civic

4 hours ago, BeHappy said:

It's interesting that the Dr did the crown first and did the front last. Usually the front is done first because if you run out of grafts it's better to have a bit less in the crown. It looks like this went fine, so I'm not trying to worry you. I just found it interesting and I'm wondering if that's his standard plan on large cases like yours.

 

I think it's perhaps to minimize swelling post op. Usualy front is prone to it more.  After day 2 my face had gotten swollen.

Wow, this is incredible transformation!  and it has not even been full year. Very happy for you Gatsby.

Very nice result!

26 minutes ago, Melvin- Moderator said:

Make sure you keep the recipient clean, when did you have surgery? How many days post-op?

June 27-28 was operation, i am closely following docs post op instructions, spraying saline every hour until Tomorrow then 1st Wash .

22 minutes ago, Melvin- Moderator said:

You’ve got fantastic hair characteristics. Will be following your journey closely 🙌🏼

Thank you Melvin!

Hi guys, i just finished my 2 day 5k grafts with Dr Vories. I was a NW6.

Quick stats: early 40s, hair loss was noticable in mid 20s but was managble with comb overs. 

Why i chose Dr Vories: he specializes in FUE exclusivly & does implantation & extraction all by himself. Those of you who been around, know how labor intensive the procedure is. His assistant Kathy helped with loading implanting pens, recount grafts. She is just as hardworking as he is. 

On day 1,  2500 grafts were extracted & implanted into back half. On day 2 the front was done with another 2500 grafts.

Pics are day 1 of crown, Day 2 with front right after post op. Before pic with donor area pre op.

Well, i would say go with what you feel more comfortable with, there is argument on both sides of the fue/fut. Some top surgens noted that FUT can cause some grafts under scar to be unsusable for future ht. I read some research on that a while ago.  Also, Fut scar has potential to cause permanent nerve numbness in strip area. 

Just now, NARMAK said:

It's a fair enough point if you feel there's a better surgeon for your case, but objectively i think they're hitting great results and have done so for a significantly long time to have the reputation they do. 

Personally i think i wouldn't mind that approach if the graft survival is as high as everybody else and it just results in significantly more density. 

I personally would lean to Dr Hasson or Dr Bisanga given their respective reputations as i do not know of Dr Rahal as well as perhaps some because i hadn't seen as many results recently here. 

Nice! Yeah, one of the great things about ht is that we have many surgens which have differernt approach, & each patient can decide what is best for them.  All a matter of opinion -)

17 minutes ago, NARMAK said:

Your analogy imo doesn't quite resonate. 

Let's say there's 1cm/2 of space for grafts to be placed, most go and place it seems around half or less the native density. So 100cm/2 native is reduced to 50cm/2 or below. If Dr Hasson is dense packing let's even say 65cm/2, then that's higher but i've almost never heard many people complain of H&W having poor growth and yield rates. 

They're world class and whilst i may agree, other clinics may perhaps be cherry picking in some eyes better and placing in a different way to create an equivalent illusion of density, this is still imo a difference of methodology. Not necessarily to say Dr Hasson is doing it "wrong" per se. 

Again, it's difficult to come to a conclusion of "overpacking" if you can't show cases under Dr Hasson regularly yielding poor survival rates and growth. 

I am not by any means impying he is bad, h&w are one of the best, i just don't agree with their philosophy, is all, which i mentioned earlier somewhere in this thread.

33 minutes ago, NARMAK said:

Can somebody please explain what they mean by "uses too many grafts" for Dr Hasson? 

I thought people would be extremely happy having a really high dense packing in a single pass. Saving them feeling their first pass wasn't good enough and needing a top up for density sooner rather than later. 

There is dense packing & then there is overpacking. Why would you want a 5 mile worth of forest planted on 5 inches of land? More is not better, overpacking can in fact be detrimental for optimal  graft  survival rate as they will fight for blood supply & by looking at what other top clinics achieve with less  is where the disagreement comes in.

Nice! can't wait.

Much respect to Eugenix, they made beard grafts go mainstream for treating high norwoods & raised the bar on what can be achieved. This has been a positive evolution in ht for everybody. 

Looks very clean , great work !

1 minute ago, GoliGoliGoli said:

If anything I think I have a pretty strong donor, but I have never had it examined in person. But I have always had very thick hair, and my hair in the donor area feels super thick to me just like it did when I was 16. 

Regardless, I thought 4k was the max grafts for any procedure just because you don't want swelling to be too brutal and follices to be competing for blood supply? I don't think the 4k max is lifetime, just per surgery

FUE can be split over 2 days, so 4-5k grafts over 2 days is ok with the right surgen. I don't think you need that many. See recent posts of recomended surgens , Dr Taleb posted update of patient he did around 1.7 k grafts & it looks fantastic, there are very good surgens here who work with less grafts & produce amazing results.

1 minute ago, GoliGoliGoli said:

FUE. Curious as to why this would impact graft # needed? 

You mentioned cap of 4k grafts, usualy when donor is limited in some way,  pro FUT surgens would recomend strip to not deplete donor. Was your donor examined in person? 

Are you going for FUE or FUT? 

1.5k grafts is more than enough with good surgen. Most people got used to seeing hairmills pack 6k grafts into NW2s & assume thats what it takes. It's the skill set of doc that matters most, graft survival rate, angle placement. Hairmills pack more than needed to possibly compensate for poor yield growth, bad angle placement etc. Eugenix gave you good & accurate graft # for your case. Remember, less is more. 

There is no exact amount, it varies by hair characteristics, your density expectation. Some doctors like to work with a lot of grafts (even on NW2-3), other docs can achieve amazing results with less grafts. This forum has search function where you can research each doctor & choose accordingly.

Dr Vories , Dr Bernstein. They achieve great results with less grafts, would be nice to hear how they do that.

On 6/20/2022 at 11:54 AM, Orion2 said:

Thanks for your answer. What gives you the impression that I have DUPA? I have looked again closely and I don't notice any patches. My photos were taken with my hair a bit dirty/greasy which makes it seem that they are stuck together leaving some areas uncovered but I don't feel like I have actual missing hair from the sides and the back.

 

I agree with you with the haircut, I need to cut my hair much shorter and that's what I will do ASAP. I don't think I will take finasteride, I love the idea of having hair but am not looking to take hormone changing drugs just to keep it. If that would be preventing a surgery, then I would probably reconsider the hair transplant and would go with the close cut look rather. 

 

Thank you !

I also did not notice signs of dupa in your photos, have you tried to see local dermatologist for scalp exam? 

It is best to grow hair a bit longer to get more acurate estimate from doctors. 

35 minutes ago, 12345 said:

maybe its a case of paid for 4,800 grafts, but did not receive 4,800 grafts

Not sure about that, but i don't agree with their philosophy of using crazy amount of grafts on small regions. It sets a wrong example in my opinion. Think about it, if some dude who is NW5-6 sees this, he will think "OMG  if such small NW3 required almost 5k grafts, then wtf my shiny NW6 would need? 15k grafts? hell no,"  & that would discourage many by thinking they can't get good result if they don't have astronomical amount of donor. Also, it kind of discredits other top surgens who work with less grafts, potential NW6 sufferer will be doubtful that 5k grafts will give him good result for wider area of baldness. The art of ht is in working with less to produce more. This art should not be lost. Just my opinion.

28 minutes ago, sukh123 said:

• im sorry am i missing something or is that a typo "4800" to cover that area is insane, that how many grafts are used to potentially cover over 2/3 thirds  scalp of a norwood 5 or 6.

Actualy that many grafts cover entire NW5-6. Look at Eugenix, Dr Vories, Dr Cuto. I honestly think this has to be called out. I would like for them to explain themselves why they do that, because almost anyome given 5k grafts in that small region can & will produce perfect result. There is no challenge with that . We bash hairmills for overuse of grafts..-))

31 minutes ago, 12345 said:

im surprised you needed 4,800 grafts for a norwood 3

Yes, i am also surprised why he needed that many grafts, i guess h&w has different philosphy than other top surgens.  I am not by no means implying they are not good, they are one of the best, its just i think those surgens who can do similar with less grafts should get more praise.  The art of ht, inmo is to create more with less. 

You still have great coverage, use all possible remedies if you can't take fin, dermaroll 1x a week, minox, vitamins. Use hair fibers. The only time you should entertain notion of ht is when Toppik no longer binds to hair & falls on scalp.