arfy

Hi Pat i hope you'll keep the forum updated with your decision about Dr. Brandy. As you know, the "regulars" here are keenly interested in who you pick for your "recommended list." If you leave Dr. Brandy off indefinitely, I know that I for one would be curious about what you decide (and why you came to decide it.) I hope you'll keep us posted. Thanks for providing a forum to discuss this stuff.

This guy was totally screwed, by the time he got to Dr. Woods. It's a pretty clever solution to an "impossible" problem. Obviously chest hair is nobody's first choice for donor hair, but in the case of desperate repair patients, who have had their donor area depleted, and are otherwise hopeless, it's quite brilliant, in my opinion. Dr. Woods has repaired this fellow, a task that is beyond the ability of every other hair transplant surgeon in the world, at this point. Bravo, Dr. Woods.

Because I don't know what "slated" means. LOL But we are all just expressing our opinions here. Everyone is free to agree with what they like, obviously. When people have a different point of view than I do, and can present a compelling argument, I am willing to learn. We all do what we want to with the information, regardless. The purpose of these forums is it is obviously the arena for differing points of view. I didn't have the benefit of other perspectives, when I "made my decision", and I definitely suffered for it. Carlos posted his pics and asked for our opinions, which is what we're all giving. My opinion won't necessarily prevent Carlos from going ahead anyway, and possibly being very happy with his decision. If I had seen your pics and you'd asked for advice, I'd tell you the same things I'm telling him though. In another post you inferred that you'd been getting criticised for your viewpoint, and your doing it in the above post here as well. I'll have to look at some previous threads, because I don't remember you taking flack right now. Your points in this last post are valid: Yes, not all hair transplants are bad, and picking a top surgeon is crucial. But another point not addressed by you, is that it is also important to actually be a good candidate, in the first place. One sign of a good candidate is having a well-defined pattern of loss, and someone who has halted their recession/thinning, who is not in a hairloss "freefall". An important related point to this is that hair transplants are a lifetime endeavor. Your natural hair will change over the next 30 years, and so will your attitude towards your hair in general. But the grafts you have in your hairline will never change over time. This is a big issue that needs to be addressed by guys who are low on the Norwood scale, who just want a few grafts. I can address this "time" issue because I had my own work done years ago. I have a perspective on this issue which you don't have, James. (Believe me, I'm not bragging.) Even if my doctor had used good grafts, the issues I am pointing out would be the same. Guys who get their temples or hairlines filled in, without knowing the full extent and pattern of their hairloss, are taking a big risk. The risk being that they could be in big trouble if those grafts become exposed, due to future hairloss, without enough donor hair (or cash) to adequately cover a large area that wasn't planned with a "mature" hairline in mind. I don't think guys should take any risks with their appearance, or their "future appearance". The "correct" hairline is a mature hairline that will still look appropriate when you are 70. Guys who "just get a few grafts", are fully committing themselves to further grafts in the future, if they should thin any further, which is typical for almost everyone. I'm talking about 5-10-15 years down the road. They are locked into it, whether they realize it or not. And they make this commitment without even knowing if they'll be happy with their initial grafts, in the first place. The only way Carlos can have that "correct" hairline put in, at this point, is if he REPLACES his current hairline with grafts, as he currently has the "age appropriate hairline". Obviously, that wouldn't make any sense. I try not to tell guys who are happy with their grafts that "they did it wrong". I wish all you guys luck, and if you guys are still happy about your decision years down the road, more power to you. [This message was edited by arfy on January 22, 2002 at 12:32 PM.]

Carlos, there's no doubt that thinning hair is a drag. We all know what that feels like. I understand how you are wanting to "fix" things. And you could surely find hair transplant doctors who are willing to work on you. But getting a transplant right now is like killing a fly with a hand grenade. It's too much. I'm not saying "don't ever get a hair transplant." Maybe in a few years, if you keep thinning out, it may be a better choice. But right now, I wouldn't do it. There's rarely such a thing as "just getting a few grafts as a touch up." It's a committment to getting more grafts in the future, if there is any progression. I stand by my previous posts. Guys with lots of hair are at risk for telogen effluvium (shock fallout) when they get a transplant. It doesn't always happen, and when it does, it isn't always permanent, but it is a risk that you should factor in. Do some searches on those terms, and see what you think. If I were you, I'd sit tight for now.

I hope that if there are other "not-so-recommendable" docs on Pat's list, he will weed them out. A recommended list loses it's meaning, if the quality of the surgeons is not uniformly excellent.

I thought that I would start a new thread for Dr. Brandy, rather than continue adding onto the "Open Letter to Dr. Bernstein" thread. Obviously that thread has taken a left turn. Today Pat wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I've suspended Dr. Brandy's recommendation until I can get clarification on these issues. In general most surgeons have moved away from doing scalp reductions. They were over used and caused too many problems for Dr. Brandy and others. My understanding is that Dr. Brandy like most surgeons has moved away from doing reductions unless the person is an ideal candidate with extremely elastic skin. Pat Well, I must say I am impressed. Pat, if you are willing to remove surgeons from your list if they don't live up to your standards, I congratulate you. I'm sure that is not easy, but if it needs to be done, I commend you. I don't know a lot about Dr. Brandy, so I can't say too much. But I have been able to find out a few disturbing facts about him on the web. He invented a process called the scalp lift, which I believe is a radical type of scalp reduction. This was not back in the 80's, he wrote a paper about it in 1993. So if he stopped doing it, it probably wasn't very long ago. Dr. Brandy still lists Scalp Reductions on his website as a treatment option. The guys who would actually benefit from one are much better served by just getting good FU grafts placed in that area. This is a website for a clinic that Dr. Brandy has: http://www.enhancedimagesmd.com/mens/hair_restoration.htm Look at how they describe the HT process, and decide if this seems deceptively written: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Enhanced Images performs an array of hair restoration procedures, including an exclusive hair transplantation process called Natural Hair IntegrationSM. Developed for men with thinning hair, this technique restores fullness and density gradually so the treatment process goes virtually unnoticed... During the procedure, the surgeon removes a strip of hair follicles from the lower rear portion of the scalp and divides the strip into hundreds of hair grafts that contain as few as one hair each. The surgeon removes a strip of follicles from the scalp? Where does it say that this is surgery? There is no mention of removing a strip of scalp, or suturing up the donor site. One thing that rubs me the wrong way is when doctors gloss over the surgical aspects of hair transplant surgery. And the idea that you can get a hair transplant and "no one will notice", is ridiculous. Oh I'm sure that has happened, once or twice, out of the thousands of hair transplants that have been done. What they should really say is "No one will notice- if you stay in the house for one to two weeks". For a clinic to advertise that a hair transplant can be performed with no-one noticing after the surgery, is deceptive, plain and simple. A good surgeon will try to EDUCATE the prospective patient, NOT FOOL THEM. Finally, there was an article about Dr. Brandy in his local newspaper, that I posted about back in October, but no one responded to: http://www.post-gazette.com/healthscience/20011024hhair1024p1.asp The pertinent part of the story is this section, where the author describes the techs dividing up the donor strip:<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> They wore the same special magnification lenses as Brandy, enabling them to see three to six times better than the naked eye. The strip ended up in hundreds of rice-sized pieces, with hair follicles still attached for angled placement by nurses into the incisions left by Brandy. A true Follicular Unit grafting session requires high-powered binocular microscopes, in order to divide up the donor strip without transection. Newspaper articles sometimes get the facts wrong, but this looks bad, in my opinion. And the article was written last year... [This message was edited by arfy on January 20, 2002 at 07:50 PM.]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> A large session is something that I will not allow on my head. After a few hours, the doctor(s) involved will feel exhausted, and that's bound to affect the quality of the work involved. I would rather split a large session into two more manageable sessions. The doctor is often not involved in every single step of the process. The techs do a lot of the work. In a big session, there are enough techs for them to rotate in shifts. This "time factor" which you object to, is not one of the big issues, in my opinion. We all work 8 hour days, some of us even longer. I don't see why you think working more than a few hours on a patient will affect a doctor's judgement or skills, and the patient's outcome. Hey, not that I'm going to argue with the concept of a 4-hour workday! I hate to tell you this, but Dr. Woods' method is a slow and methodical process. It might take him 8 or 10 hours to do a session of 500 grafts, and there are no techs. Don't get me wrong, I think Woods is an excellent choice, not just for you but for everyone. I'm just saying that this "time limit" you have is not reflective of how things really work, and it's not a factor in any way, in my opinion. It's meaningless. I think you should instead be thinking about the long-term effects of getting a hair transplant right now, when you may not really need one. I already brought those issues up in your other thread, so I won't bore everyone else with them again.

But Airtrans has been promoting some doctors who use outdated techniques, and claiming their results are better than the latest modern methods. He also made some weird statements. When I tried to discuss how his doctors were using the same methods they used in the early 80's, he just started ripping into me, no longer interested in talking about the facts. Just throwing insults around. I wouldn't be surprised if Airtrans works (or worked) in the hair transplant industry, because he was promoting some doctors who are very very "old-school". Those doctors are the ones who hate forums like this, where the patients can get together and talk about what's REALLY up. Carlos, get on Propecia and stay there. Hopefully you will never lose any more hair. But I still say you should review your options most carefully. I stand by all of my previous comments, as issues you need to factor in. Everyone wishes that hair transplants were the "cure" to hairloss. They are not, and they are not problem-free. You should not make up your mind that a "hair transplant is the answer" (you said something similar to this on your pic page) until you have seen both sides of the coin. Eventually there will be other remedies for hairloss, so don't think you have to choose between a hair transplant now, or a bald future. For example, there is human testing happening with Dermal Papilla cells, that seem to "re-awaken" dormant follicles. This is just one example of what the future holds. There are other treatments being planned as well. It is also possible that you can get a transplant now, and future therapy in the future (hopefully, if it happens). But if I were you, I'd hold off for a while, and keep learning about hair transplants. That's the most direct and honest advice I can give- if I were in your shoes, I would not choose a hair transplant right now. You don't really need it yet, so why commit yourself to that route.

There's no rush here. Think everything over carefully, and if there are any doubts at all, you lose absolutely nothing by waiting! It's a big decision for many guys. And a hair transplant is one time where "thinking about it" is sometimes better than taking action. In the meantime, you should be using Propecia regularly from now on. You might even consider Minoxidil. You want to save as much of your natural hair as possible, especially if you decide to go the transplant route.

I don't mind a little give and take, Airtrans, but I don't see any comprehensible points in your post, just a bunch of cheap shots. They're not even good ones. You're not even on topic here, you knucklehead. Maybe you are still smarting after I laughed at your idiotic "breast implant" comment, where you compared big breasts and big plug grafts, and said they were both desirable. You must have been drunk when you wrote that. I didn't mutilate myself, like you said. I was lied to and cheated by a doctor who does the kind of plugs you recommend: old-fashioned Mini and Micro plugs, the kind they started using back in the early 80's. My gripe is that there are a bunch of crappy doctors still using these crappy grafts, just because they make more money with them, and they're too lazy to learn how to make Follicular Unit grafts. If you want to wear a hat every day for the rest of your life, listen to Airtrans and get these kind of big, outdated grafts, and not "FUs". Did Bluford Stough promise to give you more big plugs if you'd attack me? Gee, I bet he's really proud to have YOU as a spokesperson!

Look at the website www.BosleyMedicalViolations.com/ and then ask yourself if you would trust this company with your appearance and your future...?

James and GNX both bring up one of the big reasons why someone at your stage of hairloss would want to weigh your decision carefully:<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> FOR YOU ITS PROBABLY A ONE TIME THING SO WHY TAKE THE RISK...? Or as James said:<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>With a hair transplant and your sitution, you need to be able to determine whether or not your going to lose any more hair in the future. If you know you are you're probably better off waiting.In other words, when you get a hair transplant, you are comitting yourself to that route. There is no changing your mind. If you have stopped your hairloss cold, that is great. Also, we all hope that there will be a "cure" for this someday. However, if neither of those things are true, and you actually continue to lose hair, you will be forced to get more grafts, in order to look okay. So that is something to think about. Once you get "a few" grafts, you are locked into having to continue with the program, as needed. You have made a comittment to further surgeries, if you lose more hair. There is no guarantee it's a "ONE TIME THING ". Also, you are wanting to change a recessed ("V-shaped") hairline back to what you had when you were 20. That might look terrific for a while, maybe even always. But when you are 70, you will still have that "20-year-old's" hairline. That might look a little strange, or it might not. But planning for the future is one of the tricks of getting a great result. Not just the future 10 years from now, but 40 years from now. Yes, a transplant would benefit you for now (as long as you use one of "the best" doctors). But keep in mind there are long term consequences too. This is why I was comparing your hairline to Pat's. A good transplant on a fellow who is fairly bald (or might possibly be fairly bald someday) will have a mature, recessed hairline. If you think you might possibly be fairly bald someday, the grafts you get now to fill in your temples will be too low on your forehead. Besides the "age-related" issues I mentioned, having grafts put in too low can be a mistake. We all have a limited amount of donor hair to use for grafts. If you have a large bald area you need to cover, you won't have nearly enough grafts to cover the top of your head, if you have started them "too low". Just some additional things to think about. But I still stand by my opinion. If I were you, I would not get surgery, not yet. You can always change your mind, and get grafts. But you can't change your mind and "un-get" them, so think it over carefully and don't rush into anything. [This message was edited by arfy on January 17, 2002 at 02:48 PM.]

Well your pic is a little blurry. But my first reaction is "You look fine". I don't think you need a hair transplant! Look at Pat's before and after pics. You are not at Pat's "before" stage yet, not even close. You have more hair now, than Pat has, AFTER his transplant! A hair transplant is not what you should be doing, in my opinion. You say you haven't regrown any hair on Propecia, but you have stopped your hairloss from progressing (correct?) If that is true, that is a big achievement, one that should satisfy you for a while. Having your hair thin out is a drag, but a hair transplant is a drastic measure, and I don't see any reason for you to go to that extreme. The recession in your temples is perfectly natural, it looks appropriate for a guy who will be 40 in a few years. Your hairline is already lower than the hairline a guy would get from a good hair transplant surgeon, anyway. Look at Pat's hairline (which was done by one of the best docs in the world). You're still ahead of the game! Maybe I just don't see it, because of the photo, but since you asked for opinions, I'm telling you "Don't do it." No way! There are other more effective drugs on the way, (like Dutasteride) plus all kinds of other treatments being planned. A hair transplant is a "last resort". I would kill to have as much hair as you still have, and I bet a lot of the guys who have gotten transplants will agree. I'm sure you can find some sleazy transplant doctor who will tell you he can "improve" you, but don't buy it. I bet many of the good and ethical doctors will tell you to come back in a few years. I'm sorry that this is not the message that you wanted to hear. But in my opinion, you don't need it, and when you know more about hair transplants, you'll realize it isn't the right solution for you. According to Spencer Kobren (a hairloss consumer advocate) a guy shouldn't even consider a transplant until at least Norwood 3. You look like a Norwood 2 to me. Keep learning about transplants, to satisfy your curiousity. But don't get one.

Elton John totally wears a wig. Everybody probably knows this by now. I don't believe Mel Gibson has had a transplant either. No way. Celebrity posts are made by pranksters who are trying to fool people into thinking they can get "movie star" results. If you know what a hair transplant actually looks like (limited in density and coverage, and a recessed "mature" hairline when done properly), you'll know these posts are a bunch of BS.

Hi Thor Your results actually look pretty typical for two days post-surgery, from what I can tell. I agree with Pat that the pattern of graft placement seems pretty good. I think I know what you mean about the mid-crown "Phil Collins" look. If I'm not mistaken, you'd like more grafts in a "saddle" type shape, kind of like what a mid-Norwood scale person looks like naturally. But doctors typically treat the frontal hairline as being the first priority. Also, it's hard to tell but it looks like you still have a reasonable amount of hair in the middle section. Are you using Propecia (and maybe Minoxidil) to maintain that "natural" hair? That would be a very good idea. Right now you are in a "limbo" while you wait for your grafts to grow out. It is very possible that you will begin to rethink your opinion on your results, after your hair has grown out. We all have different goals and expectations though. If you didn't realize that there would be a "scab" phase, and a period of waiting for the grafts to grow, that reflects badly on your doctor- There should be no "surprises" after a hair transplant. However, it's too early to say that you've been "botched". You actually look pretty good, it seems like very little disruption of the scalp surface (besides the scabs, of course, which will fall off in a few days). However photos can be deceptive, or not tell the whole story. Did your doctor use Follicular Unit grafts? Hang in there, and be sure to take good care of your scalp while you heal up. Try to reserve judgement for a little while, and hope for the best. As I said, photos can be hard to judge, and we all have our own definitions of success, but it seems like you're actually doing fine at this point. Once you're grafts have grown out, you may change your mind about your results. I hope so- it sucks to feel like you've gotten botched. But things should only get better for you, hopefully. Does this doctor have a web site? [This message was edited by arfy on January 15, 2002 at 02:14 PM.]

Is someone playing a practical joke on me? LOL! And you said I was sour! Airtrans, you are too funny! The best part is that you are making a great argument, only it's actually against your point of view. Your breast implant analogy is a hoot! I looked at Dr Tessler's website like you suggested, and it is less than impressive. I wonder why there are no close-ups of the hairlines, or any close-ups at all? Those patients' photos are supposed to be Dr. Tessler's "best", and based on the photos on his site, I'm definitely not impressed. But maybe his website is out of date (his site says he mixes graft sizes, and that scalp reductions can be okay. These are definitely old and outdated techniques!). However, Pat recently added Dr. Tessler to his "list". Here's what Pat says about Dr. Tessler:<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Their procedure has continually evolved and they now do very state-of-the-art follicular unit hair transplantation. Airtrans, even the doctors you are using to support your viewpoint, don't agree with you anymore!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Blufford Stough is one of the first to revitalize hair surgery proceedures. Can't say much for his son because they are at odds with thier philosophies on how hair transplants should be done. Airtrans, are you saying that Bluford Stough's son, Dr. Dow Stough, disagrees with his own father's philosophy about mixing big and small grafts? If Bluford's "nefarious" techniques are so hot, why won't his own son use them? According to this website here, Dow Stough uses only Follicular Unit grafts. He is on the "recommended list" here. Bluford Stough uses a mix of big and small grafts, and is NOT on the recommended list. Hmmm... Interesting! I wonder why Dow Stough doesn't use big grafts like his Dad? Or maybe the better question is "why won't Bluford Stough modernize his techniques?" [This message was edited by arfy on January 14, 2002 at 10:11 PM.]

I believe Dr. Shapiro says that under certain conditions, in the hands of certain doctors, Minigrafts can sometimes be "nearly as good" as Follicular Units. To me, that is not much of an endorsement. In my opinion, Dr. Shapiro was trying to be diplomatic when he said that. It's a nice way of saying "they're pretty much never as good". And many other top doctors wouldn't even be that generous with their opinion. If Dr. Shapiro endorses Minigrafts, like you seem to claim here, how come he doesn't use them in his own practice? <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Who in the heck is going around looking at your scalp with a microscope anyway. I think a hair transplant should look great, even if it's windy or if your hair is wet. Minigrafts will not look as good as Follicular Units under these conditions, because they need to be CONCEALED by other grafts, or by "natural" hair. You don't need a microscope to see that Minigrafts are inferior, just a set of eyes. If I pay ten or twenty grand for a hair transplant, I want it to look great from every angle, in every circumstance. For example, what if you are on a date with a woman. She shouldn't get too close, if you have Minigrafts? Or should a guy tell her "Don't touch the hair", so she won't see that it looks a bit pluggy? If you are happy with your results, I congratulate you. I'm not disputing that. Maybe you should post your results. What you find excellent might not be satisfactory to other people, because we all have different standards. Some people might not be bothered by some degree of plugginess. I find ANY plugginess totally unacceptable, especially because there are better "un-pluggy" alternatives available to all of us. (Follicular Unit grafts). If you want to focus our discussion on me personally, by calling me sour, that is understandable. Because the facts are definitely not on your side here, so it is best for you not to focus too much on them. Read the article "The Best Procedure" on your left, to learn about Follicular Unit grafts, and why they give superior results in the hands of a skilled surgeon. [This message was edited by arfy on January 14, 2002 at 10:09 PM.]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Please remember these doctors are from the old school but they did learn new tricks and they are good! It sounds like what they've learned is really just a new line of sales patter, that doesn't make a bit of sense. Gee Airtrans, how come you didn't address a single point I made, comparing FUs (the "state-of-the-art graft") to Minigrafts (15 years old and counting)? Even Dr. Unger admits that Minigrafts look pluggy, but he says most patients "won't mind" a little plugginess, because they're supposedly "saving money". HA! (That's also another myth I'd like to shoot down). A hair transplant that looks even SLIGHTLY pluggy is worthless! And that's what you get with Minigrafts! They're the same as the old "plugs" only smaller. Minigrafts should really be called "MINI-PLUGS". I was listening to Spencer Kobren's radio show last night (the Bald Truth), and according to Spencer, Dr. Unger is now doing large sessions of Follicular Unit grafts. I guess eventually old dogs CAN learn new tricks. It looks like Dr. Unger's website is now "outdated", just like Minigrafts and Micrografts are! PS: Good Luck Midnight. The REAL patients know the score here, Airtrans. [This message was edited by arfy on January 14, 2002 at 05:10 PM.]

It's just Minoxidil with some other herbal elements. But Minoxidil is the part of the formula that works. It's much more expensive than Minoxidil though. Just use Minoxidil (and Propecia of course) and don't waste your money on this fancy "re-packaging".

Who was your doctor? Where are you on the Norwood scale? What kind of grafts did your doctor use? It's possible that you are in a post-surgical depression. Also, you might have gotten screwed over, or you could be doing fine right now, there is no way to tell from your brief post. However the "You'll only need a few grafts and you'll be done" line is a CLASSIC line of BS that hair transplant doctors have traditionally used to sucker patients. So that is a red flag. And hair transplant doctors are notorious for "playing down" the invasiveness of the surgery ("it's less painful than going to the dentist"). For many guys, this is not true for how they experience the surgery. Hang in there. If I were you, I'd be using Propecia to try to maintain all of my "natural hair". That is crucial, if you still have a decent amount of "natural" hair, to save as much as you can. Be patient. There's nothing else you can do at this moment except be patient and keep your fingers crossed. If it turns out that you were promised things that you didn't get, or you were deceived, you should complain to the clinic, then file a report with the State Medical Board, contact the Better Business Bureau, and possibly talk to a lawyer...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> he uses different types of grafts produce much better densisty than FUT. I will say it again and again until I am blue in the face: Density is not a limitation of Follicular Unit grafts, it is a limitation of all hair transplants in general. There is a limited amount of donor hair, and every patient has to decide between "density of coverage" (how close together the grafts are placed) and how big of an area they want to cover. There is not enough donor hair for "both" (high density AND "full coverage")! Follicular Units, when done properly, are the most natural looking grafts, and do not need to be "concealed" by other grafts or remaining hair, like Micros and Minis do. Follicular Units will never look pluggy like Micros and Minis, and if your transplant looks pluggy, you are screwed. I don't care how much "density" you supposedly have, a pluggy-looking result will not make anyone happy. Read the article "The Logic of Follicular Units" in the Research Library section of this website, to see how it was proven mathematically that using Minigrafts can never result in "more density", only in bigger gaps between grafts (in other words, "less area covered".)

You're not the only one who wishes they could go back in time, and "just be a regular bald guy". Unfortunately there is is no "undoing" a hair transplant. There are tens of thousands of guys in your position. Including me. You might want to get a consultation with Dr. Bernstein, since you live in New York. He is highly rated, especially in "repair" work, and has a reputation for top quality work, and for being ethical. He should be able to advise you, I am sure he has "seen it all", and I bet he won't try to talk you into getting more surgery. He has a reputation as a good guy, and is supposed to be one of the top transplant surgeons in the world. He'll be able to tell you what your options are. You can get his info if you click on "Find a Great Surgeon" on the upper left. Also, can you name your previous doctors? Maybe you can help prevent someone else from being victimised by shoddy transplant work. Good Luck! [This message was edited by arfy on January 10, 2002 at 03:54 PM.]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> And since your going to want to have FU's to look the most natural, you won't get the density you hope for. Density is not a limitation of Follicular Units, it is simple supply and demand, and a limitation of hair transplants in general. Patients have to choose between a small and dense coverage, or a thinner but larger area of coverage. This is true no matter what kind of grafts you use. This "density issue" is a bogus criticism of FUs. Sure, a minigraft has a lot of density "within itself". In other words, the hair "inside the graft" is close together. But NOBODY has enough donor hair to duplicate that density over the rest of your scalp. So you have little dense areas (the minigrafts themselves) that are surrounded by balding scalp. In other words, they will look PLUGGY. They are "too dense", because it is impossible to match their density with other grafts, all over your bald area. Also, because there are too many follicles per graft, they are a waste of follicles. You'd get BETTER coverage, by having less hair per-graft, and more diffuse grafts. Read the article "The Logic of Follicular Units" in the "Research Library" section of this site. About halfway down there is a sub-section called "The Mathematics of Follicular Units" where the authors prove mathematically that Minigrafts can never result in "more density" than Follicular Units, they can only result in BIGGER GAPS between grafts! (Also known as "plugginess".) Also, Minigrafts result in divots and cobblestones. In other words, they make your scalp look "bumpy". That's because they aren't trimmed as carefully as FU grafts, and the excess tissue causes a "bumpy look", because the excess tissue prevents them from being "seated" in your scalp as easily. Minigrafts also get "constricted" when they heal, the healing scalp tightens around them, causing a "tufty" look. This makes Minigrafts look even MORE pluggy. Follicular Unit grafts do not need to be concealed by other grafts, or your remaining hair, like minigrafts do. If you get FU grafts, and you lose all of the remaining hair on your head over time, you will still look natural. If you have minigrafts though, you will look like hell. Sorry to post this in the "Doctor's Forum" but I hate to see people passing on misinformation about Follicular Unit grafts. (Nothing personal, Midnight. I just read that you are getting a FU transplant soon, so I know that you "get it" about the superiority of FUs.) [This message was edited by arfy on January 08, 2002 at 02:54 PM.]

I wish I had been smart enough to sue MY doctor, before the statute of limitations ran out. (It is very short- I think it is three years...?) I wish more unhappy patients would consider pressing a lawsuit against their doctor, if he didn't come through on his promises (or the promises of the consultant.) Guys often don't realize they've been screwed over with bad results, until a few years down the road, when their plugs become more visible. (This is why Follicular Unit grafts are so important! They will always look natural, not "pluggy" like Mini and Micrografts. Unlike Minis and Micros, FUs do not need to be concealed by other grafts, or a patient's natural hair.) If more guys would go after their doctors through the legal system, that might encourage doctors to be more upfront to new patients about a hair transplant's limitations and drawbacks. As it is, I think a lot of doctors gloss over the facts, in order to encourage patients to get the surgery. This prevents a guy from making a truly "informed decision".