duchaine

Thank you! I think this is an ethical and smart approach!

A guy on this forum spent a couple of days counting the grafts...count the incision and, if they implanted less grafts, call them and ask for a refund,

the treated area was about 35-40 cm2 but I can't see 45-50 FU/cm2. I think you got at least 1/3 less.

Thanks GOD! Wonder why people don't understand a such simple concept. Sometimes a double in first line just happens, because, when you had HT, the hair was not there! You can increase the image 1000X, it doesn't matter, the hair is not there. As I wrote above, A graft is 3-5 mm and about 0,5 large. that means that if you use magnificent glasses x 4, you see the graft 1,2/2 CM long and 2 mm large, so you can clearly see if it is a single, a double or a triple. These are my graft. Maybe pics can help: you see exactly the same number of hair if you use the cellular or a 126 inch monitor!:

Fina and Minox has two totally different functions.. Fina reduces the damage of HF while minoxidil increases anagen and, presumably, blood flow, that it is crucial after an HT, to have the maximum grafts survival (just think that some doctors prescribe oral minoxidil and Cialis tougher to increase nitric oxide and, thus, blood flow). About the sides, I won't tell you that it doesn't have sides (I am one of that who had sides from galenic minoxidil (while I never had from Pfizer's) but the sides were a minor swelling around the eyes, maybe related to some excipients) but, according to the studies, they are overrated. The typical dose for hair loss is about 10% of the dose used ad a therapeutic treatment for high pressure. There are several researches showing that oral minoxidil at 2,5-5 mg has no sides and improves hair thickness and hair density.

I think that both Keser and De freitas are great and they both are in my top 5 European surgeons. The topic is "who is better for hairline?" a) Hairline design: both DF and K design great hairlines. Df hairline are charmie and beautiful but, from an anatomical prospective, K's hairlines are close to perfection. I studied a lot HL design and there are many ways to design CORRECTLY an hairline. HL is the frame of the face: from what I see, DF looks for an hairline that fits your face while K looks for the anatomically perfect HL. DF's HL are flatter and wider and with an ottuse frontotemporal angle while K HL are more rounded and (this is the big difference) a norrower angle. I see that this big difference is related to the (point b) fact that DF usually doesn't rebuild temples (he just makes the upper side) while K does. b) temples and temporal peaks K is one of the very few to rebuild the temporal hairline and the temporal peaks. HL design is a bidimensional concept: the frontal HL and the temporal HL (that included the temporal peaks). To lower the frontal HL you need to rebuild the temporal HL and, when needed, the temporal peaks. It the doctor doesn't rebuild the "sides", you don't have support for the frontal hairline (to have a clear idea, look the Norwood scale. You will see that the tuft and the temporal peaks recede almost at the same time). If the doctor doesn't rebuilds the sided and tries to lower the hl, the coupe effect is almost guaranteed. The doctors usually don't rebuild the sides because they are the most difficult part of an HT: the hair on the sides are perpendicular to the floor and have an angle of about 5°. So, ythe doctor and his assistant need to be very skilled to work on that. To make things harder, the temporal peaks are made of small hair, that are very hard to extract and tom implant. The fact that K rebuilds the sided (included the temporal peaks), shows how skilled he is. c) miscroscope I don't know if Df uses miscroscope but I see people criticizing K because he doesn't. First of all, people make a lot of confusion between magnificent lens and microscope. It is important to understand the difference because sometimes I read people (that do not have clear the difference) saying that Keser works on naked eye. Hell no! The magnificent lens are usually x6 glasses (sometimes x4, others x8) while a microscope is an iHT nstrument to increase the imagine 20-40X. Dr Keser and his team use magnificent lens. In the link you can see him in the op room using the glasses. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlAudYZBvM4 He doesn't use microscope. From my prospective, microscope is a marketing tool. Do you need microscope to select the graft? Or the magnificent glasses are more than enough? I suppose that who says that a microscope is "mandatory" or "necessary" to select grafts never saw a graft in his life. For sure he doesn't know what he iw talking about. A graft is 3-5 mm and about 0,5 large. that means that if you use magnificent glasses x 4, you see the graft 1,2/2 CM long and 2 mm large, so you can clearly see if it is a single, a double or a triple. By the other way, the microscope has a big DISAVANTAGE: TIME! selecting the grafts with miscroscope requires time. Now, we know that after 3 minutes the surviving rate goes down (from 100% to 95% and so on as time goes). Does it make sense spending time with a microscope (risking grafts death) while you can have a clear picture of the graft using magnificent glasses? Everybody is free to choose the doc he trusts, but blaming K because he doesn't use miscroscope is BS. My end result: I think they are both great. DF has more an "artistic sense". K is more skilled and anatomically perfect.

Did you change because the pandemic or because the doc had family issues?

yes! If someone has a smaller recession, it makes a HUGE difference. Sometimes, in aesthetic medicine, the smaller procedures are that making the biggest difference.

don't think so.

do you have a report?

When you lose great amount of hair all at once, it is simply a telogen effluvium. It can be a natural process that simply occurs (life sucks!) or it can be induced from your therapy because, to allow a new growth, you need to remove sleeping hair (hair in castagne and telogen). My suggestion, in any case, it: take your pics with artificial, replicable lightings and use always the same camera and the same angles. From what I see, in the first set of pics, someone took that or you, in the seconds, you took by yourself. To me, the lightings appear different too. Sometimes, just a little difference in lightings, make a huge difference in pic. To show you, I attach 2 pics of mine, taken 2 seconds apart. In one I look bald, in the other, I look "normal". Surprise surprise, the more lightings I had, the less bald I appeared. In fact, in the bald pic, I have pic only from the back, in other I had lights from the back + light from the front.

Because you have more experience than me, can you explain me please how other clinics calculate the number of grafts that need to be used? I suppose that, after the doctor sees me and say "ok, you need hair in this area", he will "analyze" my hair and will say "guy, you have medium caliber hair, to get a good coverage effect you need X amount of FU/cm2". After this, what happens?

@gillenator @Gatsby If agree with you but what you said is not relevant to my topic. I am talking about my case, where I paid for 2050 FU. I have some doubts that I really got 2050 FU. First of all, they said that the recipient area was 41, while il was 36. Second, they said that the recipient area was going to receive 50 FU cm2 but, considering that the area was smaller than they said and part of that area was covered of hair, in the "bold area" I should have get 70+ FU/cm2. I don't think I got so much FU...

Mecroneedeling is a safe and inexpensive procedure DIY. "Dermal papilla (DP) is the site of expression of various hair growth related genes. Various researches have demonstrated the underlying importance of Wnt proteins and wound growth factors in stimulating DP associated stem cells. Microneedling works by stimulation of stem cells and inducing activation of growth factors". While it can be discussed to use MN as a mokotheraphy (but the question is: why should someone use MN only?) there is no doubt about its efficacy, showing a synergistic effect at least in conjunction with minoxidil. I just quote a study "While the current evidence does not allow one to conclude superiority of microneedling over existing standard therapies for hair loss, microneedling shows some promise in improving hair growth, especially in combination with existing techniques". I've read dozen of researches about this topic and all the researches show an improvement. At the moment, is you are looking for safety, the best way is MN 2/week, 0,75 mm. Studies has shown that higher frequency, shorter needles is better than lower frequency/higher needle, while other showed that an higher intensity and lower frequency is better (tI suppose that the efficacy of this kind of therapy is age related, as I discussed with a very smart guy on this board). Look for a derma pen or a dermoroller. You will find a lot on amazon. I see people speak without any cognition of the topic. If you want to do your own researches, these are good starting points: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3746236/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29194786/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3746236/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5064188/

masterpiece!

I will tell you my experience about grafts counting and I will share with you my perplexities about the real amount of graft that I got. NOTE: I can't say if all the doctors and all the clinics calculate grafts in the same way. 1) hairline design and area measurement The doc designed the hairline. Then he put a plastic transparent sheet on my head and retraced the hairline on the head. The sheet had squares on it. Every square was 1x1cm, so 1 cm2. In my case, he calculated 41 cm2 (the doc wrote the number on my head) 2) follicular units calculation After the doc calculated the area, he decided the density In my case, he said that I needed 50 FU/cm2, so he concluded that I needed 2050 FH My perplexities 1) wrong measurement of the recipient area. If the design barely touched one square, the doc calculated) 1 cm2.To show you what I mean, I attach a pic. In the pic that I attached, I calculated the area as the doctor calculated the area for me. So, using their method (if the line barely touches the square, is considered 1), the end result is 19 cm2. But, if you see the image, you understand that the area is smaller, because some squares are not completely filled. So, if the squares were not completely filled, the recipient area was obviously smaller than they said. To see if I was right, I tried to calculate the trasnplanted area by myself. It is not an easy operation, because all the surfaces are elliptical. I won't bother you with the calculations I made but my friend (an engineer) said they are ok. The real treated area was 36 cm2 Making the math, 2050:36=56,94 FU/cm2. 2) bogus follicular unit calculation If you see my pic, you will see that most of the recipient area still had hair. I suppose that an area that has hair is not able (and in any case, has no need) to receive 50FU. Usually, from my readings, I see that the area should receive something between 30-40 FU/Cm2. Because I am doing the math in good faith, let say 40. Considering that half of the area was covered by by hair, that means 18X40=720 FU. Ok, we say 750 to be fair. CONCLUSIONS: If the clinic really extracted 2050 FU, according the the previous calculation, we have some really bogus number for hairless area. According to that calculations, the hairless area got 1300 (2050-750=1300) We said that the hairless area was 18 cm2 Now, 1300:18= 72 FU/Cm2. That is not what I got and, for sure, is not the density I have.

Spettacolare!!!! You said that Keser took 4 days for 2400 FU. Can you elaborate? Why did he take so much time? Does he male "mini" HT on several patients for several days?

I am not a big fun of Konior and I don't know very much about his works but a single case can happen to every doc on the planet. Does Konior always try to reach that density? I read a long post from the patient and if I well remember, it was like a "case study".

Talking with you is like talking with a 4 years old baby with the mouth dirty of chocolate. "Did you eat the chocolate?" "mmm...no, I didn't!". The big difference is you are an adult man that should be responsible for his words.. Trying to show that I was was contradicting myself, So sad that my whole statement was: Never saw such stupidity and "intellectual" dishonesty at once. Once in a while, I support you.

You are spending your whole day searching and quoting my post and than you pretend to talk about my "the state of mind". Really? You are such a pathetic character that I would not waste my time with you. But you really crossed the line. Did you really try to cut my statement to say that I'm contradicting myself? What a poor man. Your ethic is second only to your stupidity. "I'm an ex patient of HLC. My experience was good, the end result was very good but I do not hesitate to say that the clinic has some flaws: a) they over use grafts; b) I don't like the attitude that some doctors have with the patient; c) they after care is very poor." Get a life.

I was talking about ketokonzaole...not keto diet!

in 60-70% of cases, rebuilding temples is crucial for creating a natural hairline. Temples are the foundation of the frontal hairline. If you dont't have and you try to lower the hairline, the hairpiece effect is guaranteed.

@jjalay risum abundat in ore stultorum. Get a life.

in my humble opinion, you don't need another HT. If you don't like the HL, you could look for a small procedure with Ferreira, couto or de freitas.