the same high standards of the best FUT. They can't all be right, so clearly being a professional doesn't make you infallible. The initial doctor who operated on him did a horrible job, would you take their "professional" advice or results? What an idiotic mentality. Truth doesn't care about the one who is saying it. This is an appeal to authority fallacy plain and simple. The fact is that this doesn't look good currently, he's on the hook for an expensive, lengthy and non-guaranteed recovery and there was a better, more simple solution. His hairline is so high at this point that it doesn't look natural in itself, on top of the issue of where the grafts were removed. Again, if your forehead looked like that even if it was "only" for 12-24 months would you be comfortable going on dates or business meetings? I very much doubt you would. Anyway, you do you and believe what you like, I've made my point and won't say any more on this. I don't want to upset anyone my point was simply that removing the grafts was a poor solution, and it doesn't look good. That is my opinion.

I specifically mentioned it because you acted like all I'm doing is trying to be an asshole, when the reality is I'm trying to help other readers, and know for a fact that a significant number of other people find what I say helpful. I can guarantee no one gives a shit about your snowflake, feelgood blather which at the end of the day isn't honest and helps no one. This could have been corrected by 1500-2000 grafts easily by someone as capable as Gabel. Considering the stability of OPs hairloss long term it would have been a safe option. His current situation is of higher risk, looks bad and put him on the hook for further funds to correct a situation that isn't a guaranteed fix.

There's been significant textural changes over the past 3 months or so which still continue to get better, but the hair is definitely thicker and also slightly darker than the original hairline. I knew this would be the case because my original hairline and hair in the temple point region is almost colourless and extremely fine which is very different than the back and the sides which isn't the case for most people. It still blends with the hair behind it very nicely however and doesn't make a difference because my whole frontal area has been replaced or reinforced though. No problems wearing the front with the hairline exposed when its shorter. In terms of naturalness I have absolutely no issues. I didn't take Koray's advice on the hairline design initially which in retrospect was a bad choice as I thought it would look better more rounded, but this isn't a big issue as I knew from day one I wanted a second run through and to go slightly more aggressive with it especially in the temple area so this would have changed anyway. To be honest I don't think the hairline design is completely natural, but again I can hardly complain when I asked for the adjustments and they reiterated a number of times to speak up if I had any issues. I haven't had significant amounts of new growth the past few months but interestingly a few balding friends who I mentioned the procedure to have said they thought it looked significantly improved from when I last saw them 2-3 months ago and have asked for details on transplants, medication etc.

I've had over 50 inboxes from people asking me for help, thanking me for helping them and also being open and honest about controversial issues that other people avoid speaking up on in general. I know for a fact that my posts are helpful so I'll continue to be honest here so anyone who is considering a similar option in these circumstances doesn't just listen to the yes men. It looks bad and if you're acting as if waiting TWO YEARS of his life for it to "heal and mature" is acceptable while looking currently very, very noticeable and odd then I can do nothing but laugh at you. Even if he waits that long there are no guarantees. Would you feel confident going on a first date with a massive strip of damage like that exposed on your forehead? I certainly wouldn't. He's swapped an easily repairable density issue for a much larger issue that is significantly harder to fix. Particularly on a case where I know full well what most people are thinking but refusing to say like this it's worthwhile putting it out there.

Still noticeable. This was a very silly idea.

It slows down but I think roughly 20% have trickled through randomly after the main spurt from 3.5-4.5 months. A lot of your hairs seem to be very thin and wispy too and I suspect that will improve, it did in my case. I wouldn't hit the panic button until around 10 months. Yours doesn't look much worse than mine at 5 and you seemed to start growth a little later. If I'm being totally honest I don't think you'll get a perfecto result on balance of probabilities given your current situation, but likely a worthwhile cosmetic improvement especially in another 3-4 months. Some growth likely still to come and a lot of improvement in thickening and texture. Adding a bit of length will help overall too.

Depends on the size of the surgery and NW, but Erdogan in terms of doctors with reasonable waiting lists, Freitas is over 2 years which for most is a silly amount of time to wait although certainly a top option too. Feriduni also a strong option.

Smash those 2000 grafts out man, take it next level. Especially impressed with the crown improvement for such a small amount of grafts. This is looksmaxing at its best.

People aren't just saying this to calm you down, they mean it. You can't expect anything at all at 3 months apart from a few strays growing, which you have now. The average patient begins to see the bulk begin to take shape at month 4, and virtually nothing at 3. Some patients see very little until month 5 and still have very strong final results. I found the 2-3.5 month mark very stressful personally so understand the concern, but right now your result isn't abnormal, in fact it is the experience of the average patient.