Jump to content

Hair038

Members
  • Posts

    23
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Hair038

  • Birthday 06/13/1986

Basic Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Country
    Canada

Hair Loss Overview

  • Describe Your Hair Loss Pattern
    Receding Hairline (Genetic Baldness)
    Thinning on Top only (Genetic Baldness)
    Thinning or Bald Spot in the Crown/Vertex
  • Norwood Level if Known
    Norwood V A

Hair Loss Treatments

  • Have you ever had a hair transplant?
    Yes
  • Hair Transplant Surgeon
    Dr. Jerry Wong
  • Current Non-Surgical Treatment Regime
    Propecia (Finasteride)

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Hair038's Achievements

Junior Member

Junior Member (1/3)

3

Reputation

  1. Yes, and I am a little surprised. Initially, Dr. Wong recommended FUE. When I asked about FUT I had to send in a video showing my scalp laxity (which I guess makes sense to ensure one is a suitable candidate for FUT). But the rep I've been corresponding with told me that Dr. Hasson no longer offers FUT anymore. I live in Canada and so I also consulted with Dr. Rahal and was told the same thing, they do not offer FUT anymore. And I'm honestly not sure of the exact reasoning behind this. Is FUT no longer profitable from a business model perspective? It certainly is generally cheaper than FUE. If FUE, on average, is twice is much as FUT then I guess it makes sense to only focus on and promote FUE. I don't know. After researching for the past few weeks, I came to the consensus that clinics that offer both FUE and FUT were usually held in higher esteem because the option of FUT addresses some disadvantages of FUE (like I mentioned above), is more costly to the clinic (in the form of requiring more techs etc.), and is not as profitable as FUE. But maybe I'm wrong. I haven't delved a lot into the continual and constant advancements that FUE seems to be making. Perhaps there is a lot that I've been missing in my research?
  2. These are the best pictures I could do. I think my scar healed okay, about average, which is fine with me. As you can see I don't wear my hair extremely short, so I can hide it pretty well.
  3. So I had my first FUT procedure at Hasson and Wong in 2016. It yielded about 4700 grafts. I'm now ready to do another HT and I'm thinking of going with the same procedure and same clinic. I know FUT is not as popular as used to be, but I feel like another FUT procedure is the logical way to go for the following reasons: 1. Obviously I still have my first scar from my first FUT surgery and so I don't think I would be loosing much ground with another FUT procedure because the first scar will ultimately be replaced by the second. 2. By going with another FUT I feel like this is the best way to maximize my overall number of lifetime grafts. I can use up the rest of my scalp laxity. 3. All other things being equal FUT: a. Generally allows for the greatest number of grafts to be safely harvested in a single sitting b. Overall, causes the least amount of damage in the donor area, which allows for a greater possibility of further procedures later on c. Generally allows for higher quality grafts (transection, less traumatic than FUE) 4. Doing FUE and then FUT after can reduce overall donor density. If you go FUE then FUT, the strip taken won't have as great a donor density 5. Most likely after the second FUT procedure I won't have the laxity for anymore FUT surgeries, and then FUE would be my only option if I wanted any more procedures down the line Any thoughts...quibbles...?
  4. I just posted a related topic last night. When I had my HT in 2016 at H&W with Dr. Wong, the techs placed all of the grafts. Dr. Wong removed the strip (FUT) and made the incisions but it was the techs that did all of the graft prep and placement.
  5. Hey, yea I'm definitely considering H&W. I'd like to take a bit more time and explore other options as well.
  6. When deciding to have a HT we usually focus on which doctor is best for our given situation. But what about the nurses and technicians assisting the doctor? Shouldn't we be giving consideration to their skills and experience? Is it even possible to assess the support team at a clinic? I don't think there's any clinic out there where the doctor is performing all of the extractions, incisions, and placements. And obviously the level of involvement between the doctor and the support team can vary quite a bit. But I came across some Youtube content where Joe Tillman was having what I believe to be is his latest procedure (an FUE procedure) at H&W. Now just from the footage alone, Dr. Wong performs only the incisions and the technicians/nurses perform the extractions and placements (with Dr. Wong supervising). This is confirmed in the comments section of the video where someone asks about the level of doctor involvement and (I'm assuming it's Joe) answers by saying that at H&W it is normal for the doctor to do only the incisions and have the techs do the extractions and placements. And to be fair to the video, it seems like the technicians are really really experienced. Again this shared responsibility and doctor supervision model is used to varying degrees in all clinics. But it got me to thinking, how does one assess the quality and skill of the technicians and nurses? When you book a procedure, you know what doctor is going to oversee the procedure but what are you able to learn (if anything) about the support team? And, in the example I mentioned above, it seems to me that in some ways the support team could be considered more important than the doctor in some ways, if it's the support team that's essentially doing 2/3s of the physical procedure.
  7. How do you guys work through problems of conflicting sources? So I came across a post where Spex says he is representing Bhatti (2018). But I've also come across a few posts critical of Bhatti's work. I want to state that I'm not trying to badmouth anyone here. I'm just using this as an example of how I sometimes find hair restoration research to be frustrating in the fact that at the end of the day the evidence for each side cancels the other and you're no further ahead.
  8. So I'll be honest, I never used to pay attention to memberships or societies that a hair restoration surgeon belonged to. But lately I've been researching this topic a little deeper and it appears, at least to me, that there is definitely some merit to these groups. But I've also discovered that not all membership groups are considered equal. The most prestigious group seems to be the IAHRS (International Alliance of Hair Restoration Surgeons). It seems like if you're a surgeon and a member of the IARHS, you're considered one of the best surgeons out there. Now I'm sure there will be a lot of disagreement with what I just said. I can imagine that there are a lot of doctors who are not members of the IAHRS that still rank among the best hair restoration surgeons out there. And not every IAHRS surgeon will be perfect for each and every patient. And even the best surgeons make mistakes. But if you set everything else equal, is the probability that you will achieve good results higher with an IARHS surgeon than with a non-IARHS surgeon?
  9. Thanks for the replies. I just wanted to make clear that my intention was not to say that one procedure is superior to the other. That was why I used quotation marks around the word "better" in my first post. But after reading the first post again I probably wasn't as clear about that as I wanted to be. After digging a little deeper it does appear that FUT is still an option among some of the better clinics that I know of. I was just a little surprised to notice that it appears that some clinics are going exclusively with FUE. I happened upon Dr. Robert Bernstein's website out of New York and he does a really good job of summarizing the pros and cons of each procedure: https://www.bernsteinmedical.com/hair-transplant/fue/fue-vs-fut-comparison/
  10. Hey all, So I had my first HT in 2016. It was an FUT procedure and achieved approximately 4700 grafts. This could be my own personal bias, but it seemed to me that in 2016 FUT was 'better' than FUE for the following reasons: 1. It was cheaper (half the price of an FUE procedure for the same # of grafts) 2. You could get larger graft yields (3-5000 grafts in a single procedure (mega-session) as compared to only around a max of 2000 grafts for an FUE procedure) 3. Generally, survival rate of grafts harvested was higher for FUT than for FUE 4. Over multiple procedures, a higher graft count could be achieved with FUT because each procedure affected a smaller donor area than FUE I'm currently looking to have a second procedure done. In the initial research that I've done, it seems to me that FUT is out and FUE is the main procedure currently being performed in most clinics. I've noticed that clinics that used to promote FUT procedures are not even offering them anymore. Has FUE made advances in regards to some of the 'cons' that I've listed above? I know the big knock against FUT was that it left a visible linear scar. But as I understood it FUE creates scarring as well (albeit less noticeable than FUT). If I found a clinic that offered both procedures, would FUT be worth it for the reasons mentioned above?
×
×
  • Create New...