This is the problem when patients ask for big areas doing but can only afford a small amount of grafts or don't have the donor. The surgeon can either turn them down or transplant them sparsely at the end of the day it's just common sense!
In fairness, I think the original poster did clarify he told the doctor money was not an issue, and that the doctor told him he has more grafts available.
It all seems to beg the question to me: why were so few grafts used? I'm sure there are legitimate reasons, but it would be good to know them.
The bigger question, for me, is why the patient wasn't informed that he would be getting a low density with those numbers, to have realistic expectations. I think the biggest issue here is the gap between the expected outcome for the patient and what was actually achieved.
I would also be very interested to find out the name of the doctor, not necessarily as a witch hunt - but I believe it's right to name the doctors whether the outcome is excellent or not, and to potentially hear their reasoning behind the number of grafts.
Almost 9 months out with no noticeable growth
in Hair Transplant Reviews
Posted
In fairness, I think the original poster did clarify he told the doctor money was not an issue, and that the doctor told him he has more grafts available.
It all seems to beg the question to me: why were so few grafts used? I'm sure there are legitimate reasons, but it would be good to know them.
The bigger question, for me, is why the patient wasn't informed that he would be getting a low density with those numbers, to have realistic expectations. I think the biggest issue here is the gap between the expected outcome for the patient and what was actually achieved.
I would also be very interested to find out the name of the doctor, not necessarily as a witch hunt - but I believe it's right to name the doctors whether the outcome is excellent or not, and to potentially hear their reasoning behind the number of grafts.