kirkland

Not sure if you are familiar with the definition of 'homeliness' but it definitely doesn't mean what you think it means. 

Maybe change it to the word 'support'. Would be appropriate and would completely change the meaning of the sentence. 

Congratulations @HugoX. A lot of us have been looking forward to a first hand account of a Dr. Zarev patient. I would also love to see the immediate post-op pics to see the outline of the donor parameters used. Also, would love to see the present day picture of the back of your scalp. Thanks for posting and look forward to seeing your growth.

This is the geek in me always curious about how systems can be better engineered.

Thanks. What I was trying to ascertain is how deep (in mm) a surgeon needs to penetrate the skin in order to remove a graft. Looks like terminal hair follicles are anywhere between 4 mm and 7 mm below the surface of the skin. So if the surgeon has to penetrate beyond the hair matrix, they are going at least 4 mm deep and possibly more.

On another forum, there was talk about Dr. Zarev's ability to remove a high number of grafts with very little scarring visible. A forum poster, who recently visited Dr. Zarev for a consultation, was trying to explain his extraction technique. I don't think I am allowed to copy and paste his text but, to paraphrase, he claims that Dr. Zarev's punches allow for the wound to heal with very little scarring since the puncture is so tiny in diameter. I was then wondering if, besides using a smaller punch size, the depth of the extraction could be more closely controlled to reduce scarring.

I've asked this question before about how small can punch sizes go before you are not extracting enough tissue around the graft to be viable for regrowth. How about punch depth? How deep does a surgeon have to penetrate the skin before they have cut to the necessary depth to safely remove the graft?

11 minutes ago, Melvin-Moderator said:

I’ve had dms guys saying, I’ve got $1,000 where can I go, and they’re Norwood 6s. 

I've seen a lot of guys on Facebook pages proud of how little they paid for their transplant. Their results show it.

14 hours ago, Melvin-Moderator said:

Cheap is probably $1 and under a graft. That's where you start to see significant changes in quality. In my opinion, $2-3 is affordable, the sweet spot for quality and affordability. A normal person with an average income can pay a hair transplant at that cost. 

I would agree. For those looking abroad to clinics which are more affordable than in N. America or Western Europe, that price range is where you should begin your search, not at the Dollar Store.

Looking good. You can really notice the thickening.

Great density. Patient looked like he had good donor characteristics.

I'm excited for the prospects of India 'transplanting' Turkey as the new go-to place for hair restoration surgery. Generally speaking, their doctors are better trained, their equipment and facilities are state-of-the-art and the level of competition is a bonus for lower prices, compared to North America and Europe. 

It really looks fantastic. I'm glad that it is the right solution for you. It has made a world of difference in camouflaging the scars.

Another great result from Eugenix. Under 6k in grafts with near complete coverage.

I haven't watched the video but, yeah, I think this is irresponsible of the doctor to do any part of the procedure without a local anesthetic. 

Haha. We should start doing a 'Rate my hairloss' section in this forum.

That's a good point. 

Hairloss patterns follow some general rules but determining where your type of hairloss fits on the Norwood scale is not always clear. When I have had consultations with hair transplant surgeons (or their reps), I have been told that I am anywhere between a Norwood 4 and 7.  Clearly I am not at either end of those parameters. A Norwood 5A, 5V or 6 seem a better reflection of my hairloss degree. But do you think that the classification system is not a sufficient measure of hairloss?

Good luck @ravitHope everything goes well for you. Keep us posted with lots and lots of pics if possible.

Good looking hairline. Abhinay, do you have a breakdown of what was available from the scalp donor area and what grafts came from body hair? 

I like the style of your hair just sticking straight up. Similar to the style I want.

I was under the impression that Dr. Jones had retired and had a younger surgeon take over his practice. Good to see that he is still in the game. Also good to see that he is doing mega session FUE's as he has traditionally had a more conservative approach in the number of grafts he would transplant in a single session.

Good luck over the next few months.

That's really a solid result. 

I've been redeemed! Seriously, I am glad that you had this convo with these docs because, for some of us, doing FUE and then FUT is the more optimal choice. FYI, Dr. Suneet Soni, who is a recommended surgeon on this site, does both FUE and FUT in a single session. Perhaps you could interview him in the future about the success of this combined technique.

If I were a doctor practicing plastic surgery, I would have to really think about changing my name from Dr. Slaughter.

Another great result from Eugenix. 

It's understandable to be skeptical about Tsuji/Riken and hair cloning in general, given the failures of the past. But science does progress, and there have been significant hurdles overcome since the days of Intercytex. For one, the development of 3D scaffolds for hair follicle stem cell culturing has improved the multiplication process. I have no doubt that we will have rudimentary hair growth on human scalps from stem cells in the near future - hair that cycles properly, hair that grows at the right angles, hair that mimics the same characteristics as donor hair. As Dr. Khokhar has eluded to, cancerous tumors from the implanted germs should be of the most concern. Even if successful, scaling the technology to the point it is affordable enough to compete with HT's is unlikely in the near future.

It will be interesting to see if they were able to get past the biggest hurdle of mass multiplication of epithelial cells. Certainly promising but realistically unavailable for most of us for a few years.