duchaine

I have exactly the same problem. Never investigated on beard transplant but I suppose that 10 medium calibre grafts can fix the problem...

4-11 is the scary part. Allow long hair to dry means cervicalgia and bronchitis lol When did you start to use hair drier?

Do you really want more beard? I have a quite similar beard and I would love to get less!

@Melvin- Admin new user, 1 post...mmm

Did Pittella prescribe oral minoxidil, Cialis and arginine ?

Can you elaborate what you did the first ten days after HT? I am going for a semi-shaved fue and I'm scared of the post op.

Stop blaming your HT. You are trying to bring testo to cassation level. I'm not surprised you feel depressed.

you look good but you looked good before. In any case, I see only a minor improvement. I can't say you had 3250 FU.

how much per graft? Does he perform Sami shaved fue? When did he open his clinic?

w<s bek an HLC surgeon?

a person with this kind of attitude should be banned by the community. This is a place to share experiences,

no, at the moment you can get the galenic version only.

your temporal peaks are naturally great and the hairline design is great too. Wonder why they didn't do the temporal angle, to create a better connection between the frontal hairline and the temporal peaks.

This guy looks very goos. He can be a great name in the future. That said, my personal question to you is...what does it mean 2500-3000 grafts???? Don't you know how many grafts you got????

Has Couto offered you a free touch up If this won't get better?

There is a funny case. Couto planned a 4000FU transplant. While he was performing the HT, he saw that the donor area was poorer that he thought so he reduced the extractions to about 1600. He misunderstood the patient's request and placed all the grafts in the crown area. The final result is embarrassing.

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.