JayLDD

Quick post-cut update. Hoping I have a long way to go with density, thickness and more sprouts, but finally feel I'm comfortably past the ugly duckling stage. Lighting, lens, camera and distance make all the difference of course, but already a big improvement. Added a pre-surgery pic for comparison.

This is why I'm more than happy to criticise doctors who SHOULD know better than me, but clearly are prone to making sweeping generalisations that are less accurate than a high school science student would be expected to be in an assignment. "And there is no such thing as donor management when it comes to FUE megasessions and young patients. " So I guess that's why you will find hundreds and hundreds of Erdogan and Lorenzo cases over the 5000 FUE graft mark with no visible donor diffusion, and others get butchered by after 1500. Apparently in your world extraction technique, extraction method, punch type, punch material, punch size, doctor doing the extraction and field of extraction make no difference to donor management with FUE? No Dr. Bloxham, what you said was a laughably inaccurate and ignorant generalisation, and quite frankly, a lie.

The study you showed shows hair above baseline for the average person for 10 years. That is a massive difference for someone who wants to have age appropriate hair in their twenties. In your 30s and 40s, having a bit of thinning in the crown if you run out of donor isn't as much of an issue, and quite frankly with good donor management on someone facing a NW5 pattern chances are they will be able to get full coverage long term with a slightly thin crown. Concealers can also aid in providing the illusion of more density. Your argument is the equivalent of saying that you'll never be the worlds greatest body builder so there's no reason to go to the gym.

If price is not an issue, Dr. Oztan and Keser both do phenomenal work. I would avoid any other Turkish surgeons apart from those and Koray.

Gives a much more of a defined and elegant look to the hairline and temple areas in my opinion. Money well spent, but hopefully he doesn't lose any more.

Personal preference. I'm not seeing as many posted Feriduni results online lately especially for FUT, his waiting list is longer and his prices quite a bit higher, but none of those are particularly legitimate strikes against him. Specific camera and lighting setups from each clinics can make it very hard to judge accurately between what are clearly top end results, but I think I prefer Feriduni's FUT work just by a tad. In saying that, I would probably opt for Bisanga on the reasons above, especially as he has a more active presence on the forums recently and from patients posting.

All I can say to that is that I recommend everyone do a significant amount of research on their procedure type and as many doctors as possible worldwide when looking for a surgeon, and to avoid listening to the advice of any one specific clinic or source for getting information. If they do that, it is obvious which conclusion they'd reach on the matters being raised here. To the implication that I am shilling, note the fact that I never mentioned any specific doctor who I thought would be a better choice for FUE. You are the one to imply that. Worse, you suggest I work for a clinic with zero evidence of that. Also to suggest that one needs first hand experience with hair transplants to judge cosmetic improvement is absurd, and quite frankly you know full well that is disingenuous. One doesn't need to be able to kill a cow to judge their steak. Making a personal judgement based on thousands of FUE results I have seen on this forum and others is hardly dishonest, it's a little silly that you feel so threatened by that. Your paranoia isn't a good look, perhaps some people legitimately are unimpressed by Farjo's work amongst the wider surgeon community and it has nothing to do with shilling or competitors? In saying that, I wish Micknick the best and suspect he will get a nice cosmetic improvement.

I can't think of a worse idea than an ultra low budget FUT procedure. Look into Dr. Soni and Dr. Radha at least.

"Lmao you're a clown bro" nek minit "You really gotta lay off the personal attacks, makes you sound like a petulant little child. " "You provide us with hundreds of 10k graft FUE cases and maybe I'll agree that it's something a man can count on." nek minit "I didn't say it's not a good procedure because it can't achieve 10k grafts" "You conveniently ignored my pointing out of the study that showed guys are back at baseline after 5 years of fin," *Didn't actually point out a specific study "You don't have the grafts to do that, starting the hairline that low increases the surface area to cover dramatically." Despite the fact that 5500 grafts at 55 microns can give dense and full coverage on a norwood 6: International Hair Loss Forum - Djeetee: 5500 FUE - Dr Erdogan - 27&28/09/16 I reiterate, you are not a smart person, and it seems not smart enough to argue with. You are a worm.

You're the one who claimed that FUE couldn't achieve 10000 grafts and therefore isn't a good procedure, and yet I'm the clown? You then claim anecdotal evidence about finasteride wearing off means anything? "The absolute general consensus"? You mean what you made up? And how in the world is 15 years of stability not worth it for someone in their 20s as a norwood 3 getting an aggressive hairline procedure? I also never lumped Konior's claims in with Feller, and I asserted this in the last comment very clearly. You lack basic reading comprehension skills. You're a scummy idiot plain and simple. It's bad enough you argue so poorly, but you misrepresent everything I say and move the goal posts every post you make.

So Dr. Feller is correct when he says the yield of FUE is in the average range of 75% and that no more than 1500 grafts should be extracted on any donor via FUE? Being a doctor doesn't mean they are immune from saying stupid, inaccurate and baseless statements. I didn't talk down Konior either, I said he is correct if we want to talk about absolute maximum donor capacity, but as a generality it doesn't make a huge difference. Finasteride has a multi-decade efficacy and 80-90% respond with maintenence quoted by various studies. You don't care about statistics or facts clearly, but the facts say that if are if you're a norwood 3 and you get on finasteride you won't lose the rest for decades. International Hair Loss Forum - Djeetee: 5500 FUE - Dr Erdogan - 27&28/09/16 And please, explain this case of a full blown norwood 6 to a norwood 1 with FUE if graft numbers are such an issue? Very few patients require more than 7000 grafts for full coverage and average density. What can I say though, you have the intellect of a dead goldfish.

Tell that to this guy International Hair Loss Forum - Djeetee: 5500 FUE - Dr Erdogan - 27&28/09/16 It is purely a numbers game.

Definitely, I think overall lifetime grafts isn't as much of an issue for the majority of patients as some people make out though. With competent surgeons and a combination of FUE and FUT the average patient is able to obtain well into the 7000 area, and the potential of BHT and SMP for the illusion of more density makes money the greater issue than just donor numbers. Most people on this forum never get close to reaching their donor potential, even more moving into BHT transplant or SMP. The only times I see that this isn't the case is for abnormally poor donor areas or cases where you have an incompetent technician with a motorised punch doing major damage that wouldn't happen with an experienced surgeon or appropriately sized manual punch. Agree with your laxity comment in regards to FUE too, interested what most surgeons think of this but I've seen a Bisanga rep suggest it isn't a major issue if it is performed competently.

A combination of FUE and FUT will maximise donor capacity, the ordering of which not being particularly relevant, and cosmetic improvement, yield and consistency is correlated to the doctor, not the type of procedure. There are more poor cases of FUE and less competent FUE doctors, however this again does not relate to the procedure itself. Many of the surgeons who doubt the efficacy of FUE for megassessions are not skilled at FUE themselves as otherwise why can they not achieve the results of doctors like Couto, Lorenzo and Erdogan with the same consistency. Tellingly,very often those who criticise FUE megassessions utilise a motorised punch which is designed to make the job easier for an inexperienced doctor, not improve the results of the patient. FUT overall will inevitably produce better results as it is not a blind procedure like FUE, however it is difficult to distinguish a difference in yield and cosmetic improvement comparing a top FUE and top FUT surgeon with the same amount of grafts, area covered and hair type. There is little evidence to suggest any top FUT surgeon is more consistent in their work and yield than any top FUE surgeon. Choose based on the doctor and their consistency with getting results that fit your expectations, not specifically the type of procedure, although the higher the norwood, poorer the donor and if unmedicated then the benefits of FUT become more apparent. End of story.

You can't magically create new grafts by doing strip prior to FUE. Of course FUE may result in a small % (under 5) of transection doing extra damage to the donor, but most FUE doctors will not take more than 30-40% of the donor before they stop to overharvest. If you harvest 30-40% of the donor via FUE, a strip will yield 30-40% less at that point, but nonetheless you can still do strip after FUE. The difference between smart people and stupid people is stupid people evaluate using opinions rather than using facts. Konior can't change the laws of mathematics. Grafts are either there or not, whether you opt for strip or FUE first will not make a huge difference. I agree if we are talking in about absolute maximum then FUT first will provide the best results, but overall it will make little difference if the transection rate is low. "once you've raped the donor with FUE, you can't count on that giving you any appreciable amount of grafts once you've done that FUE damage." A donor being raped is typically to do with an motorized punch and large scarring, in every single one of the Erdogan norwood 5 5000-7200 graft results I posted they could still get a sizeable FUT procedure. If you have a donor supply of 5000 grafts with FUE up to 40% of donor removal, you extract 5000 with a 5% transection rate and then proceed to FUT, you will still get a strip that yields 60% as much. Argue with this all you like, what you're saying is pure stupidity and it makes no logical sense. A child can understand the basic maths here. I don't know how to perform surgery as well as an FUT master like Dr. Feller or Dr. Konior, but I also lack the bias of being part of that industry and having my profits directly impacted by this debate subject. Again, there are over a thousand results between Erdogan and Lorenzo available online, MOST of them patient posted that show FUE over the 5000 graft line and with results comparable to any strip surgeon. Ignore the patient posted results I offered on the last page and doing the research yourself if you like, but you come across like an ignorant idiot. If you think my statement about a total lack of misfires is inaccurate, then find some misfires and prove what you are saying. "And the 10k graft number came from him hypothesizing that is what he has available and realistically NW 6/7 men need 10k at least to get a good result, every single case I've seen that's less then that would benefit immensely from thousands more grafts and quite frankly should've just shaved the remainder off and moved on, but that's their choice to make." And more pure nonsense. I cannot believe you are still going on about this goalposts fallacy. The vast majority of patients aren't norwood 7, and the vast majority of norwood 5s and 6s are happy with results around or under the 5000 graft mark. You're honestly trying to say that FUE isn't a good procedure because it can't get 10000 grafts for the average patient? Why not just make it 20000? FUE can't get 20000 grafts? Must be a shit procedure! Seriously, I feel bad for humanity when I read posts as stupid as yours. Your level of understanding logical arguments and what constitutes evidence is below that of a cucumber. Take an epistemology course for real. All opinions and appeal to authorities, not one FACT.

Very few people require 10k grafts or would want to go through that many due to time and cost constraints so that is a moot, ridiculous point to make. Before it was an appeal to authority fallacy, now a move the goalposts fallacy. The grand stupidity of what you said doesn't count the fact that you can still get an FUT, albeit with a lower yielding strip after you have extracted 5-6k FUE grafts. Regardless, the hundreds Erdogan and Lorenzo 5000-7000 cases (many with Erdogan 5000 in a single two day session) and total lack of misfires prove the hypothesis of Feller wrong. FUE can, and does on a daily basis provide top notch megasession results for high norwood cases and many of the doctors doing so are just as consistent as any FUT surgeon in the world. You can't argue against the results. Many doctors aren't talented or experienced enough to provide successful FUE that stands up to FUT, the problem is these arrogant doctors who blame it on the procedure type, not the procedure itself.

The burden of proof is on you to disprove the coverage value system of Lorenzo and Erdogan, as they are the one consistently proving they can hit targets of 5000-7500 with FUE on average donors with no visible thinning. Likely over 1000 of these results visible online between them. Provide evidence to the contrary in regards to RESULTS, or you simply come across as incompetent at arguing this. Bringing up Feller's complaints to argue against results is nothing more than an appeal to authority fallacy. It doesn't hold up to reality.

Much of the FUE vs FUT literature I have read on both sides is barely high school level and shows utter disdain for the scientific method and understanding of controlled variables. For example the Beehner study on FUE cited by Feller and Bloxham regards a surgeon who considers himself experienced and yet also claims to have performed less than 100 FUE surgeries in a decade. To believe anything a talented surgeon writes even if the work is utter garbage and the evidence does not reflect evidence it is nothing more than an appeal to authority fallacy. We can look at the generalities on the other hand like the hundreds of Erdogan 5000-5500 graft cases on the international forums in which norwood 5s are achieving full coverage and the results are arguably more consistent than any FUT doctor in the world. When this extends beyond the hundreds (and failure rates or low yields below 2-3%) with doctors such as Lorenzo and Erdogan, you can no longer dismiss it as anecdotal evidence. https://www.youtube.com/user/NUFCBLOGS/videos International Hair Loss Forum - Dr. Koray Erdogan / ASMED SURGICAL CENTER : 5021 FUE International Hair Loss Forum - Vladimir 83 : 4502 FUE - Dr Erdogan - 14 et 15/05/2014 International Hair Loss Forum - Djeetee: 5500 FUE - Dr Erdogan - 27&28/09/16 International Hair Loss Forum - Vanpierresi & p?re : 3000 & 5000 FUE - Dr Erdogan - 14/02/17 International Hair Loss Forum - XABABA : 3200 FUE - Dr. Koray Erdogan, ASMED There are hundreds of these if you would like to look further. Hair transplant surgery is primarily cosmetic, we can deduce that FUT is clearly the better procedure by the nature of dissection under a microscope vs blind removal of tissue, however the results of doctors like Erdogan and Lorenzo show that large megasessions and massive cosmetic improvements that equal and better 95% of FUT surgerons in aesthetics and yield is possible. You cannot explain away all these cases with studies from American surgeons who are clearly having there business hit by superior and cheaper FUE surgeons who offer a more appealing service to the average patient (whether or not it is better). The studies are clearly inaccurate and high school level in many of their claims. Erdogan and Lorenzo have some of the most readily available results to view online, feel free to disprove with evidence of failure rates, poor yield and cosmetic mediocrity by looking at their results. Citing study data done by FUT surgeons who are incompetent at FUE and against it for business reasons is piss poor evidence against genuine results. Why are these and a number of other FUE surgeons such as Couto, Freitas, Lupanzula and Feriduni acheiving these results that so many highly intelligent and skilled FUT doctors claim is impossible? The explanation that it comes down to can be nothing other than competence. Why are doctors like Erdogan and Lorenzo able to get 6000-7000 on a regular basis from patients with no visible damage to the donor even with a fade cut? Why is there not a single case of an Erdogan 5000 with visible donor depletion when Feller claims this is impossible? Competence, experience and use of a manual punch. In regards to FUE, Feller lacks all of these in contrast to some of the top full time FUE surgeons. Either that, or he is simply lying. The claim that FUE cannot rival FUT for high norwood work and achieving similar cosmetic results for similar graft numbers is blatantly disproven.

5 Months Pretty happy with things at this stage. I've deliberately styled it to expose the transplanted areas, so excuse how messy it looks. Donor looks strong as hell. Also one photo under mild lighting with the hairline exposed. When styled properly and under this sort of soft lighting there is already a massive improvement. It took 3 months for the rest of my hair to achieve good density and scalp coverage post-op due to the length issue and most of my sprouts started at around 3.5 months, so expecting at around 6.5 I'll be very happy. Cooped up with assignments right now so haven't got a cut yet, but I'll take a chunk off in the next week or so and might post that.

Went for a 3000 graft FUE with Erdogan. Mainly because of the strength of my donor and success with finasteride + I was only a norwood 3 with minor crown thinning. Apart from Konior who had a year long waiting list I wasn't convinced there were any surgeons as consistent as Erdogan regardless of the procedure type either. My plan is another 2500-3000 graft FUE touch up procedure in the next 2-5 years depending on how things hold up and to opt for FUT beyond that. Already very happy with how this procedure is turning out though, at 5 months tomorrow so I'll get some photos up later on.

I think ultimately you will get a result that you will be satisfied with, in regards to yield there is no reason to think you won't get good results and obviously Dr. Farjo is very competent. However for your level of loss, you are much better suited to FUT, and you could have achieved far better coverage with a strip. You could have kept a conservative hairline but provided coverage in that crown area and better coverage in the area behind the frontal band. FUT yields higher, it does less damage to the donor and it would have allowed for a larger procedure and better coverage. It also would have been cheaper. Again, FUE is not a scarless procedure, and for that same graft number with FUT you would have likely had half the scarring magnitude. SMP can also aid in concealing the scar. Whether or not this is ethical comes down to opinion, but certainly if I was in his position I would have firmly suggested FUT and to stick with finasteride. He didn't HAVE to perform a FUE on you, he could have just as easily said you are a far better FUT patient and if you weren't happy with that turned you down and said you were not a candidate. FUE is more costly, does more damage to the donor, produces lesser results in general and is much better suited to those with very strong donors, lower levels of loss and who are adamant about sticking with finasteride. You are none of these, and are one who would have benefited by FUT substantially. I am not convinced the area behind the frontal band in your case has enough density to look natural either. But again, I think ultimately you will get a solid cosmetic improvement and Farjo's track record suggests good results in regards to yield and design as well. In my personal opinion, most people who had done significant research on FUE would not regard him as the cream of the crop specifically for FUE as his results do not reflect that, but certainly one of the best FUT surgeons in the UK. Also when I say mediocre in regards to FUE, more specifically my educated opinion is that he is not up to the standard of the best FUE surgeons this forum recommends, but of course the surgeons this forum recommends are all of a very high standard overall and at the top end in the wider hair surgeon community.

Much appreciated for confirmation. 100% agree.

Instead you'll end up with an FUE with a mediocre FUE surgeon (nothing against his FUT however), poor density, a lower yield than you would have achieved with FUT, more damage to your donor area, and a higher price. For the same price you could have had an FUT with enough grafts that you would have achieved full coverage and better results in every regard. What you just said about scarring is purely emotional, not rational. Farjo was wrong to opt for FUE in this case, and doing so when you are planning to get off finasteride shows a lack of respect for his patients. The magnitude of scar tissue caused by FUE per graft is more than twice the size of that with an FUT scar. I would look into SMP for aiding in camouflaging your current scar. To John the Vories representative, saying medication is over-rated is downright moronic and blatantly unethical coming from someone who should know better. Various major studies show finasteride has an 80-90% success rate in maintaining current hair for up to a decade (most studies ended after a decade or less so perhaps it is even longer). Is maintenance of native hair over-rated? Not a big deal when you're not the one paying for more surgery, it's just more money in the pockets of your surgeon buddies. From representatives and actual doctors I would expect much smarter planning and responses to this situation, but I guess money first, patient second.

Because of your heavy diffusing across the entire norwood 5 area, truthfully even 5000 grafts will not give full coverage or good density in all areas. Your best option in regards to donor management and your emphasis on cost would be to do the largest FUT procedure you can with Dr. Soni. This would keep your donor strong and down the track you could consider a smaller touchup procedure with Erdogan. Also I would recommend getting on finasteride.

A large FUT session would have been a better move in this case.