anotherbaldguy

Its interesting that you are willing to reveal private information about multiple forum members on a public thread. Any chance you could tell us @George ClooneyIP as well? Guess you never heard of a VPN

Then you should have edited George Clooneys post on the thread to reflect this. And im still waiting for my results - ill post them if and when i feel comfortable for the public to assess them. It is incredibly strange that are you still trying and make this about me however It seems that between @George Clooney @qui bono and myself you have a history of this sort of thing. I empathise with George's last post;

I took 4 patient results posted on this site from each clinic and showed how each surgeon approached the cases differently. @George Clooney had done the same thing months earlier which Melvin took no issue with and (similar to my posts) thanked him for it. I then used the results to show the differences between the clinics; as Konior does all the work himself this limits the amount of grafts he can do in a single session and results in vastly different surgical plan from that of Hasson who is part of a larger clinic (with more tech involvement) who is able to achieve more in a single session. The irony of this all is i argued continually that these two clinics shouldn't be compared as they were better suited to different things; H&W were better at higher nw cases whereas Konior was ideal at smaller surgeries. Not sure how that is "pitting" surgeons against each other, but i cant make sense of anything Melvin says generally It's highly unlikely that the thread is well and truly deleted - forums such as these have to keep a record in case of legal action 👍

who can keep up with your arguments anymore melvin. And I thought you already made your last reply on the subject. you could easily restore the thread without the photos. But as to why you haven't done so yet i have no idea why. this shouldnt have been a big deal the fact that you appreciated my analysis only reveals you are confused about it yourself

Im still waiting for my results to come in from one of the clinics, and after 4 surgeries have found paying too much attention only builds expectations and makes the process worse. The thread that was deleted was a meta-analysis and breakdown of surgical approaches of each clinic generally, with particular attention to each surgeon's strengths (not just between Konior and H&W but between H&W themselves). No single patient thread would ever capture that, and given the feedback and support i got publicly and privately, you have done a disservice by removing it.

If you had argued that from the start i would have respected you. But that is not what happened. As you saw in the thread that you deleted I took into these things into account and showed how both clinics approached a patient with fine hair completely differently. This was the post that you liked and thanked me publicly for writing. I do have copies of what i wrote so if anyone would like me to start the thread again perhaps Melvin will let me. I have no idea how these things work anymore. Otherwise apparently it's ok to message me privately. Im happy to help anyone that is interested

I NEVER said I was mad at people that didnt want to use their images. What are you talking about? That's their absolute right. Im annoyed and upset at YOUR failures as a moderator in how you have handled this. Your behaviour has been entirely arbitrary, inconsistent and makes no sense whatsoever. @RecessionProof had no issue with me using his photos, so why not restore the thread and simply remove the photos of those who do not wish to participate? Simple. You admitted it was rash decision to delete it, so why not restore it?

then you should have simply deleted the photos and left the thread intact talking about anonymous posters motives, suggesting that dissecting surgeon reviews is not necessary, that people draw different conclusions from photos (when that is the ONLY way of judging the work here), and then suggesting I needed to make a thread here myself is nonsense. if it's possible you should simply restore the thread without the photos so that others might make up their own minds. But it is mind boggling trying to understand how something simple has now evolved And if you restored the thread you will see that that is exactly what i argued This is highly insulting, and downright bizarre given you agreed with my posts and thanked me for it

1. i was thinking about making a thread and am still considering doing so because others might learn from my journey. 2. i used multiple examples of public photos to discuss the general surgical approaches of each clinic. Just using one example (my own) would not make any sense because a) it doesnt reveal an overall pattern, and b) I have undergone multiple surgeries and my case is unique. 3. Why is this now focused on me deciding whether or not to share my own photos publicly - is this not my identity and my choice? I have shared them privately with you already. I think you are trying to distract from the inconsistent rules presented on the forum and your bad handling of this.

You never once made it clear that taking pictures of other patients and comparing them is not allowed; another poster did it months earlier and you allowed the thread to continue. And when I did it you initially saw no issue with it and even thanked for me contributing ... only to suddenly delete the thread and have your entire position change. Why? So what exactly is this issue? Is comparing photos not allowed? Are the motives and identities of members who want to contribute positively to the forum now an issue? How else are we to assess the work of clinics if not by comparing photos? And is the new standard now that every forum member that posts an opinion now needs to create a public thread first? Are you serious???? I just sent you my clinic photos privately to prove who I am, but I dont like the idea of being forced to do anything publicly. Admittedly I was actually thinking about making a thread and even mentioned it here, but genuinely i dont respect how any of this has been handled.

I've had surgery with both H&W and Konior which is why I know exactly how each clinic is run and understand what each surgeon excels at - so I believe this also makes me uniquely qualified to comment on such a thread comparing the two clinics. You initially liked my post and thanked me for it so it makes absolutely no sense to turn around and question the motives of 'anonymous posters posting online' when literally everyone that participates on this forum is an anonymous poster sharing their opinion (and at least mine are based on personal experience). Hasson & Wong and Konior are considered some of the best surgeons in the world, so does this mean forum members can no longer discuss their work publicly or ask which is best suited to their needs?

So as I understand it the main reason the thread was taken down was because I took random samples of patients from what are commonly regarded as the "two best clinics in the world" and used them to discuss the different surgical approaches taken in each case? I would argue it would have been better to simply remove the photos in question and leave the content untouched given many forum members were openly thankful for my contribution. First of all it is common practice for prospective patients to be left stuck choosing between two or more clinics and request help to discover which clinic is better suited to their needs. Head to heads are a necessary part of the research phase, and after many years of lurking on various forums I have never seen one taken down before, and as far as I can tell no other such threads have been removed. Second of all I was in fact following in the footsteps of what a previous poster @George Clooneyhad done months earlier when they (as a computer programmer) analysed the work of each clinic and broke down their results, further adding photos to their analysis. This did not cause the thread to be taken down and the moderator of the forum commended him for it. Third of all I purposefully did not tag any of the patients involved in case any feelings were hurt; I understand how vulnerable it is to put yourself out in public, so I truly apologise if i did in fact cause any offense. But on the other hand these are results from one of the best surgeons in the world, and such patients made a conscious decision to submit their results publicly and left them up for review. Indeed one of the patients @RecessionProofhappened to recognise himself, came online, even agreed with my initial analysis, and openly welcomed further discussion of his results both publicly and privately. He should be commended for his behaviour because this is how a community that supports one another behaves, otherwise it's a community that doesn't value transparency and doesn't care if their fellow patients make an informed decision about their bodies or not. I guess i am left disappointed and confused, especially considering the forum moderator initially here liked my contribution and thanked me for it. If there really was an issue i would still argue it is better for the community at large to simply remove the photos and leave the content up. I would have hoped for better.

I experienced something very similar. A previous surgeon placed my hairline far too low (6cm from the glabella even though I'm a NW5) and my temple points were completely receded, so not matter what i did my hairline always looked fake. I believe temple point restoration is transplanted around 25 FU/cm - so effectively half the density of the hairline. That's why they usually require less grafts despite the area size. Admittedly im really impressed at your results already even though you're only at 4.5 months post op - it's completely changed the proportions of your face. My understanding is that with temple points it is preferable to have some length in order to blend with the areas behind it, but if you like keeping your sides short i'd probably consider trying a touch of hair dye in the future to make the area behind darker. Although it's far too early to do anything yet though. Hope you're enjoying the ride.

My surgeon fully constructed my temple points and that has managed to offset all the issues with the low placement/angulation of my hairline, so yes i think it would help. Your temple points look to be fully receded like mine were (one side more than the other which again is the norm) so it's probably going to take around 800 grafts. There are only a handful of surgeon's able to fully reconstruct temple points (the angulation, design and hair selection all need to be accurate) so again you should only be looking at elite clinics to handle it. Lol you make me feel like i should have posted a review of my surgery so i wouldn't have to write this all out.

I have a similar issue where a surgeon mis-angled my entire hairline upwards and not forwards 1. You CAN train hair to act a certain way, but it takes a lot of time (i.e. years). People who wear their hair in a ponytail have trained their hair to sit backwards. As you are 2 years post-op that's when the hair should have settled already, so if your hair was mis-angled that way it's likely permanent. 2. Possibly yes. but most surgeons would be hesitant to do it because the amount of scarring/transection/permanent redness to the hairline isn't worth it. If you did want to remove and re-angle the hairline you'd have to do over multiple surgeries. If you are a low norwood and have an abundant donor you could theoretically remove the hairline with something like electrolysis and start over, although most clinics wouldn't like this because it wastes grafts. 3. I asked my surgeon a similar question and they refused to do add more hair because they would have to similarly mis-angle the new grafts to match the hairline, thus only adding to the problem. Alternatively if you added more density to the hairline that was now angled properly you'd suddenly have two competing hair directions which would leave you even more frustrated. I mean if your hairline isn't that dense or it only affects one side maybe a surgeon would consider it removing one side, but you're going to have to consult with some elite docs to find out (preferably in person).

According to Shapiro interview that Melvin did its an extra 3k grafts. My bad for getting the numbers wrong. 100%

yes https://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/profile/5822-dr-damkerng-pathomvanich/content/?type=forums_topic&change_section=1

If the question is "is FUT for graft maxing outdated" then the answer is no. You can still get more grafts overall by starting with FUT (and then adding FUE + even BHT). H&W Doug did an interview where he suggested you can get at least 2k more grafts starting with FUT, which seems to be superficially confirmed by comparing the results for their FUT vs FUE on their homepage. Whether this extra 2k grafts for the average patient is ultimately worth it however is largely debatable and obviously a matter of preference. If the question is "is FUE + BHT enough to cover all my needs" then the tentative answer is yes. There are now more than a few clinics that can handle this and the technology has improved so much that a higher NW may now choose to pursue this path instead. I think it's possible then to potentially reframe this thread as a FUT vs BHT debate, looking at which is the better method to meet the needs and goals of higher NWs. Each extraction method of course comes with a compromise; with FUT you get the linear scar, while BHT isn't always a good match and has different growth cycles. And of course each patient is different and is a better candidate for one or the other. Perhaps the focus shouldn't be on a which approach is ultimately better then, but rather what is in a patient's best interests. One caveat worth mentioning however is that the donor is known to thin over time - with an even further percentage of patients experience thinning of the transplanted hair as well - which would be a major argument against FUE and not taking your donor to its limits with a homogenous depletion. For younger patients this is particularly troubling as it would not only leave them with an unnatural transplanted appearance on top but few options to fix it in the future. There was a member who posted just today highlighting this issue I am hesitant to use my own case as an example, but i did mention previously that due to my scalp laxity my donor capacity is closer to that of 12.5k with FUT as opposed to 7.5k with FUE alone. I have little beard hair and it's not a good match. I'm a NW5 and have undergone both FUT and FUE. The strip we took for my last surgery was 21.5cm x4cm (not even the usual 30cm strip that takes the strip well passed the ears), and I still have more FUT surgeries available to me after this. You can see the scarring I have incurred from previous surgeries; the FUT scar at the bottom of the shaved area is under 1mm, while the FUE extractions above are all larger in size. The FUE scarring was deemed bad enough that I was cautioned against any major or further FUE harvests by more than a few clinics. However as I still had the option of FUT available I found I was not only able to get far more grafts by pursuing a strip, but in doing so it has already significantly improved the overall look of my donor by removing a vast majority of these FUE scars. I am clearly an outlier, but nobody could possibly argue that I am not the ideal FUT candidate. Based on personal experience then I can only suggest that any clinic that disregards or rejects FUT outright either doesn't have the expertise to pursue it, or fails to take into account a patient's individual donor characteristics. So I said much earlier each case is different and should be approached accordingly ... it's best to leave dogmatism at the door.

I ended up cutting a 1cm square hole out of a piece of paper and shaved the same area into various regions across my donor area, taking photos at at the occipital parietal and temporal regions. Donor surface area can also be easily measured or estimated by the patient. In terms of repair patients then id agree with you things like tenting pitting and ridging ideally should be assessed in person, although again these are easy enough to diagnose even without a microscope. Both Dr Wong and Dr Muresanu were able to accurately estimate my scalp laxity based on videos (if anything they underestimated it). The issue of course is always candidacy - specifically as it relates to donor miniaturisation - which from my conversations with other clinics they seemed to think my approach was good enough.

On average FUT only gives you about 2k more grafts - which IMO really doesnt seem worth the scar if you can supplement it with beard hair. So in this regard I agree with you. But as @BurnieBurns listed earlier on there are still plenty of situations where FUT would not be considered outdated. Younger patients with unpredictable loss, and those with excessive scalp laxity would also both strongly benefit from considering FUT as well. I think that first patient is only classified a 6 because his crown appears to have dropped, but his sides are incredibly high (even higher than that of a normal 5), leaving a much smaller surface area needing to be covered closer to that of a 4. The other case by Wong though is legit, showing some substantial surgical planning for only 4300 grafts. But when it comes to H&W I think some people will always remember them for their FUT cases like this 14.5k graft example; https://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/topic/43949-total-14462-grafts-with-dr-hasson/ or aftermath at 9500 grafts; https://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/topic/43692-dr-hasson-660-hairline-grafts-update/ Both with more donor to spare. I'm not sure how anyone would consider the other FUE cases from H&W you listed as "equal" yet.

Admittedly I don't think I've seen any NW6 restorations by Dr Hasson since he started doing FUE exclusively. Dr Wong still performs FUT however, and here is a case where the patient had previous bad FUE, and because he switched to FUT somehow managed to get around 9k grafts more from his donor. The FUT scar even appears to have even cleaned up the look of his donor.

The issue of this thread isn't necessarily about whether FUT or FUE is better, but rather is FUT an outdated procedure if you were trying to max your donor. In which case the argument is centred around FUE (alone) vs FUT + FUE (combined). In the video Dr Hasson admits FUE is better for transplanting at higher densities (mentioning this is only appropriate for those with minimal loss), but that doesn't really address those with severe stages of loss, or perhaps those who have undergone bad surgeries in the past and can't rely on further FUE sessions to cover all their needs.

For my consult with Hattingen Dr Muresanu suggested I buy a usb microscope from amazon so he could look at my donor. It was incredible instructive, only costs around $30, and given how important it is I genuinely have no idea why other clinics aren't doing the same.

One of my surgeries I had to pay a "renowned" doctor upfront. Turns out they had over-quoted me by about 100 grafts, so rather than refund me they kept the rest under their "inclusive fee" structure. While 100 grafts doesn't seem like a lot, given their prices this worked out at about $1200. The results were sub par as well (a lot of technical errors) and when I complained they refused to help, which recently forced me to undergo another surgery with another clinic. On the one hand people will argue you should be grateful to the clinic for refusing to operate and making your life worse. On the other hand no services were rendered so it seems incredibly unfair you have to pay at all. You are pretty much on your own in this industry.