AJ_HT

32 minutes ago, AA1989 said:

The OP has put his cards on the table - he wants his money back

Kudos to your imagination, my friend. You asked me thrice about what I want, and I said I don't know. You kept asking me, and the only other option I could think of was asking if clinics give refunds. Even after that, I've CONSTANTLY mentioned that a refund is out of the picture.

And yet, there are multiple people like yourself who think I'm fishing for a refund. 

I came here looking for support, not toxicity. It's strange how you don't seem to care about the NDA you asked Melvin about multiple times, but are now talking about me asking for a refund. Unfortunately, some people are putting words in my mouth, and completely ignoring the fact that I've said multiple times, that A REFUND IS OUT OF THE QUESTION. 

I'd like to end the discussion on this post. I don't really care what anybody thinks. People who are logical will understand what this is about. The remaining can let their imagination run wild.

I still maintain that I've not had a good  experience with Eugenix, and that's what this post was about. In any case, I will update the forum what happens going forward. 

44 minutes ago, shiba1985 said:

 

While some of your points are valid (not all), you come across as someone who is hiding behind the facade of genuinely providing information to other patients, to gain some negotiating leverage with the clinic.  I am not accusing you of this, I m just saying this is what it comes across as. 
 

I am genuinely interested in asking what kind of resolution from Dr Sethi would make you happy?

 

It's strange you say this. Because I was not even looking for a resolution when I originally posted this thread. If you've read my posts, I've constantly mentioned that the post was written as a review about the clinic and my experience. Since multiple people mentioned that I should reach out to the clinic and find a mid-way, I did that to check if any other resolution is possible. Someone here suggested minox, multivitamins and PRP may help thicken the hair, and that's the kind of "alternative" that could be possible. 

I'm surprised at how suspicious people could be. 

17 minutes ago, HT_V said:

Hi @AJ_HT I am new on the platform and noticed your post .

I had hair transplant in 2018 November from @Eugenix Hair Sciences 

I had same hair density as you were having after your first hair transplant 

I got transplanted with 2500 of scalp hair and 2000 beard hairs 

I was told that i will have a little low density in crown (a little visible scalp)  as a large are has to be covered 

From my experience what is wrong here is the hair thickness .

I also had the same issue for the 1st year to 1.5 years 

Here is what i did -

first 4 months i had PRP 

I took multivitamins suggested by EUGENIX 

finax 1 mg and Minox  5% (twice daily) till now

It improved my hair thickness a lot so though i have poor hair density my hair thickness compensate for the same.

In my view you should consult with EUGENIX and start on medications specially cyclic multivitamins they suggest(Works wonder in thickness)

In your case the hair thickness is not that good as of now 

Also as per your thread you went for third transplant after only 8 months  ( not a great thing to do )

My head started getting covered after 1 years as the density/thickness of the transplanted hair improve.

This is helpful. I'm already taking finasteride. I'll try if minoxodil and multivitamins can do the trick.

Can you tell me how many months it took for the hair to thicken?

1 hour ago, Eugenix Hair Sciences said:

We are replying to all the concerns in most truthful and honest manner

At Eugenix, our approach is to first evaluate the donor area (both scalp and beard) and estimate conservatively what best we can harvest without damaging donor with excessive thinning and at the same time not relying too much on beard (as the beard hair growth turns out good to excellent in some patients and moderate to poor in others; probably dependent on one's growth rate of beard hair which is quite variable in most patients).

So that's why in this particular case, we didn't over promise beard.

We felt that 2000 grafts from safe donor zone can be extracted. We tend to avoid very thin hair or miniaturized hair to avoid poor results). The remaining grafts we planned to do from beard.

So, there was no miscalculation of grafts as we had clearly demarcated the area that we are planning to cover. Also, our plan was to keep midscalp density lesser so that maximum area is covered.

At the time of pre surgery counselling, we clarify completely that the transplanted hair provide full look in dry state. However, if the hair are made wet with water or oil is applied, then it will look sparse and skin will show. (However, we don't have documentation of the video of face to face consultation in the clinic 😔 but these points are mentioned in pre surgery consent form).

At 8 months timeline, our patient was extremely unhappy with midscalp growth and wanted immediate implantation to fix the problem. He has mentioned that he is satisfied with frontal hairline growth.

Regarding the document signing:
In past some patients have been accusing us for poor results despite good growth and threatened to defame if refunds aren't done. Our approach is to document the results objectively and do our best to satisfy the patients. But refund in cases of dissatisfaction despite successful procedure is unwarranted and we have avoided that. To protect our interest, we had requested to sign a document that after this free top up surgery and producing visual change in appearance, we have completed our obligation and don't want to face further threats for refund or defamation. 

But we went ahead to do our work and stick our commitment for happy experience by doing free top without signing of the document. If it was forced, then we wouldn't have done the surgery without the document. 

We understand that satisfaction is inversely proportional to expectations and in current scenario; we have been unable to set the expectations leading to dissatisfaction. 

In current situation, the pictures posted for the hairline have been clicked with flash of camera and giving see through appearance. 

We are ready to do everything we can do to make the hairline more dense even now but we fear that Previous scarring may prevent the growth of all implanted grafts.

Fine hair caliber might lead not achieving desired density.

We will request the patient to guide us what he wants from us now to make sure that he feels that procedure was a success and not a failure.

Thank you for your detailed response. I'd like to point out certain aspects here, which should be known.

Quote

So, there was no miscalculation of grafts as we had clearly demarcated the area that we are planning to cover.

Unfortunately, this wasn't done. Except the hairline, nothing else was demarcated in the first procedure, which was the root cause of the problem (which I've mentioned in my first post itself). I would honestly recommend that you as a clinic and others as patients, both ensure that the entire area is demarcated and zones are marked, and if possible, with the approx number of grafts that will be implanted in each area/zone, so that the patient knows what he's in for. This didn't happen in my case.

Quote

patient was extremely unhappy with midscalp growth and wanted immediate implantation to fix the problem

This is incorrect. I didn't ask for an immediate implantation after 8 months. I wanted to meet Dr Sethi on priority, who said that since he is in Mumbai anyway, he will do the touch-up tomorrow itself.

Quote

our plan was to keep midscalp density lesser so that maximum area is covered

As seen in the pictures, the density in mid-scalp was not lesser. It was almost nil.

Quote

we had requested to sign a document that after this free top up surgery and producing visual change in appearance, we have completed our obligation and don't want to face further threats for refund or defamation. 

The document also mentioned that I shall refrain myself from posting pictures anywhere. I'm adding this specifically because I don't want to be misunderstood on the forum.

Quote

In current situation, the pictures posted for the hairline have been clicked with flash of camera and giving see through appearance. 

These are pictures clicked in my house with normal lights above my head. Not with a flash camera. I have also posted pictures in normal sunlight, which show my scalp. So the scalp being visible is not because of any flashlight. It's how it looks in any light.

Quote

in current scenario; we have been unable to set the expectations leading to dissatisfaction. 

This is exactly the problem. Incorrect expectations being set with regards to density. It would help to put things in writing for all patients during the in-person consult, so that things are clear from the very beginning.

Quote

We will request the patient to guide us what he wants from us now to make sure that he feels that procedure was a success and not a failure.

We're actually back to square one, because in my mind, the procedure was not a success. But like I said, what's done is done.

I've mailed Dr Sethi and looking to engage with him. Will update the community here on what I decide.

Thank you everyone who was supportive here regarding my case. I guess there's nothing more to be said here. I will update you folks about the progress, although opting for another touch-up is an option that seems extremely unlikely.

1 hour ago, Melvin- Moderator said:

What do you mean other resolution other than a top-up? I will not allow our forum to be used as a tool to coerce a refund. 

This is outrageous! I haven't even asked for a refund. Please don't put words in my mouth.

If you read my posts, I've constantly maintained that I know that a refund is not something any clinic will give, so it's out of the question.

I've asked them to provide other options, as suggested by forum members here, because another touch-up is not something I want. And if they have no other option, then that's that. 

Man, I'm really beginning to get a lot of questions in my head now. Why would you say things to incite hostility here?

I think I'm done responding to your comments. If it's someone who doesn't want to look at both sides of the story, I'm not interested in answering any more questions

About the hairline, since there are questions - are you guys really trying to say that I would know better than the doctors? They were the ones who suggested the grafts and drew the hairline. I did not ask them to lower it. I mean, isn't it obvious that when the doctor is suggesting x grafts, they'll draw a hairline in line with those x grafts? What's there to not get here? Why would I argue with the doc and ask them to raise it?

And I'm getting a little tired of these questions and accusations now. I came here to write about my experience and for support, and while most folks like @JoeMan, @NARMAK,@Captain Haddock and many more have understood my plight (thank you!) I'd want to ignore the ones who haven't. Guess we just have to agree to disagree. @JoeMan rightly mentioned - some people instigate me with stupid questions, and then I have to reply. And then others say that this post has gone 7 pages long. 

Anyway, I've written to Dr Sethi a few hours back to see if there can be some resolution other than a touch-up. I'll post an update of what they say. 

In the meanwhile, some folks had reached out yesterday via DM. So if you have genuine questions about my experience, you may please post them here since my DMs aren't working. If you're going to write to criticise, I'll be ignoring it, because I think I've said enough.

Quote

what is that you hope you can do to achieve the results you want

Let me tell you where I'm coming from.

I chose a bad clinic the first time - that was on me. But the second time, I made sure I went to a reputed and recommended clinic and also had a touch-up with them, which also didn't turn out to give the desired density (Now you may say that my expectations weren't realistic or anything else, but that's a topic which I'm sure neither you nor I want to get back to)

Now, 2 surgeries with a reputed clinic not giving results as per your expectation isn't something that will make you want to go to the same place again for a third procedure. So till 2 days ago, I wasn't sure if I would want to go back. However, I wrote this review just so that folks know what to expect. And if you read my original post, I also wrote about what I didn't do, and recommended others to do. That was the idea of writing this review. I wanted to end it there.

This turned into an argument when, Melvin spoke to them and they blamed me for having unrealistic expectations. I'm sure you've read all of that. Now tell me, after all this blame game, would you trust and go back to the same clinic for a third session? I don't think so.

All I'm doing here, is defending my stance. I don't enjoy writing posts on forums when I anyway have a lot of work to do.

57 minutes ago, Hayden87 said:

you seem to want to leave your negative review and not entertain any ideas as to how you can improve your hair further.

The only idea that I didn't entertain was going back to the clinic for another session.

Someone suggested hair fibres, and I anyway use them. I may also consider another procedure with another clinic if and when I'm ready for it mentally and financially, which is what many people have suggested.

Apart from that, I don't see anything else that I can do. I'm still open to suggestions on how to improve the situation that doesn't involve having a second touch-up with Eugenix.

Like I said, this post turned 6 pages long because of the blame game, not because I'm cribbing about what went wrong.

Quote

As you have stated that you will from now on abstain from replying to my comments.

Said this because you don't call someone's review bullshit when they're trying to put something they have experienced. I'm more than happy to have a discussion that's not an argument or name-calling.

2 hours ago, Gatsby said:

Mate you are the one who continually keeps going on about 'I'm not happy!' After all the bullshit you have created in this thread, at the end of the day, what do you want so that you can begin your new slogan 'I am happy!??????' I state this because I really don't believe anything will make you happy! As I have stated many times on this forum and reply to several posts' not everyone is a 'candidate' for a hair transplant. Often this does not come down to the donor supply/demand ratio, DUPA, Lichen Planus, Foliculitis or  Seborrheic Dermatitis. It more often than not comes down to psychology. I've looked at the photos. I've read that you went to a butcher's clinic in India. You then went for a repair. Still not happy you were given a free repair. Still not happy. What do you want to be happy because I truly don't believe it exists in hair restoration that's for sure. Make an effort to contact Eugenix and have a conversation with them about EXACTLY what will make you HAPPY? You obviously have done zero research to get butchered by your first surgery. But there's an old saying that the first time it's a mistake. The second time it's a choice. Your whole thread bleeds of making everyone else responsible for you not being happy! Rant over!

Wow. So you're saying posting about my experience on the forum is "bullshit"? Why then do they have a "patient experiences and reviews" section here?

I honestly expected better from folks like you. But guess honest reviews don't mean much to some people.

My intent of putting up this post was to make people aware of what can go wrong. And I've said it multiple times:

1) I don't want a touch-up, whether paid or free. I don't have the faith to go to the same place for another touch-up, when they should have got it right the first or at least the second time. How is that so difficult to understand?

2) And I'm pretty sure clinics don't do refunds, else I would have asked for it.

So what's the third option here that you think can make me "happy"? Nothing. What's done is done. But people deserve to know.

I say I'm not happy because I'm not happy. And I fail to understand why it's pissing people like you off. I also don't know what my first surgery has anything to do with this, unless you want to criticize me just because I put up an honest but negative review of a recommended clinic where you got your surgery done.

I know you had a great experience with Eugenix, but I didn't. And I will call it like I see it.

Having said that, I don't really care what you think of this, and will abstain from replying to your comments from hereon. But for the folks who are not smitten by the clinic and would want to thoroughly evaluate and see patient experiences, I think I did good by putting this up.

On 3/6/2022 at 11:15 PM, AA1989 said:

@Melvin- Moderator can you address this very serious allegation with the clinic and report your finding to the community. I know you take a very dim view of NDA's in the HT industry. It would be a worrying development for a recommended clinic to try and manipulate feedback/reviews.

On 3/6/2022 at 11:25 PM, JoeMan said:

 

Something seems a miss since the OP signed the original paperwork for his 1st surgery with Eugenix at least thats my take on this. Only on his 2nd procedure was he refusing to sign this. They still seem to have performed the procedure. Now if it was a regular surgery document then why would any Dr perform a procedure without a signature? 

On 3/7/2022 at 1:25 AM, Melvin- Moderator said:

I think we’re going back and forth here unnecessarily. I have already said my peace, the facts are here. The text shows that he was discussing the midscalp and not the front. They said “we still have time” to the midscalp, that was not concerning the hairline. So I’m not sure how you’re coming to that conclusion. 

As for NDA’s, I have not seen this document, but yes, I know several clinics who have patients sign a document that will protect them legally, or from a form of extortion. I don’t believe that’s what they presented based on what was said in the document. 

I don’t believe there’s anything left to say, the clinic already offered to do a free touch-up for any hair that hasn’t grown. If the patient doesn’t want to retun that’s his prerogative. This will be my last reply on this subject, it’s run it’s course, the facts are here. You can come to your own conclusion. 

On 3/7/2022 at 1:37 AM, AA1989 said:

You haven't seen it but have you requested the clinic provide you with a copy?

19 hours ago, ANDYMAL said:

Hey Melvin, do you have the ''Bat phone connection" direct to Delhi?😆 It's great you are able to get answers  from them so quickly, to assist with these issues.

I'm trying to finalise my HT with Eugenix, and needing a video consult with a Doctor, but finding it hard to get consistent communication with them, [wish i had 'that' phone] so this thread casts some questions relating to complex cases [like mine] and clients expectations, and whether there are obligations to sign specific documents, and if there is some detriment to you if you don't sign. 

It opens up a can of worms that sows seeds of doubts to prospective HT candidates who are already on edge, even after having done due diligence, and have made a decision!

You are never going to forecast the final outcome and know what your reaction is going to be, even when you do the proper research, or, if various issues occur from known or unknown circumstances, so that's concerning. 

I suppose when you also have some financial skin in the game, and it may be a lot to some, admittedly, you are going to be more dissapointed and concerned, as opposed to someone who hasn't spent anything!

 

 

15 hours ago, AA1989 said:

Very sensible. You may not have followed all of this thread but @Melvin- Moderator discovered the OP declined to sign one of the documents. It transpires it may have been a Non Disclosure Agreement (NDA).

We await Melvin reporting back to the community and to see a copy of the said document.

General advice to anyone, you should always be provided in advance, documents you are required to sign. 
With all the stress and strain of a long haul flight the sights and sounds of a foreign country, you don't want to try to navigate the legalise of documents you have never seen before. In many cases, people travel from around the world, and the document may not be written in your mother tongue.

In summary, if a clinic doesn't automatically send you the documents, request them, check them and make sure you understand what you are signing.

On 3/7/2022 at 1:13 AM, NARMAK said:

Melvin, the clinic themselves in the very screenshot you posted state "We still have time. The front looks good" and specifically aligns with the OP stating he was at month 8 and had a total of 4 more months to have the frontal hairline mature. A timeframe with which it is unfair to assume a final result as a patient which is exactly what OP has stated in their replies here. The touch up is for the midscalp and the OP has not raised any further complaints regarding that. The OP has simply stated they are now over 12 months and the agreement of offering sufficient density to the frontal hairline as expected after allowing the additional 4 months to get to a final 12 month result has not yielded the desired additional growth, maturity or density OP had expected based on clinical assessment. 

I'm trying to give a fair shake to OP and the clinic here. I'm sure others can also draw their own conclusion. You are certainly right that "He said, she said" is not something that can be really addressed but now i will raise something that has been mentioned. A document amounting to more or less an NDA for OP. Can you please address where you stand on this aspect if it is the case whether for this or any other clinic recommended by this forum as well as generally behaviour that any clinic would try to get a patient to sign. 

Clearly that wasn't a standard patient surgery consent as we know OP had a midscalp procedure which we are calling a touch up but he wouldn't have had it if he didn't sign for surgery. 

Something really strange is happening here now.

I've shared the details of that document with Melvin via DM, assuming he will speak to the clinic. However, now, I am unable to message him, or anybody else, and it says that my messenger has been disabled!

May be I'm being paranoid here, but why would this happen suddenly after I share some sensitive details with the moderator?

Any way, now since there are so many questions on the document, I will talk about the story behind it.

I had gone to Eugenix because I had seen a lot of videos and reviews, but more importantly, because I had seen the videos of a patient like me, who had undergone a failed transplant. He went to Eugenix and was very happy. I spoke to him at length and then decided to opt for Eugenix.

Now, after 7 months, since I was not happy with my results, and Dr Priyadarshini just kept asking me to wait for the mid-scalp to get better, I reached out to this individual again and told him that I am not happy with the result, and that maybe he should not recommend all packages of Eugenix, because I have not been happy with the base package.

Now, if I have gone to a clinic via someone's reference and am not happy with what they recommended, I don't see anything wrong in going back to that person and telling them that I'm unhappy. Because it was on his recommendation that I went to Eugenix in the first place. However, the fact that I reached out to him was probably not taken well by the clinic, and before my touch-up, I was asked to sign the document which said that I am happy with my first transplant, and will restrain myself from putting up any pictures on social media which could damage the reputation of Eugenix. I truly believe that irrespective of how the results are, we should be able to share anything (that is not confidential) on any platform, as long as it is true. Hence I did not sign that document because it seemed to restrict me to upload any pictures.

I didn't even want to bring up the point about this document, until Melvin spoke about the consent form which I didn't sign. I had actually signed everything I was asked to sign, except this document. (Honestly, I didn't even know that anything like this is frowned upon and not encouraged by the community here)

So why am I talking about this now? So that the members here know exactly what had happened, and there is no twisting of the facts. And because suddenly I'm being restricted on this forum to send any messages, for reasons I don't know.

I know that Eugenix is a highly recommended clinic here, but I don't think I'm doing anything wrong or illegal by posting my honest review on this forum with pictures - something that this platform is meant for.

2 minutes ago, Ryan Daniel said:

How do you know that AJ ? 

Finasteride isn't 100% guaranteed to work. 

But still, im happy you are on medication for 2 years. It helps the donor area for a future procedure

I mean, I can see the difference in my hairfall when I shampoo or brush or comb my hair. While I used to see a LOT of strands before I started fin, I see hardly 3-4 strands now while I shampoo. Also, my crown (which was not transplanted) seems to have slightly improved in density. So I'm guessing it's working.

11 minutes ago, asterix0 said:

@AJ_HT, this is my humble opinion as to your situation. I have tried to review a few more cases and look at your post operative photos carefully.

Here is an example of a high density transplant from a different doctor on a different patient. I think this guy has the hair you are looking for/expecting. 

You can see that the post-op work looks much more high density than your post op photos. 

Here is what I suggest you do. Buzz your head and get a few measuring tapes, and count the hairs in your transplanted area. You were mostly slick bald beforehand in the front so you can assume this to be an accurate assessment of your yield. 

Then, see approximately what your yield in the front was. Then, we can truly assess with objectivity whether your procedure was a success or failure given the number of grafts you were given.

This guy seems to have one of the best density I've seen with transplants. If I even manage to get to 70% of this, I'd be over the moon. Unfortunately, I don't know if I will opt for another procedure.

Counting the hair won't help actually, as I had some thin native hair as well as some transplanted hair from my earlier transplant. So I won't really be able to ascertain which are the latest transplanted ones.

2 minutes ago, AA1989 said:

Compare a hair from your head to a hair from your beard. If you are like me and most people, they will be fundamentally different in coarseness, calibre, curl, length, etc. Clinics need to be judicious in their use. Imagine beard hair visible in your hairline. If you check many of the top HT clinics, they refuse to use beard or body hair for scalp transplants.

As you have beard hair on your scalp, can you feel/see the difference?

Yes there's a difference. The beard hair is more coarse than scalp hair. But I had seen a video of Dr Arika herself, where she said that when beard hair is used, it is generally done in the mid-scalp and mixed with scalp hair.

I also understand that doing it in the hairline doesn't show very well. But the point is, my midscalp has a mix of beard and scalp hair. If donor density was a problem, the scalp hair could all be used in the hairline rather than mid-scalp. I also think that Melvin and Gatsby have had their transplants done recently using majorly beard hair, if I'm not wrong.

So for Eugenix, using beard hair should not have been a problem, had they needed to.

4 minutes ago, Ryan Daniel said:

The 8 month touch up, was a very very big mistake and it was a silly execution to do. Why was it hard to wait? I genuinely apologize for this statement. 

I remember myself being very unhappy with my result from Turkey, and they simply said that i should just come and get another one, instead of offering me a free touch up.

Anyway....  before the 12-14 month result, there should never be any final judgements or complaints ever. 

As soon as the 12th month finishes, if you are unhappy with the result, you have the right to go to the clinic and demand an explanation(unless they said from the start it wasn't possible to have a full result) or in this case a complementary touch up regarding the front all the way to the mid scalp would have been a very suitable solution.  

 

Another thing I want to add, you might of been going a severe rapidness of hair loss. Meaning any native hair that you had before and after your procedure, may have miniaturized or fallen... leaving you with the end result to be simply just transplanted hairs... giving you a very thin look with the limited grafts 

 

Like I said, I'm on finasteride since the first session with Eugenix (Dec 2020), and there is no hairfall now. So my hairloss isn't progressive.

1 minute ago, Z-- said:

It's clearly better - no doubt about that - I've never seen a case where Eugenix makes a patient worse. It's also very commendable that they've already provided a touch-up and are willing to provide additional improvements. Given the improvement and services provided, it does seem insane to receive a refund at this point. Obviously the midscalp can be better, and they've used the 2,500 pretty economically for the front, but I think it will require beard grafts at this point for the area behind. If I were OP, I'd either give it one more go.

That said, with all due respect, Melvin, your second point is unfair. If the clinic promised adequate/full density using 2,500 grafts, that isn't on the patient. There's only so much research that we can do and if the clinic is reputable (our job, as smart consumers, is to find these clinics...thankfully this forum provides a good place for that) ultimately we should be able to take their word. This isn't a bad transplant given the low number of grafts used (nor is it as good as the 10/10 results they've typically provided as of late), but there clearly is a disconnect in communication between patient and clinic and its impossible to tell what had been discussed. Seems OP would have been okay using beard grafts to get better coverage, so unless he's trying to scam for free grafts, I guess I'm rather confused why there wasn't an agreement between Eugenix (probably best in the world for using those grafts) and patient to use those...?

That's the thing. They did use 300 grafts from my beard, which is where the argument that my donor density was low, doesn't make sense. If there was a problem with the donor density, my beard grafts were anyway there. How is this a case of he said she said? I had donor hair available in my beard, so the argument that only 2500 grafts could be extracted doesn't seem to fit in, especially when Eugenix is known to do beard hair transplants.

Just now, AA1989 said:

Yes you're right, it allows the HT on the front and midscalp to have fully evolved. Given you knew that why didn't you wait a few more months and get a complete assessment?

Guess I trusted that the frontal portion will grow well in 12 months, so didn't think of waiting it out.

36 minutes ago, AA1989 said:

What does the OP want? I asked the question earlier

I have not received an answer. Indeed, the broader question is what would satisfy the OP and allow them to move on? Ultimately, if the OP can not come to a resolution with the clinic, then he has the option of legal redress, I assume based on misselling/malpractice. I'm sure the clinic would robustly contest this.

Till yesterday, I was not sure of what I wanted. But after seeing how my case has been handled, I definitely don't want to go back for another free/complimentary touch-up.

I don't know. Do clinics offer a refund in such cases?

22 minutes ago, Melvin- Moderator said:

You’re free to disagree with my assessment. The conclusion that the patient was never told is a “he said, she said” situation. I was told by Dr. Arika that this patient was counseled and told the realities of his situation. Including, donor scarring and what type of density could be achieved. 

My assertion here is that patients are not absolved of knowledge or research. That’s why I do this work. The clinic has already performed a free touch-up, the patient himself at the time made no mention of the hairline being a problem. He states that it was because it was 8 months, but still proceeded to get a repair in the midscalp at the same time. That doesn’t make any sense. If he wasn’t happy with the front he should’ve mentioned this to start. I don’t see how that falls on the clinic. 

At the end of the day, it is my job to ensure the clinic is acting fairly, and in this case, I believe they are fair. They’ve offered to replace any hair that hasn’t grown, they’ve already done a free touch-up. I’m not sure what else can be expected at this time. Again, everyone is free to draw their own conclusions based on the facts presented.

I'm glad you posted this. As per your discussion with Eugenix, if the primary area was the frontal hairline (as claimed by them), why do we see Dr Priyadarshini in the chat here telling me that the mid-scalp will show improvement? If that was not the primary focus, the response should have been "that was not the primary focus". As simple as that.

Secondly, I think this will probably be the last time I say this - my results in the front seemed good for 8 months. I thought there would be improvement till month 12 so I did not have a problem with it. My mid-scalp though, was extremely scanty, so I knew that no amount of time will magically improve the mid-scalp. 

Aren't we supposed to be patient and wait it out till month 12 at least, to see full density? What is expected of us as patients? Wait till 12 months or get paranoid in 8 months?

15 minutes ago, Z-- said:

Agreed. This is unfortunately a poor result. 2,500 grafts is way, way too small an area for both the front and mid-scalp given the level of loss that is present. Understand that if that's all they can take, and if that was conveyed beforehand with expectations set (e.g. hair will look thin and the illusion of density will not be achieved) that's one thing and is more on the patient for still wanting a miracle. However, if Eugenix indeed claimed that it was enough for the front and/or mid-scalp that's another story and reflects a poor setting of expectations on them.

You can check my post-history, as I've recommended Eugenix time and time again for high Norwoods based on their usually stellar results, but this one seems a misfire (the first I've seen from them, as again, their results are usually really, really good). I hope you are able to resolve this @AJ_HT, as Eugenix are known to stand behind their work and I'd hope they try to make this right.

I'm a reasonable man, sir. And if I was told beforehand that due to donor unavailability I may not get good density, then I either wouldn't opt for the surgery, or if I did, wouldn't come and write such long posts here. So to answer your question, no, the expectations weren't set beforehand. I was told I'd get good density with 2500 grafts.

And now after seeing the way it is being handled, I don't think I'd want to opt for another procedure with them even if they offer to correct it.

10 minutes ago, Egy said:

I would like to understand if the doctor Priyadarshini told the OP that he only needed 2500 grafts or that he could only take that number?  Although it seems somewhat strange to me that it is the second one, because as I have already written, Eugenix is famous for mega shaving sessions too and therefore I do not understand why they only took 300 from there and did not ask him to lower his pants too. or check their chest hair to see if they would be able to get grafts from other parts of the body.

I was told that my frontal and midscalp would need 2500 grafts, which could be available from the scalp. I was also told that anything more than that would not be possible to harvest from the scalp, and may need grafts from the beard.

And you've got it right @Egy. If more grafts were needed, they could have been harvested from my beard (I have a thick beard). But I was told that my requirement itself is of 2500 grafts. You may refer to the images I have attached in the earlier post in case you wish to verify the same.

35 minutes ago, Melvin- Moderator said:

Firstly, 

I'm not here to defend anyone or any clinic. But I must report my findings as I see them. You are a Norwood 5 so 2,500 grafts is not going to fill up half of your head with perfect density. This is a fact. To date, we have yet to see one picture posted of your midscalp, which was the section that was touched-up. You have been posting pictures of your frontal hairline, which again, you agreed looked good one month prior to your touch-up. 

Here are the facts:

1. You had a previous poor surgery, which made you a difficult case from the start, for various reasons scarring, etc. 

2. We haven't seen any pictures of your midscalp, which is still growing at 7 months

3. You agreed prior to your touch-up that you were happy with your hairline

4. You were told that your donor would not support more than 2500 grafts, which is in the text you shared.

At this point, you do not want to return to Eugenix, which is your right as a patient. I think the community has enough to draw their own conclusions. I refute the idea that patients are absolved of everything. We are not children. If you spend time researching hair transplants, you would know #1. You will require multiple procedures to achieve desired density. #2. Hair transplants are an illusion of density, and your hair will not look perfect in all circumstances. That is why I created this thread

I cannot comment on your touch-up because again, you have not posted any photos. On appearance, it looks like you are now unhappy about the hairline, months after having a touch-up for the midscalp. The clinics offer to count your grafts and replace any that haven't grown is more than fair in my opinion, and what else can we expect from a clinic? Should a clinic be forced to add 4,000 grafts when the patient paid for 2,500 and agreed to that number? No, I don't believe that is fair, nor should it be expected. 

I have not asked for another touch-up in any of my posts. In fact, I've said that even if I'm offered one, I'm not sure of taking it.

Let me elaborate on the facts you have mentioned:

1. You had a previous poor surgery, which made you a difficult case from the start, for various reasons scarring, etc. - Okay (although this wasn't mentioned to me prior to surgery)

2. We haven't seen any pictures of your midscalp, which is still growing at 7 months - You keep saying I haven't shared this picture time and again, but how exactly is a picture of my mid-scalp relevant? The problem being discussed here is with my frontal region. Anyway, since you want it, I've attached the same below.

3. You agreed prior to your touch-up that you were happy with your hairline - I have repeatedly mentioned that it was month 8, and I was happy with the way it looked for MONTH 8 (assuming there would be more improvement till month 12). I didn't think even this would be an issue after 12-15 months. Not sure what I've not conveyed here.

4. You were told that your donor would not support more than 2500 grafts, which is in the text you shared. - And you seem to have ignored the rest of the text that said that I would need only 2500 grafts for my frontal and midscalp region? The donor would not support more than 2500 grafts - which is true. But as per the chat, I didn't NEED more than 2500 grafts for the front and mid-scalp. Why has that piece of information been left out?

Melvin, I respect what you've done for the community on this platform. But by commenting on the donor availability and completely ignoring the fact that the doc clearly said I need 2500 grafts for my surgery, it doesn't seem like you're looking at both sides fairly in this situation.

Anyway, here's a picture of my mid-scalp (but like I said, I don't know how that will help here)

2 hours ago, asterix0 said:

@AJ_HT But isn't it a good clinic's responsibility to tell the patient that scarring can make it difficult to achieve good results? And if we assume that this is because of scarring and previous scalp damage, how will a touch-up help in any way? Especially when this will be the third surgery in the frontal region?

Yes, you are right that it is. I had assumed that they told you this, if I was wrong on this assumption I apologize. 

My interpretation of the sequence of events was:

- You were given a graft estimate, but were told based on your previous surgeries and donor status that it is a more risky procedure because of these circumstances. 

 

No matter what the clinic or anybody else says, I wasn't told anything about scarring or it being a risky procedure. Nor was there an issue with the donor area because as my chat shows, Dr Priyadarshini said that approx 2000-2500 grafts were needed for my frontal and mid-scalp region, which were available from my scalp donor.

(Only my crown wasn't getting covered because it required more grafts which were not available). These are the facts.

57 minutes ago, AA1989 said:

@AJ_HT 

At the heart of your complaint, you believe the clinic miscalculated the number of grafts required to provide the density you expected.
The clinic contends they harvested the maximum number of grafts they could without overharvesting an already depleted donor.

It seems the clinic was being ethical in not wanting to leave you with a destroyed donor. We see on the forum many instances of a badly depleted donor - its tragic. As clinics often get paid by the graft, there is a financial incentive to over harvest.

Two questions:

Why would the clinic choose to make less money unless they felt there was a high risk of damaging your donor?

Why would the clinic use beard grafts unless they felt there was a high risk of damaging your donor?

 

Why would the clinic quote that I need only 2500 grafts in the first place, if I actually needed more? I'm actually surprised that a clinic can be believed to not make a simple mistake in terms of calculation, but there are so many questions directed towards me.

Like I said, it's one thing to say that I need 4000 grafts but only 2500 are available and hence we can only do the frontal portion. But it's another thing to say that 2500 grafts are what I need. It was also told that out of the 2500, we could use beard grafts if needed. The point being - a total of 2500 grafts were needed, of which we may need some grafts from the beard.

4 minutes ago, AA1989 said:

The OP should reflect on how realistic their expectations were. Having been told you were a Norwood 5, you are asking if 2000-2500 grafts are enough to cover not only your frontal and mid-scalp but also your crown.

Those 3 areas amount to approximately 200cm2 on a NW5. The math tells you 2500/200 is 12.5 grafts/cm2. The 'illusion of density' only really starts at 40+ grafts/cm2.

This may sound like a criticism, but as someone who has experienced a previous poor HT, consulted multiple doctors, you should have known the basics of density and coverage.

With all due respect, why would you want to nitpick on this point and extrapolate it with my expectations? So what if I asked this question? Is it wrong in any way? I just asked a question, didn't insist on my crown being covered, just like I didn't insist on lowering my hairline, or anything else. But it's very evident from the chat, of what I was quoted in terms of number of grafts.

And instead of seeing the chat where I was quoted 2500 grafts for the frontal and midscalp region, it's surprising that you're picking on the fact that I asked about my crown. Am I missing something here? 🤔

1 minute ago, AA1989 said:

I hope this is a just a misunderstanding. A Non-disclosure agreement very serious allegation. Their use is considered unethical within the community. Melvin wrote a very good article on this very subject.

 

https://www.regrowhair.com/would-you-go-to-a-hair-transplant-surgeon-that-makes-you-sign-an-nda/

It wasn't an NDA. But the document had a clause which said that I am happy with my first surgery, and going forward, will not threaten Eugenix for any deficiency in service, and will refrain from posting any pictures, videos, tweet or message on any social media that could damage their reputation. It was a loosely worded statement and hence I didn't sign it.

7 hours ago, AA1989 said:

@AJ_HT Can you clarify, do you want another free touch-up as Melvin suggested? If so, why have you not responded/returned to the clinic? This position seems at odds.

If you are not looking for any additional free work,

What do you feel the clinic could have done differently?

What would be a satisfactory outcome to this thread?

@AJ_HT I want to say it takes a lot of courage to present your case and listen to feedback. While you are unhappy with the results, you have made progress.  If you have additional donor capacity, you have options for the future.

Like I said, after having 2 procedures there and still unhappy, I'm not sure if I want to opt for a third procedure with them. Also, I have the numbers of the Eugenix counselling and follow up team saved in my phone. Haven't got a call from them in the last 3 months. But irrespective, even if I did, after their stance yesterday that Melvin posted about, I highly doubt I will have faith for another procedure.

I feel the clinic could have paid more attention to the case and set realistic expectations before the surgery, if they felt the donor or the earlier scarring was an issue. Nothing of that sort was told to me before I went ahead with the procedure. Also, the calculations for number of grafts seemed off, because I have a thick beard which could be used for extraction if the donor was insufficient, but I was told that 2500 grafts only would be needed. We did end up using about 300 grafts from the beard, but the total requirement that was told to me was 2500. So there is definitely something amiss.

7 hours ago, Egy said:

excuse me, but why didn't the clinic decide to take follicular units from the beard as well, given that his donor area was compromised and according to them he could only provide 2500 u.f.?  I seem to have understood that Eugenix's surgeons are good in the extraction and implantation of beard grafts and in some cases, such as that of @Gatsby. they have also taken from other parts of the body.

That's exactly my point. If they say that the scalp donor area was insufficient, why take only 300 grafts from the beard? They could have taken more, had the requirement been more. But they quoted a REQUIREMENT of 2500 grafts.

It's one thing to say that we need 4000 grafts to cover your head but we can extract only 2500 from your scalp. It's another thing to say that we need only 2500 grafts for your head. I was told the latter.

9 hours ago, NARMAK said:

Hey Melvin, 

Whilst i appreciate you taking the time to go to the clinic and find all the information. 

My only concern is that the patients frontal hairline density which is even what you say was focused on doesn't seem to have yielded an acceptable result. 

The OP even stated he never mentioned the frontal hairline because he was 8 months post-op and still awaiting final results for the frontal hairline to mature which is a fair comment and reasonable for a patient. Even you would have to agree a patient can grow and mature over 4 months from 8-12 which would be unreasonable to sometimes complain within for a late grower. Even your own YouTube video mentioned people going from 9 months to 12 months results which looked worlds apart. 

A patient not signing a paper that makes them agree legally that they should expect a sub par result as a possibility shouldn't even be used as a point. No clinic in the world should make a patient sign such a thing imo and a clinic should be taking every care to ensure a positive outcome. I understand the patient was a repair case and of course there's risk with that, but Eugenix have been knocking it out the park. 

All your post imo has done so far is reinforce via clinic pictures that the before and after still show a lack of density in the frontal hairline. 

Eugenix are building a reputation on repair cases and in the interest of fairness to OP, i do not feel he is saying anything derogatory about clinic negligence or anything like that. Merely that the result of the procedures and the touch up did not match with what the expectations were perhaps set by the clinic as a desired outcome for him. 

If the clinic felt 2500 grafts was the maximum grafts possible to extract, i do now wonder whether the conversations had with OP adequately explained the outcome. Even the before picture you posted shows a band around the front almost 1cm in front of the area. I'm unsure why Eugenix didn't look to reinforce the existing hairline, refining it and then midscalp as we've seen them do so many times before.

I think there's factors at play on both sides but right now, i feel OP is here for support and a resolution and we should try help him here as that's what this community was founded on the principles of. I appreciate Eugenix is favoured on here and many members have had great results. Heck, i'm planned to have a procedure with them for that very reason, because i believe they are on balance generally great.

However, right now OP needs a little bit of help and i think we can maybe try bridge things a bit and see what we can do with you connecting to Eugenix and maybe as a community getting to the heart of the matter. 

They say truth is like a coin. You have two sides. 

Your doubts are legitimate. There was no conversation which said that since only 2500 grafts can be extracted, so I can't expect great density. I was told that I NEED 2500 grafts which can more or less be extracted from the donor. Like I said earlier, there's a difference between saying I need 4000 grafts but only 2500 can be extracted, and saying that I need 2500 grafts. I was told the latter.

5 hours ago, asterix0 said:

It is right to point out that unfortunately, repair patients are more difficult cases than first timers. Your scalp is damaged from previous transplants, people assume it is only the donor that is compromised. Not so, the recipient can be as well, which is a sad truth and further reason to get it right the first time. 

OP I sympathize with you, I hope you find the right solution to get the result you want. I also think the clinic acted fairly here and it is not necessarily there fault as to what your outcome turned out to be.

But isn't it a good clinic's responsibility to tell the patient that scarring can make it difficult to achieve good results? And if we assume that this is because of scarring and previous scalp damage, how will a touch-up help in any way? Especially when this will be the third surgery in the frontal region?

8 hours ago, Melvin- Moderator said:

I disagree, I think the hairline grew in well for the number of grafts transplanted. Again, 2,500 grafts to cover half of the scalp isn’t going to yield miraculous density, especially with fine hair- this is the reality of surgery. Anyone who undergoes surgery should understand the reality. 

You cannot expect the clinic to provide more density than what they transplant. The issue here is that given his compromised donor, this is what could be extracted. OP is upset and feels this was a miscalculation, but in reality, this is what could be extracted in one sitting without over harvesting. 

What should be expected from the clinic is to yield the hairs that were transplanted. I do believe that the 2,500 grafts grew well, or as well as they could on a scarred scalp. But, even so, the clinic did offer a free touch-up, in which the patient himself stated he was satisfied with the front. So, should the clinic continually perform free touch-ups when the patient states they are dissatisfied? I don’t believe that is fair, nor do I believe any clinic should operate that way. The clinic offered to see the patient in the office and count the hairs that were transplanted, if any hairs of the initial 2,500 grafts that were paid for did not grow, they have stated they would replace them. I feel that is more than fair. 
 

Again, OP states there has been no contact, but he was supposed to call to schedule an in-person visit, and did not return their call on March 2nd, indeed there are two sides to every story, which is why I provided the clinics side, as we have already heard OP’s. 

Also, we have yet to see the midscalp, which was where he had the touch-up, and he is 7 months from the procedure. These are the facts we have. 

@Melvin- Moderator how do you assume that the reality was a compromised donor, and not miscalculation? You've heard both sides of the story, but it's unfortunate that you say that the clinic is right in their claim, and I'm wrong. I have posted another comment with relevant pictures. Hope you have a look at it and come to a conclusion.

8 hours ago, AA1989 said:

There seems to be a fundamental difference of opinion/misunderstand.

Can we see photos see photos of the donor pre and post surgery?

I can post images of the donor, but like someone rightly mentioned, we can't comment on the donor availability by looking at pictures. Doctors can't even give an assurance before shaving the donor, and understandably so. So I highly doubt pictures will help. Happy to share them though, if needed.

6 hours ago, SadMan2021 said:

I would not go back for a 3rd procedure at the same clinic that had previously provided 2 unsatisfactory results.

 

 

Thankfully you understand how it feels.