hypothetical question

[Jupiter]

hypothetically, you think in like 2 years experienced surgeons such as feller or h&w will be able to extract more graphs, without a doubt. anyway not a real serious question just another day my hairloss is bumming me out

[Jupiter]

hypothetically, you think in like 2 years experienced surgeons such as feller or h&w will be able to extract more graphs, without a doubt. anyway not a real serious question just another day my hairloss is bumming me out

[Dewayne]

In the early 90's it seemed hair transplants were fully "matured" and that was the best time to do it. Now, looking at the size of my old plugs compared to the new "technology" that Dr. Cooley used, it's like that was stone-age work!

 

So, I would say when you have yours done the technology will have improved. It seems, though, that the next step will be hair cloning.

[Bill - Seemiller]

Jupiter,

 

It will truly be interesting to see how hair transplantation advances moving forward. I can't imagine however, that more can be taken from the donor area since donor hair is finite. I'd love to hear from clinics such as Hasson and Wong, Feller, or any other Coalition doctor about their own personal evolution as to how they've evolved and continue to do so.

 

Interesting discussion.

 

Best wishes,

 

Bill

[djdennis]

There is no doubt in my mind that the future is always promising. With anything in life in time things or technology with knowlegde always improve. The ht business will improve and in 5 years I think it will be better. no doubt in my mind. They have come this far so why stop at this point. There will always be a guy who wants to invent something new and better. Part of the human nature!!!

[Jupiter]

I just don't like how some doctors on this website show transplants from like 02 , 04.. that was a long time ago. I LIKE TO SEE BRAND NEW CASES!!!!

[Jotronic]

With time, improvements can be improved upon. Hey, I just made that up but it applies

 

Back when I had my first hair transplant with Dr. Wong I was amazed at how much better the procedure was during and after compared to my previous work with Dr. Norris in Knoxville. Some of the difference can be, and should be, attributed to Dr. Wong actually having loads of talent whereas Dr. Norris did not but it was also because of the overall technique being better (FU grafting vs. mini-grafting). Make no mistake though, the type of procedure does NOT justify expecting a great result because I see "all" FU grafting that reminds me of my old mini-grafts all the time.

 

With my two subsequent procedures I noticed that each procedure was just a little bit better than the last. The refinement, the session size, the healing etc. Being four years out now I can say that when the "new guys" come in I am still in awe over just how refined the procedure has become. We had a local guy come in today that was one year post-op from a 5000 graft surgery with Dr. Hasson. I am never bored with seeing cases come in for follow-up and this patient was one reason why. Looking through his scalp CLOSELY I could not see where the grafts were coming out differently than the native hair. I then looked at his before picture and he HAD NO native hair to begin with save for a few very miniaturized stragglers and a few remaining hairline hairs. I mean really, I could not see that they were transplanted and I know a transplant when I see one. This has been the case for quite a while now and I think it is the pinnacle of hair transplant results. I will be posting his photos and video (once it is edited properly) in a few days btw.

 

As for the future, well, I didn't think six years ago that the procedure could improve much but I was definitely wrong. Sessions sizes WILL continue to grow but not at the rate that they have over the past five or six years. I think that the type of patient that can get a big session will change though. In fact, I believe it already has to a point. Since we introduced "scalp exercises" I've seen some patients come in with average or even below average donor laxity return for a surgery in a few months and walk out the door with 4500 grafts on their noggins. THAT to me is a huge improvement.

 

Other improvements will come (like tricophytic closure) but I think it can't possibly be with regard to naturalness as I don't think it can get any more natural than it is today, especially based on the patient that came in today. I believe improvements will be more subtle as time goes on and the only big improvement in the future I think will be cloning but that is still a long way off.

[Yogi's Dad]

Originally posted by Jupiter:

I just don't like how some doctors on this website show transplants from like 02 , 04.. that was a long time ago. I LIKE TO SEE BRAND NEW CASES!!!!

 

I agree with you Jupiter in that it is very interesting to see recent pictures of patients who might be 1 year post-ops. Thus 2007 patients would be excellent for viewing RESULTS of recent procedures.

 

I also think it remains interesting to see some of the 'older' cases (e.g. '02, '04 HTs) as they look in 2008.

 

I recently went to an open house where there were two patients who were 3 & 6 years post-op. They looked great.

 

Good to see because I will be at the stage myself in a few years

[Dr. Ricardo Mejia]

The issue of how many grafts can be harvested is totally dependent on the donor hair bank, donor density and age at which you arrive at the doctors office and your future predection of Norwood Stage. The main answer is how much donor area in square centimeters can safely be removed in one sitting from the donor area.

 

Pats point of "count hairs not grafts" is the main issue. In many cases we are not necessarily extracting more grafts, but distributing them differently. As we moved to smaller incisions and microscopic follicular unit dissections, the average number of hairs per grafts has decreased. This has allowed us to do the ultrarefined high dense packing discussed on these sites as well as other benefits. To illustrate Pats point, answer the question below.

 

 

Which surgeon extracted more hairs for the patient?

 

Surgeon A: 3600 grafts with an average of 2.5 hairs per graft

 

Surgeon B: 5000 grafts with an average of 1.8 hairs per graft

 

Surgeon C: 2812 grafts with an average of 3.2 hairs per graft.

 

Surgeon D: 2250 grafts with an average of 4 hairs per graft. This surgeon utilized alot of double follicular units.

 

Who got more hair extracted from the donor site???

[Jupiter]

intresting point doc, never really looked at how many hairs just how many grafts, now some things make more sense to me. thanks for being the only doctor to take the time to post a reply for me.