HarryHonolulu

Yes twice! “Good candidate”. “Average donor”. “Signs of miniaturization in lower donor”

hey guys how does my donor area look? I've had different responses from different doctors. some said excellent, others said average. nobody said "below average" but I am curious to know what you think

hi all- one thing I have noticed is how 2000 grafts in the hands of a brilliant surgeon can make a HUGE aesthetic difference, even in a higher Norwood. whereas other cases with even higher graft counts don't come anywhere near the same result. I am specifically looking at a Konior FUE- 2000 grafts in a higher Norwood, dude looks like he had 5000 grafts put in. What gives?? Isn't a graft a graft a graft?

Thanks Matt. The Doctor and I had an in-person consultation. He said I am a good candidate and my donor is "average".

Hey all- I consulted with my fav doc in the world. Great guy. It's the age old dilemma. I'm a NW4, creeping into 5 territory. The doc suggested 3500 FUT or 2000-2500 FUE. His results are always stunning. I don't like the idea of a linear scar and, theoretically, I feel much safer doing FUE. But... Could this decision backfire at all? If I do 2000 FUE as a first session, then maybe another 2000 later down the line - will I be happy with where I end up, and will my donor still look okay if I shave my head or if I cut it short? Bearing in mind that the doc is an ex plastic surgeon and only gets stellar results. Thanks, HH

Hey guys Is it even an option with Konior? How does it work? I’m wondering if he gives priority in his busy schedule to potential patients who pay 100% upfront vs patients that pay in installments

You make some very interesting points and it obviously sounds like you have experience. I would love an FUE surgeon that does great, subtle work - and when I looked at Erdogan I just didn’t see that in many of his documented cases. Especially when compared to Konior. If there is a Konior-level FUE doctor out there I would love to meet him- unfortunately many of the euro docs I looked at aren’t very refined

Exactly - US doctors might give you less “wow” results but that’s because they are preserving your donor area for future transplants and waiting to see how your hair loss progresses. 5000 grafts in one swoop a la Erdogan scares me because it doesn’t leave almost any donor hair

"OP also said in advance that he knew Erdogan consistently offered high graft numbers up to 5000 grafts and didn't like his hairlines, yet sent an online consult anyway just so he could complain of the high numbers and make this thread. Hmm." Jean: I requested an online consultation with Erdogan based on what I had read in the forums. Once I received his estimate, I looked up more of his results with a similar graft number, and was genuinely concerned so I came on here to voice my concern. I don't really know why this thread has taken such a bizarre twist. Sounds like it's a waste of everyone's time and energy to be honest. A bit like that photo that went around the web with people seeing blue, and others seeing grey. Some people want hair, no matter what it looks like. Maybe I am in the minority- to me it's more important that the hairline looks natural, subtle and believable. Having a mound of hair stick up from your scalp like an excited hedgehog doesn't work for me, but I am sure it's a perfectly fine result for many. Anyway, I am going to leave this alone. I do think that it's great to compare transplant stories and present opinions- isn't that why we are here?- but it's even greater to respect those opinions without assuming that someone has an agenda, or is wrong.

I thought the Cooley result was nowhere near the horror shows I am referring to, tbh. And hopefully I don’t get slammed when I say that transgender patients probably present all sorts of issues - hormonal, aesthetic- compared to non trans patients. I could probably post more bad examples from the Erdogan library. And I am not here to slander him. But on a practical level when you look at examples of a surgeons work, you might disagree with a couple of hairlines or might be slightly unimpressed with coverage – especially if a patient has a very severe hair loss pattern. But what I found in those two examples and especially the first one was quite simply a borderline incompetent hairline design. It looked like somebody glued a scrubbing brush on that dude’s head. Considering that we are hopefully beyond the age of “plugs“ and Donald-esque embarrassments it just blew my mind that people keep talking about this doctor as some sort of guru. Given that somebody else mentioned he is more of a volume guy, wouldn’t you be concerned about going to him and walking out with anything resembling those results? There’s no way to know and that terrifies me. And yes, that is true of virtually any surgery but it sounds like his Wham-bam approach exposes you to much more complications than a smaller practice would. And just to drive the point home – I also found a guy here who got necrosis after his surgery with Erdogan. He had an old scar that was affected by the surgery and admitted to smoking two packs a day. Why wasn’t he properly vetted before surgery? It all seems a bit sloppy to me.

Splitting- I can’t help but wonder if the issue is the surgeon’s touch and artistry. From what I can tell, the surgeons I mentioned (eg Konior or Cooley) are extremely meticulous about their hairline design. Indeed it IS a design, in that it needs to be crafted gently and responsibly. The Erdogan approach not only seems more aggressive; it also seems a bit generic. Like... draw a basic decent hairline, extract 5000 grafts, stick em in and onto the next. I have seen several different patients of his and some come out looking much better because their hairlines are indeed more “basic” to begin with. But if I was the recipient of either of those two examples I posted i would be super depressed. The first guy looks ridiculous. Sorry but it’s true...

Hi Mikey Anything by the guys I mentioned (Konior, Cooley, Shapiro) strikes me as much more natural. But again I am just curious to see if it’s just me or if indeed those Erdogan results are somewhat of a high mark since he has such a good reputation

hey all- I am not sure what the correct protocol is for gently "critiquing" a doctor's work on the forum... so apologies if I am out of line... In my quest for what I feel is the best FUE doctor *for me*, I kept hearing Erdogan's name pop up - specifically because he tends to go balls-to-the-wall and perform pretty big FUE sessions (4000-5000, easily). So I got an online consultation from him and indeed he suggested a mega-5000 graft session over two days. This is interesting on two levels: 1) Other doctors in the U.S. looked at the exact same photos and suggested 3000-3500. more importantly... 2) I am looking at a lot of his work and it just doesn't look that good. take this patient for example: (Promotional link removed) or this dude (Promotional link removed) They both have the same hallmark hairline, which is that "Lego man" look that screams hair transplant to me. The direction of the hair itself is another issue: instead of falling naturally, it sticks straight up like a brush. I don't think this is styling: it looks like that is literally the way the hair is growing. In the case of the 1st patient, believe it or not, I think he looked better before the surgery. Sure, he was balding. But he had a natural hairline. The result post-surgery is so clearly unnatural that if that were me, I would be disappointed. Compared to other doctors on here who achieve exquisitely natural hairlines (Konior, Cooley, Shapiro) it just seems like their approach is much more refined. Am I missing something?

my routine is as follows: - wash hair daily with thickening shampoo - apply rogaine to damp hair - once hair is dry, apply Caboki + fixing spray - go about my day with Caboki, go to sleep with Caboki on. - wake up, shower, shampoo with thickening shampoo. repeat. I realize that I should probably wash it off before sleeping, but I generally don't shower 2x a day and it's definitely a pain to have to do so. I've used Caboki 6 years now and it has never caused irritation like this so I am not entirely sure this is the cause of it!

thanks Bill. to clarify: I have NOT had surgery yet. I am going to- once I am set on which doctor to go to! I don't know if it's actual folliculitis. the easiest way to describe it is... mild acne of the scalp in 3-4 locations. sometimes there's an actual pimple, and other times it just feels like a really sore spot. it's interesting re: Caboki... I really hope it doesn't do any damage to the hair follicles because without it I would be :eek:

hey cats- for the past few months I have been suffering from on-and-off-again folliculitis of the scalp. it's hard to tell what it is caused by. Rogaine never gave me huge issues (although it certainly doesn't help if my scalp is irritated). I use a thickening shampoo and Caboki on a regular basis. could be stress? I switched over to an organic tea tree oil shampoo and it does seem to make a difference. I was also put on antibiotics 6 months ago and they cleared the irritation but it comes back every once in a while. anyway. does anybody know if this issue would/could affect hair restoration surgery? most of the time I don't have this problem, but I obviously worry that it might impact surgery.

I just did an online consultation with Erdogan and his office quoted me 5000 grafts FUE, done over two days. Another Doctor here in the U.S. quoted me 3000 grafts FUE, done in one day, and explained that since my hair loss looks quite stable I most likely wouldn't need more grafts. Two very different approaches. How does one choose? Should I be weary of Erdogan's mega session approach?

Bill, It's all me, and it's all from the same "photo session" ! I don't know what to say except ... hopefully I'm closer to the full head of hair than the other version of me !! Lol!! In all honesty I am definitely a NW 4. My hair is quite thick and curly so maybe that helps depending on lighting. It's also amazing how much a thickening shampoo can help to maximize the little hair I have on top. (annoyingly the photos rotated in all sorts of weird ways when I posted them) I was all about FUT but after lots of pondering I've concluded that the scar really does upset me. as much as I get that both procedures result in scarring, FUE (especially in the hands of a good surgeon) seems way less invasive than FUT. who are some of your fav FUE surgeons, regardless of location?

Thanks for the reply. The doctor did not examine me- I have been told my donor hair is very good. He was speaking generally (I believe) about why FUT might be a better option given the number of grafts needed in a higher Norwood. Nothing new but I have read different opinions about this perspective , with some saying that FUE absolutely yields comparable results and that it is possible to extract 3500+ grafts without compromising the donor area

Hey everybody – I am in the thick of hair restoration research – pun intended – and I would love to hear some thoughts from members of this wonderful group. I am 35 years old, I have been losing hair since I was in my early 20s but it was quite stable and simply looked like a very noticeable receding hair line. Over the past couple of years the hair loss has become quite obvious and I have been using concealers – which saved my ass – as well as Minoxydil and Propecia. I have been consulting with a couple of very good surgeons and the bottom line is that I really hate the idea of a linear scar. If it is it all avoidable without sacrificing a successful result, there is no doubt that I would go down the FUE road instead. I’m just wondering whether given that I would need a large number of grafts this case is not FUE- recommended. I heard different things from different people, some even saying that FUE can be done in larger cases such as mine, the scarring is on a different level compared to FUT (I.e. minimal), and that the results are just as good because ultimately it all comes down to graft placement and who is doing the surgery. I am posting pictures and would absolutely love to hear everybody’s thoughts. This is so helpful.

Thanks widows peak- Where should I post them? In this thread?

Thanks bud. Do you mean post pics of my current hair loss on the forums? Who did you have your procedure done with?

Hey all- I have found my FUT surgeon, should I go down that road. Now I am focusing my attention on the possibility of FUE. Two simple questions for y’all: - who is the Michael Jordan surgeon of FUE? - forgetting about price: I was told that I would need 3000 grafts to achieve good coverage with FUT. Would I be able to get that much done with FUE and would the result be as impressive? I’ve heard that FUE wrecks your donor area, that you can’t get as good a result, that the scars you get from a mega session with FUE are even worse than a linear FUT scar. Would love to get some opinions from the general folks out there!

one doctor said that going with FUE is a terrible strategy for someone in my situation because I would need at least one "big" session (eg 3500 grafts) so FUE risks destroying my donor area. he also said, as everybody else has, that the notion that it is scarless isn't true at all. I am not bothered about scars, cost etc. I just want to ensure I get the best possible result from the procedure. so if FUT gets me there, that'll be the road I take. and if it's FUE, that's fine too. one logic I've been following in making my decision: let's say FUT gives me better coverage. so good, in fact, that I don't even CONSIDER shaving my head, or cutting it really short (like, military style) simply because I can finally live with a full head of hair again. wouldn't that automatically make the scar a non-issue?

hey all is an FUE procedure completely inadvisable for a Norwood 5 patient such as myself? I would probably need 3000 grafts to make a serious dent in my baldness. just wondering if I should accept my fate and embrace the FUT method instead of going FUE and living to regret it (i.e. destroying my donor area, ending up with many tiny scars that overall look worse than linear, not getting impressive coverage etc.)