arfy

I believe that a multi bladed scalpel is used in the harvesting (first incision) to speed the dissection of the donor strip. A single or double blade is apparently considered acceptable to remove the donor strip. The real multibladed scalpels seem to have 8 blades (2 "outside" blades and six that subdivide the donor strip automatically). Look at the NHI site (tons of good info there for the average guy: www.newhair.com) in the "Follicular Unit Transplantation" section. Click on the link for "Single Strip Harvesting" and look for the section that talks about "The Traditional 'Multiple-Strip' Method". This talks about using a multibladed scalpel directly on the patient, shows the scalpel, etc. (Sorry, I can't provide a direct link but you might want to read through this material anyway.)

Hi Pat I'd still be interested in reading your comments about the recent ISHRS conference. Also, I was wondering if you know why Dr. Rassman did not make a presentation on FUE as planned. Thank you.

Are you the poster who recently said he was going for a consultation? If so, can you tell us some of the details? What did Dr. Bernstein recommend? Any details on you, your amount of loss etc? Just in general, it is really important that you and the doctor are "on the same page" about expectations, strategies, goals etc. Don't assume anything, don't "leave it up to him", make sure you are involved and understand what to expect, the plan, the results etc etc. Good luck.

pdm68/Machine Nice try, but I've never said anything bad about Dr. Limmer. Unlike you, I think it is much more important that a doctor uses "all-FUs", than how much work the doctor has the technicians do. In other words, I'd much rather have an "all-FU" transplant performed mostly by technicians, than get a bunch of Minigrafts put in personally by the doctor, all by himself. In my opinion, graft size (all-FUs) is the first priority.

You keep saying that using minigrafts along with FUs "is just as good as FU's". Dr. Shapiro wrote that using minigrafts along with FUs "can achieve nearly the same degree of naturalness". In other words they can sometimes be "nearly as good". Sometimes. Nearly. I know what point you are trying to make, and I don't buy it. This is not just my opinion, either. I wonder why the all-FU procedure is usually referred to as the "Gold Standard" in hair transplants, and why Dr. Shapiro calls it the "Mercedes Benz"? Read the article "The Best Procedure" that you will find on your left. That will spell it out for you.

It is hard to argue with your logic. Not because you are correct, but because you aren't making any sense. "Can be nearly as good" does not mean "as good as" follicular units. You said "why downplay a doctor because that's there style?" The reason is because we are talking about "the best" here. There is no point in recommending a "pretty good" or "almost as good as FUs" procedure. The type of procedure you are supporting here (mixing FUs in front with Minigrafts behind) is the exact same type of transplant you can get at Bosley, NuHart and MHR, and every other generic transplant clinic! Will you also tell me I shouldn't "downplay" Bosley, NuHart and MHR just because they mix grafts too? The all-FU transplant is the best. Period! Anything else is not as good. The reason doctors mix grafts is not for "style", it's because Minigrafts are easier and faster for the doctor. When they use minigrafts they make more money, by doing more patients and paying fewer technicians to cut grafts. Minigrafts do not need to be cut as carefully as a FU graft. Minigrafts are pluggy-looking. FUs are natural looking. Doctors use minigrafts because they're lazy, because they make more money with Minigrafts, and because they don't want to admit their technique isn't the best. If you don't know why FUs are so important, then you don't really understand what an FU is. [This message was edited by arfy on November 08, 2001 at 08:56 PM.]

I don't think you read the article very carefully. Dr.Shapiro is being generous about the possible benefits of minigrafts, which are really just an advantage for unskilled surgeons. He says that FU grafts take more skill to use, so it's easier to screw them up in unskilled hands. He says that an all-FU transplant is more time-consuming and difficult, but more natural looking. He never says that minigrafts are better, just slightly cheaper, easier for the doctor, and faster to perform. So what? I want the most natural looking transplant possible. "Mini grafting in the central area using 3-5 hair grafts "cut to size" offers the practitioner and patient a faster, slightly more economical way to achieve coverage, and if performed skillfully can achieve nearly the same degree of naturalness as single follicular groupings. However, the caveats are several, and when not observed, the results are a step down from the Mercedes Benz of grafts, the follicular unit." What kind of procedure do YOU want? I want the "Mercedes Benz", the ALL-FU procedure.

These organizations like the ISHRS and the AHRS are "straw" organizations created by the doctors themselves, to create a sense of "instant credibility". Everyone should know that! Here's what John Satino, the clinic director for Dr. Paul Riggs said in an interview with hairsite.com, regarding these organizations: "HairSite>>> Can you tell us something about the International Society of Hair Surgeons ? Also, recently Medical Hair Restoration generated a lot of publicity claiming that all of their surgeons are board certified by the American Board of Hair Restoration Surgery (ABHRS). Do you think this is going to be a prerequisite for all hair restoration surgeons in the future ? Is this the first thing that a patient should inquire when he or she is looking for a surgeon ? Response>>> The International Society of Hair Surgeons was formed in April 1993 and I was at the meeting in Texas. Since that time much progress has been made in education and standards in our chosen field. Now it seems every medical clinic that employs more than one doctor has formed some kind of society to further their cause. That is why I have formed the Intergalactic Hair Transplant Society for doctor that have egos that are out of this world. Of course, I am not only a client but the president. But seriously..." (He then goes on to explain it is FAR more important to see the doctor's results in person, etc.) Even the doctors will admit that membership in these organizations means nothing! Any bozo can join or even form his own "Hair Society" as a cover for his own incompetence.

Hi Gary One more thing. I don't want to seem like I am picking on your statement. But you said "If you do your homework and choose a doctor with an excellent reputation you don't have to worry..." Ordinarily that statement would make sense, except that the hair transplantation field is completely unregulated. It's a free-for-all out here. In fact, there are more rules and regulations about selling used cars, than there are about hair transplantation. Think about that! The whole concept of a "excellent reputation" is meaningless in this context. Hair transplant doctors have CREATED all of their own "organizations", in order to give themselves credentials and instant credibility. I'm talking about organizations like the ISHRS and the AHLC and the ASHRS. These are "instant reputation-makers" that anyone can join, no matter how lousy their transplants are. I already gave the example of Carlos Puig as the President of the American Hair Loss Council. The Medical Director of the AHLC is Dr. Gary Hitzig. Have you heard of him? He is being sued by over 100 patients in a class-action lawsuit: http://www.injuryassist.com/body_LIMA_litigation_IA.htm He hired and trained a sanitation worker to be a medical technician, and Hitzig even had this guy perform his surgical procedures for him: http://www.nydailynews.com/2000-06-18/News_and_Views/Scandal_Sheet/a-70345.asp Hitzig says that follicular units give "inconsistent" results, and that large FU sessions can be dangerous and put the patient at risk: http://www.nyhairloss.com/gsh-philosophy.htm He invented slot grafting equipment and sells it to other doctors, even though slot grafts are crappy. But let's look at Hitzig's credentials, to see what kind of reputation he has: "Dr. Hitzig has personally performed well over 30,000 hair restoration procedures." American Hair Loss Council: -National Medical Director 1998-2001 -Ethics and Professional Standards -Committee- 1996-1997 - Regional Ambassador Committee - 1996-1997 Board of Directors Elected 3 Year Term 1998 - 2001 *American Board of Hair Restoration Surgery -Board certified *American Society Of Hair Restoration Surgery -Charter Member * International Society Of Hair Restoration Surgery -Full Active Membership * American Society For Dermatologic Surgery -Full Active Membership * N.Y.S. Society Of Cosmetic Surgery -Full Active Member * Inter-American Society Of Plastic & Reconstructive Surgeons -Full Active Membership Sounds like an "excellent reputation" doesn't it? Except that these are all "straw" organizations, set up to provide an air of legitimacy for unscrupulous doctors. How legitimate is an organization like the American Hair Loss Council, if Dr. Puig is President and Dr. Hitzig is Medical Director? If you just looked at their credentials, you'd say they both had "excellent reputations" though! [This message was edited by arfy on November 07, 2001 at 12:58 AM.]

Hi Gary I chose a doctor with an excellent reputation, like you suggested. His name is Carlos Puig. Here's some info about his credentials, from his website: "President of the American Hair Loss Council, Treasurer of the American Board of Hair Restoration Surgery, and a fellow in good standing in no less than ten other organizations. He has been published in medical journals many times. Some of his older papers are considered groundbreaking cornerstones of modern hair restoration industry. Some are just fine-tuning techniques in his never ending quest for perfection. His study published in the early 1980's was considered cutting edge for the time period." Sounds like an excellent reputation, doesn't it? I promise you, I don't have to worry about counting MY grafts. That's because Dr. Puig gave me big pluggy grafts that are far apart, making them quite easy to count. The hair sticks straight up like doll's hair, so I am sure not to miss any when I count. In the morning, when I have to face myself in the mirror, it is comforting to remember that Dr. Puig has an excellent reputation, and is well respected by his peers. I suppose I am to blame, for "not doing enough homework", though...?

I would suggest you research Dr. Loria very thoroughly. I don't have any personal information about him, but the samples he has on his website don't look very natural to me. These are supposedly his "best" patients, too! I've read some things online that seem less than positive, but I can't vouch for that. My suggestion (since you asked): don't go to Dr. Loria. The general consensus is that the best doctor in the NY area is Dr. Bernstein at NHI. If I were you, I would look into using him. He has a reputation for being ethical, and being one of the best transplant docs in the whole world.

Jason, you make very good points here. It is way too early for Mario to know how his surgery turned out. It can take years before someone realizes he had a bad transplant. It takes a long time for your hair to grow out, and also if a guy continues to lose hair later, he might realize that his grafts don't look as good as he thought he did. I often see posts saying "I had surgery from Dr. So-and-So three weeks ago, and everything went great!" Usually these guys don't know what they're talking about. Who cares if your doctor "acted concerned" or if "all the techs were polite and helpful"? It is what you are left with 5 or 10 years later that will really count. I hope Mario turns out okay, I suspect he will since Dr. Shapiro has a great reputation, but it is way too early for Mario to know for sure.

I saw the schedule at www.ISHRS.org (I don't know if it is still up over there) and the only things that jumped out at me when I skimmed over the schedule were the FUE presentation and the seminar by Cooley. (Pat said both were cancelled.) So I will guess it was a lot of the same old thing, unfortunately.

Mario is a real guy, I know because we have butted heads before. He is not a spammer, he is just a little excitable, that's all. I've seen the same posts in other places too. It might be slightly annoying to some, but he is a real guy. Go to thebaldtruth.com forums, double click on his name (Mario 917), and "view all posts". (You may be able to do that here too.) He is very real, opinionated, and legitimate. (I just realized, you click on the little "file card and man" icon at the bottom right of each post, then you will get a chance to view all posts). Congratulations Mario, I am glad you are happy. Maybe you can give us some details about your experience. [This message was edited by arfy on October 27, 2001 at 05:04 PM.]

I have a feeling that the transplant industry is going to try it's best to sweep Dr. Woods (and FUE) under the rug, by saying the technique can't be performed effectively, etc. If you hear them say that, "consider the source". The hair transplant industry does not want to change, they are happy to coast along with things the way they are. Case in point, the majority of doctors are NOT using "all-FU" transplants, even though they are the most natural looking. FU transplants are more time-consuming to perform, so doctors make more money using minigrafts. Not only do FUs look more natural, they actually give better density than minigrafts (exactly the opposite of what the minigraft docs say, when they try to "knock" FUs). Dr. Bernstein and Rassman prove this mathematically, in the article "The Logic of Follicular Unit Transplantation" which anyone can read in the Research Library section here. The reason that more doctors don't use all FUs is they don't want to learn any new techniques, and they want to keep turnover high with fast procedures. Patient satisfaction is not at the top of most transplant doctors' priorities, if the patient is reasonably happy when he leaves the surgical chair, the doctor is satisfied. There is no need, in their minds, to try to improve something they consider "good enough". So I am going to guess that an even newer technique, like Dr. Woods (and NHI's version called FUE) that is even more time-consuming than FU strip excisions are, is not going to be very popular. I bet the industry will try to ignore the technique (they've already been doing that for years), they will also try to discredit it. The only big question in my mind is will NHI also be trying to discredit this "stripless" single graft harvesting as well? After all, if they announce to the world that their experiments were a huge failure, that could effectively kill the chances of that technique ever becoming widespread in the US. They may decide it is in their own best interests to try to nip that technique in the bud. After all, very few transplant doctors are in this field to "help people", most are in it because there are no HMOs to deal with, the money is good, and the techniques are not that complicated as most doctors practice them. Not every transplant doctor, but a majority of them, in my opinion. That's why the handfull of ethical doctors like Bernstein and Shapiro (and others I am sure) are worth their weight in gold. There is no doubt that a less-invasive transplant (like Woods performs) would be a huge improvement for the patients. I am constantly reading reports from guys who have terrible scarring in their donor site, and this could finally be an end to all of that. But my guess is that even though it is an improvement for the patients, the doctors in the industry won't go for it.

Hi Pat I was wondering if you went to the IHRS conference this month, and if there were any interesting developments? Was it just the same old stuff, or was there anything new and exciting? I know Jerry Cooley had a seminar on future treatments, I wonder if that was just a recap of the recent happenings, or if there was anything new that came to light. Also, I believe NHI was going to present some data on their FUE (single graft extraction) process. Was there any details to report? Also, did Dr. Woods ever get mentioned in any of the forums etc, or is he still "under the radar" in the ISHRS? I know that I and other readers would appreciate a first-hand report. Thanks!

Hi Pat I was wondering if you went to the IHRS conference this month, and if there were any interesting developments? Was it just the same old stuff, or was there anything new and exciting? I know Jerry Cooley had a seminar on future treatments, I wonder if that was just a recap of the recent happenings, or if there was anything new that came to light. Also, I believe NHI was going to present some data on their FUE (single graft extraction) process. Was there any details to report? Also, did Dr. Woods ever get mentioned in any of the forums etc, or is he still "under the radar" in the ISHRS? I know that I and other readers would appreciate a first-hand report. Thanks!

To Webster According to Dr. True's own website, he uses a multi-bladed scalpel to harvest donor hair. This causes a lot of unneccessary transection, resulting in poor growth. According to Dr. True's own website, he uses minigrafts behind the hairline, which are not as natural looking as follicular units, they are pluggy looking. This has nothing to do with "opinions", these are Dr. True's techniques, as he explains it. His techniques are outdated, plain and simple. Spend some time in the "Research Library" section of this website, read the articles there, and educate yourself. Dr. True is doing substandard work, compared to the techniques described in those articles.

Yes, you can have the old grafts excised, and divided up and re-implanted. I have had this done, and the difference between the old grafts and the new ones was remarkable. Make sure that you get an excellent doctor this time though! Definitely use doctors who ONLY use follicular unit grafts, they look the most natural.

J.A., who has posted in this thread about his so-called positive experience with Elliott & True, smells very fishy to me. Here's why. J.A. claims "people don't believe me when I tell them I'm transplanted." NOBODY who has really had a hair transplant goes around asking people "Hey, I had a hair transplant, doesn't it look natural?" The reality is that actual patients are extremely concerned about being "spotted", and don't go around boasting about their procedure, ESPECIALLY if it looks good! J.A. doesn't just say his results are good, he wants the Dr. True to be added to the list of the "Top Doctors". Why would a satisfied ex-patient be worried about his doctor appearing on a "recommended" list? He already HAS his great results, so why should he care so much...unless... Then later J.A. says he just wants to tell us about his "pleasant" experience with Dr. True. I would never describe any type of surgery as being "pleasant"! For one thing, the anaesthic injections DO hurt, and the recovery time is anything but pleasant, when you have trouble sleeping, swelling around the eyes, etc. Finally J.A. tells Mario (the guy who is criticizing him) that Mario spends "way too much time on this site." Sites like this are providing valuable information about good doctors to consider, and lousy doctors to avoid (like Elliot & True). Only someone who was afraid of the truth would criticize somebody for "spending too much time at this site". We are all here to learn from each other and share the information. Apparently Elliott & True find this idea threatening. Elliott & True should spend some time updating their outdated procedures, and stop sending phony "clients" like J.A. here to try and promote themselves. If they were able to give their patients consistently good results, they wouldn't need to promote themselves this way.

I just looked at the E&T website. Elliot and True say they harvest their grafts with a multibladed scalpel. This transects a lot of follicles unnecessarily, resulting in poor growth. They also use a mix of small and larger grafts (in the back) which does not give a natural result. Mini grafts are the same thing as plugs, just on a smaller scale, and should really be called "Mini-Plugs". But doctors like to use them, because big grafts are fast to dissect. That way the clinic can cram 2 or 3 other guys into the chair after they're done with you. Bottom line, AVOID ELLIOT & TRUE!

This guy has just registered today, and posted for the first time. Guess what? He wants to SELL us something. Something herbal, that will change your life...! I don't know about you guys, but I'm thinking "miracle product"! I hope it is extremely expensive, some type of secret Scandinavian formula perhaps... Rick, what the h#ll are you doing here? Did you get kicked out of Amway? You deserve a thorough kicking.

You should seriously consider legal action. There is a statute of limitations on this, so if you think you might want to look into it, do it sooner than later! I think it might be as short as 2 years (?) Try contacting a law firm that specializes in medical malpractice. Here's a link to a company that sued a clinic, I don't know if they won or not, but they might be able to help or recommend someone: http://www.injuryassist.com/LIMA_Litigation/LIMA_Litigation.htm You should look at the BosleyMedicalViolations.com website, and possibly contact them. You might want to contact Spencer Kobren at TheBaldtruth.com to see if he has any ideas. He's a consumer advocate. If you are going to complain, I think it is to the state medical examiner's board (it is definitely one of the state agencies). The FTC might be interested too. You might want to see if you can get your money back. If the consultant who sold you the procedure gave you any medical advice, that is illegal, it is the practice of medicine by a non-MD. There are many other illegal things these clinics can do, so really look into this, and try to document everything you can in writing. Bosley might tell you "You need to KEEP GOING with more procedures, before you see any results". It's a lie! Don't give them any more of your money! PLEASE, do something and maybe you can prevent someone else from being screwed. And hopefully get a refund. GOOD LUCK

If you click on the map at the top of the page, this site recommends a few Texas doctors. One Doctor who I suggest you avoid at all costs is Carlos (CJ) Puig. Dr. Puig did incredibly shoddy work on me. He works for MHR (Medical Hair Restoration) and he also may have his own practice.

You make it sound like it is a young man's fault if he gets a hair transplant, and it turns out to be a bad decision: "I have observed a lot of unhappy men..had surgery at a young age..hair receeded further and OOOPS!!! no more donar hair...this sets up very disgruntled feelings...then its easy to slam the industry, primarily because you were not the best candidate for HT." The fact is that ETHICAL doctors will not perform surgery on a fellow who is young, or who's future pattern of loss is still unknown! By suggesting it is a young man's responsibility to know that he is not a good candidate, you are blaming the victim! It is most certainly the DOCTOR'S responsibility to decide who is or is not a good candidate! Unfortunately, the ethical doctors in this sleazy business are rare! Most doctors believe that if you have some money, and are losing hair, you are ripe for the picking!