windjc

It's pretty common knowledge that Bosely and HairClub are your worst possible choices. Advertising does not = quality. There are some recommended doctors on this forum in the Socal region. I personally had a transplant with Dr. Umar in Redondo Beach and after almost 4 months I am having significant growth that I am pleased with. I studied for many weeks before making my decision. You need to find a doctor that is great, not an advertisment that is great. This is your HEAD. Mess it up and regret it for the rest of your life.

lmao. A "high risk..aggressive surgical team"? Doing "precision oriented extraction?" They have "some causalities"? Anyways, your post is a non-sequitur, it's merits (or lack thereof) aside. It has nothing to do with what Mp96 stated; other than an attempt to obfuscate what Mp96 said, which is that the pics don't say all that much in regard to judging the yield of 6500 grafts. Let's be frank -- yield could have occurred that would make any of us grimace and it would still be consistent with the photos. Burberry's exact yield doesn't matter much though since he's happy, and he's clearly improved and made progress, and not just in the hair department. What is so unclear about his photos? How exactly could anything about these pics be masking yield on a 6500 graft NW 6?!? I may have been seemingly harsh on Mp96, but it wasn't meant that way. This forum has a bias against Armani and for the "recommended" surgeons like the one that did your HT. Other forums have biases in other directions. Almost everytime an Armani patient posts a decent result on this forum they are met with skepticism. It shouldn't be that way. A result is a result. Good or bad. Whether its Feller, Wong, or Armani or anyone else. I've seen good and bad from all these doctors. More bad cases from Armani? Yes. But that has nothing to do with Burberry's pics.

If you take any advice, please take this advice: Take getting a HT very seriously. Research this forum and other hair loss forums for hours. Read for hours. You need to determine what you current hair loss really is. What it will take to replace it. What your long term plans are. Medications you can take. Different types of hair transplant procedures. And who the best doctors are. Location of doctor and price should be secondary concerns. If you go to the wrong doctor because he/she is close and/or cheap and you get a unsatisfactory result you could spend the rest of your life regretting it. Do not take this matter lightly.

Lol. Not every Armani patient has a bad result. Not even close. You don't really believe that do you? Its a high risk (or aggressive) surgical team doing a more precision oriented extraction (FUE), so they have some casualties that have been well documented. But they have good results too.

No that is actually exactly the timeline I lined out. In fact, that is exactly what happened to me, but earlier. My "burst" came at week 7-8. It takes 4 months to grow two inches, so the "layering" is happening right now. But the layering is accompanied by thickening of the hair shaft follicles. For me, I suspect that will all happen BEFORE month 9. I suggested that for others it would all being a few months later, which would but them more in your month 9 timeframe. But, IN ANY CASE, I am pleasantly surprised to see that the responses on here agree. My goal is not to discourage anyone, as there are certainly exceptions, but it seems there are clear trends.

I don't want to start an inflammatory thread. But I do want to talk about a somewhat sensitive subject. I been on forums off an on for 5 years and I've looked at a lot of threads, a lot of pictures and a lot of testimonials, both good and bad. (I must say, this site does a great job getting people to inventory and blog their HT experiences. But having had a HT myself 3 1/2 months ago, I have spent even more time recently looking at blogs, pictures and threads. But this time I really focused in on regrowth patterns after HTs. Now, some surgeons/surgerys are better than others, of course. But what I am seeing doesn't really have to do with that. I'm talking about regrowth trends that seem to fly in the face of some of common assumptions made about hair regrowth. The following example is one trend I see. Please tell me if I am wrong. Of course there is the odd exception or two to every trend, but this trend seems pretty dominant: Recipient graft growth happens earlier for some and later for others. But when it happens, there tends to be an initial burst of grafts that come through. The grafts that come through in this initial growth phase are A LARGE MAJORITY of what that person will ever grow. So if that initial burst is in month 3, it will probably last a month or two until month 4-5. At that point, while one can expect some new follicles to grow in the months to come, most came in with the initial burst of graft growth. Likewise, if significant growth starts at month 5, most of the grafts will come in that initial burst and by month 7 what is going to grow is mostly there already. Am I wrong about this? Because when I look at pictures/blogs, there seems to always be a month or two where the hair grows in strong and then, while there is "thickening" of grafts in the following months, there most often does not appear to be a lot more graft growth. If I take myself for instance, I had a lot of growth early, starting at month 2 and now at month 3 1/2 the new graft growth rate has slowed down greatly. My hairs have a lot of thickening to do. Some of them are only 25% of the thickness they will be at, even though some of them are almost an inch long. So when they thicken to full size, that will be a 400% upgrade in density appearance, even without any new growth. So, based on the vast majority of pictures I am seeing, I don't think it is reasonable to expect much more new graft growth for me. Now, I know some might say that's "crazy", but realistically, is it? I mean, if I get 10% more graft growth over the next 8-9 months and the 400% thickening, then it will "appear" as a big difference. But in actuality, most of my grafts have already arrived. I think this also explains that while I hear "give it 18 months", hardly anyone out there looks any different after they pass 12 months, and most people dont look much different after the go past 8-10 months. I know this flies in the face of what many say on this forum, but when you look at the trends, these seem to be pretty darn consistent.

Well, I certainly hope so. If so, then my apologies in advance. But it still amazes me how many people do not take responsibility for their decision before and/or after their HT. Research, people!

"I met him , he said we'll bring your hair line down by 2 inches and will need 1300 grafts at cost of 30 per graft.After HT he said we have put 1700 grafts and charged me 5K more. I was happy for 45k ill have my hair back."

He charged you $30/graft?!? What the heck? First, how does a doctor get away with that legally (not to mention ethically) and second if you were savvy enough to find a doctor online, how the heck did you fall for that? That's one of the craziest things I've heard of. No offense, but as HT patients we have to take as much responsibility for our HTs as our doctors. Its our body and if we dont treat it with reverence, then we have nothing to complain about. Its pretty obvious that any doctor that would charge $30 per graft would be dangerous, as they have no concern for the well being of any patient.

The interesting thing is they are already growing body parts and organs from scratch and transplanting them in bodies. I heard on NPR a few days ago about a guy that needed an esophogus, so they GREW him one and then transplanted it into his body. Seems like if we can already do that, we should be able to multiply hairs on the head. In our lifetimes, organs of all shapes and sizes will be grown from stem cells and be used in transplants. But I have less faith in HM. Maybe because its been 5 years away for 15 years already.

I started using Rogaine foam a week ago. But I love it. I guess my nose doesn't work well because I haven't detected a smell at all. But more than that, it goes on so easy and dries in minutes (sometimes seconds). Its anything but greasy for me. Liquid rogaine was horribly greasy, but the foam I have absolutely no complaints about. Is it really greasy for you?

Is that true? On average, zone 1 and 2 equal 67 cm2? Is there a diagram somewhere where I can see exactly what zone 1 and 2 comprise on the scalp? I've always been curious what the cm2 of my HT is

How long does it typically take shockloss around the recipient area to grow back (assuming it does)? Thanks.

Hey Doc, did this patient get on meds too? His left side looks almost impossible to be what I am assuming is about 500 grafts. However, with Minox/Propecia, I could understand mo betta.

I just don't know what to think of a doctor saying he gets 97% yield. Would H&W say this? Maybe they do, but I don't think any doctor would/should make such a statement, because quite frankly, I doubt it could be true. 97% seems to be astronomically high. When I went to Umar he said 80% on AVERAGE. That also may not be true as an average, but it seems a lot more reasonable (while still optimistic) than 97%. Personally, my mindset was to prepare (as in picking the right doctor for me) and hope for the best and expect the worst - the worst being, the low end of the bell curve when it comes to yield. For instance, if my goal was 40 hairs per cm2. and I only got 60% yield, but they were placed at 66 cm2, then I would get 40 cm2 results. If I hit the 80% "average" even better. But especially after your last result, I think setting reasonable expectations would benefit you greatly.

Generally this is true. But there are exceptions. If someone has naturally more diffuse hair, thinning would be noticeable sooner. At any rate, many might say that 40 hairs per/cm2 gives the appearance of "density" as long as the hairs are not miniturized. But again, hair and scalp color play a significant role too. As well as hair products. So based on 40 hairs per cm2, to cover 30 cm2 area, it would have 1200 transplants that grew. Since you can expect 80% growth if you are fortunate, then you might need 1500 grafts. But this is all a rough estimate. Much easier to have some doctors look at you and give you estimates.

Just curious Pats, and this is a serious question, why did you chose to end your post by writing "This is extortion and will not be tolerated"? That comes across to the casual viewer like myself as aggressive and threatening. And, unless you are actually going to do something about his posts and emails, its not even a true statement as you are currently tolerating him and will continue to have to do so. As Bob Dole might say, you know, I know and the american people know that your not going to take a patient to court. It doesn't make sense and you wouldn't win. So, did you choose those words you wrote alone or are all your posts sanctioned and approved by Armani himself? I'm just curious. I wouldn't want to judge the doctor based on his representative unless the representative was fully endorsed by the doctor.

You make some really good points labrat69. I mentioned this recently on a seperate thread, but so much of what people argue about on these forums comes down to Quality Control. Or how consistently a doctor gets the same results over and over. There is more evidence of quality control with the top strip surgeons than the top FUE surgeons. However, that doesn't mean a person can't get an equally great FUE result. It just may mean the odds are riskier. The hair transplant field will continue to evolve - there is too much money involved for it not to. You are choosing strip. From your posts it seems like that is the best choice for you. I chose FUE. I am in the entertainment industry and needed a soft hairline and a fill in of both temples, so I went with the riskier (one with less quality control) technique. If the time comes for a 2nd surgery, I'll decide based on what I need which way to go. If I need massive coverage and the FUE is still not great for this, then I have no problem going strip on my second procedure. If FUE evolves or if I just need some touch up down the road, then maybe I'll do FUE again. The right HT is such a personalized thing. That's why I wish more posters like yourself spoke passionately and HONESTLY about all he things to consider.

Balboa, The moderator on Hairsite says that the reason they took your thread down was that Armani had claimed that you are trying to extort them. Have you spoken to that moderator about those charges? One thing for sure is, Armani is one hell of a lightening rod. Read one forum and Armani is like god, read another (like this one) and he is the bane of hell. Its seems that Armani's single biggest problem (besides the winless argument over how many grafts should be placed, when and where) is Quality Control. In any business, one of the key elements of longevity is quality control. If Armani has 25% awesome results, 50% okay results and 25% poor results, thats not good quality control. I for one wish that there was more transparency and honesty on all forums, including this one. While this forum seems to be the "hardest" on doctors, there is still an enormous amount of bias, both in the set up for "recommended" doctors vs. "unrecommended" ones, as well as many prominent posters who have very strong opinions about how a transplant should be done, when it should be done, what tools should be used, etc. etc. etc. In the end though, I think quality control should be looked at for what it is. Risk management. So, if a patient understands this and decides to roll the dice with Armani in order to hopefully have a "Wow" result, then the patient will be more ready to take personal responsibility if they wind up in the "crappy" results category. People should be allowed to take risks, if thats what they choose. With more honesty, we could call a spade a spade. Armani is not a "butcher". He is a doctor who apparently has poor quality control.

You are bringing up a large can of warms. If you are seriously considering this you need to do a lot of research. Dr. Umar does leg hair transplants fairly regularly, but you will have many people on this forum eager to advise you against it, either because of lack of a large # of documented results and in some cases certain peoples dislike of Dr. Umar. The first question is really DO you need to us leg hair. Scalp hair is ALWAYS best if you have it. Beard hair is arguably second best if you are looking for filler for the crown. Chest and leg hair come in at best third. Mainly because it takes ALOT more leg hairs than scalp hairs to fill an area. Both because leg hairs are thinner, but also because their resting cycle is longer. You should really do your research before going down this route. In fact, I don't think any of the doctors that do leg hair will do leg hair if you have scalp donor hair available.

Well, I'm at 2 1/2 months - that stage where you stare at your head and wonder what its all going to look like in the end. So, the hairs are starting to come on in. And I have noticed that they are sprouting/growing in a diffuse manner. For instance, I'd say that they are sprouting at about 20 hairs/cm2 or so. So my question for you guys that have been down this path is...did your hair also initially grow out in a diffuse manner and then later thicken as more grafts sprouted later on OR did your hairs grow back uniformly and then you got more density as the hairs thickened? Or was it both of these?

Well, the assymetrical aspect is good to know. As for shockloss vs. transplanted hairs, these are on left and right temple recessions that were hairless at time of transplant. However, I seem to have gotten some growth from the minox solution my doc started me on post-op. This has followed the recession, with hairs growing back within 2-3 weeks in the areas where recession was most new. Anyway, I figured it was too early to ask the question, but I appreciate the response.

This question is probably premature and if it is I apologize. I am not quite 2 1/2 months pre-op. Fortunately I seem to be an early grower. I've got bunches of hairs coming in up to a 1/4 inch in length. But curiously, the hairs that are coming in on left side all look uniformly dark (actually mid-brown color) where all the hairs coming in on my right side look blond and thinner. In fact, to the eye the hairs on the right side are very hard to see because of their thinness and light coloration. I assume this is just coincidental and that the hairs on my right side will become thicker and darker as they progress? It just struck me as almost too uniform to be random.

Why would FUE not be as high a quality as FUT? FUE hair should come from the same safe zone, so the quality should be the same. Perhaps you mean you have read that the transection rate for FUE is potentially higher, so that more transplants my die in the extraction process. There is a possibility of this, but it isn't always true. You also may have read that some FUE doctors use nape hair. There is a debate as to whether nape hair lasts a lifetime. The truth is that in some people it does and in some it does not. However, as long as the doctor is conservative in using nape hair just to soften the hairline, I don't see why it would ever be an issue, even if it did fall out at an old age. Theoretically, the hairline would then just look less soft, which would have been the case without nape hair anyway. As for how to choose from the 4 doctors you have narrowed it down to, the best thing you could do is visit them all. If you can't do that, I would perhaps ask to set up a phone consultation where you can talk to them and ask questions. You should gather as much information as you can until you have a clear decision you are confident in.

I am not sure there is any difference in "stying" options between FUE and FUT. A transplanted hair is a transplanted hair. The advantages for FUE, generally speaking, are no strip scar, faster donor healing, and potentially more donor area. The advantages of FUT, in general, a potential for higher % of transplants to survive and grow, more overall donor hairs available, and less cost.