HT now, downsides with future advancements?

[calvinmd]

Lately it seems like we're getting more and more signs that it is possible to cause hair to grow from bald skin using drug therapies rather than any type of transplantation (including HM).

 

It makes me wonder if having a conventional HT using current methods (FUE, for example) would eventually cause problems with future developments. Some of these developments might eventually give a TRULY full head of hair. But would it only work well with virgin scalps that aren't full of scar tissue (not to mention damaged original follicles from the HT implantation process)?

 

I'm not thinking about a strip scar. It's a likely to be somewhat of a problem, but it's also a pretty small amount of surface area to have trouble with in the big scheme of things. I'm thinking more about the recipient sites of the grafts and scarring issues, because that's a MAJOR portion of the entire head. And I suspect that the donor sites with FUE would probably pose similiar problems.

 

We all know that original density is probably not achievable for most patients with existing HT methods, and that's fine if donor hair is a limitation overall. But what if it wasn't? Would recipient scarring limit future "needle 'n grow" methods?

 

 

------------------------------------------------

[Badger]

Im kinda in the same boat as you. Considering a HT, but still unsure. I don't know what i ll do. Its still out of my price range.

But aside from that, hypothetically, if they were able to cure, or at efficiently treat hairloss in say 5 or 6 years time, would it be worth it getting a hair transplant now. Could we wait a few years and see whats gonna happen in terms of wnt protein/dermabrasion treatment, or hair multiplication.

I wouldn't imagine getting a hair transplant would affect any future viabability for someone to undergo hair multiplication treatments. But im no expert.

On the other hand wnt protein/dermabrasion treatment could be a different scenario. Its hard to know if by wounding the skin now getting implants on the recipient from the donor areas will prevent the success or the effeciency of this termed "embrionic window". I doubt anybody can give you an answer to that one.

Who knows all these potential cures could flop and never make it out of the lab. But im extremely hopeful.

[Follicular Slippage]

Excellent points but I don't think there is one correct answer. While the future looks bright it's impossible to predict when that future will arrive.

 

As such, you should make a decision based on the information that you have now and how you feel about your hair loss. For years, I watched my hairline slowly recede, hoping all the while that either: a) it would stop receding or b) some miracle cure would discretely restore my hairline. I finally got tired of waiting for scenarios a or b to materialize and took the plunge in November 2004 at the age of 41 and got an HT with 1,650 grafts.

 

With one HT under my belt, I realize that I need another to add volume and shape the hairline. But I'm pleased with things for now and will probably wait a while longer to see what the technology brings down the road.

 

It's like buying a laptop - the current model is never as fast or as powerful or as cheap or as sleek as the model that's going to replace it. If you follow that logic, then you'd probably never buy a laptop because something better will be coming down the road.

 

The best advice for buying a laptop (or an HT for that matter), is to decide if you need it at that point in time. Once you've answered that question, then the solution is clear.

 

Good luck.

[MrJobi]

Hi

 

Hard to say what is in the near future.. I remember people saying the same thing 20 years ago.. Will they find a drug to "cure" hairloss or will they just figure out cloning first where you would have an unlimited donor supply?

 

Regardless, the whole process of discovery and testing the saftey of a potential cure is about 10 years minimum

[calvinmd]

I dunno. I do think they're closer than ever with the cloning/HM stuff.

 

I still think that prevention of loss may do more to free our kids of MPB than any hair replacement method that we come up with. It's always simpler/cheaper/more effective to prevent any problem than to fix & replace it.

 

 

------------------------------------------------

[thanatopsis_awry]

With the (likelyhood) of cloning/HM on the way -- lets set the timeline at, say, 10 years as of today -- could that be a key piece in utilizing a more aggressive approach with current, HTs?

 

I think so (as of now), though maybe this is just a convenient excuse to be overly-aggy....but, I think the next time I meet with True&Dorin I will raise this point....it seems like the primary, long-term downsides that can arise with a too-aggressive, early approach are at least somewhat mitigated if you make it a given that major scientific advancements will happen.

[calvinmd]

To be perfectly honest, I agree with you. But I'm not confident enough to bet my whole future appearance on it.

 

I'm losing my hair slowly. It's a NW#4, or maybe a NW#5A pattern at worst. So I don't even need the full-blown HM to pan out to get what I want. All I need is just need some type of new medication that's more effective at loss prevention than the current stuff, and I'm probably good to get transplanted to a NW#2.

 

 

------------------------------------------------

[thanatopsis_awry]

Ya, in ~6months when I go back to get analyzed by True&Dorin, if I've continued to respond really well to the meds, I'm going to make some serious inquiries about opting for a more aggressive approach.

 

As of recently I was recommended for ~1200; unfortunately, I'm not sure how large a piece of the pie that is, and what the ultimate number would be to give me "full", or close to full, density...thats one question I'm really curious to get answered.

[calvinmd]

Just to voice an opinion that's relevant to long term HT plans --

 

I'm taking Finasteride right now and it's not ruining me or anything, but I still have absolutely NO faith in Fin as a long-term option. I don't think it's really safe for the sexual function and I don't even think it's gonna continue to hold off additional hair loss for more than 5-10 years at best.

 

Fin is buying us some time. And it's possibly giving a slight decrease in the eventual baldness pattern if you've got it blocking the DHT for a bunch of the most critical years during your 20's/30s. But nothing more. We still need something better & safer.

 

 

------------------------------------------------

[Al - Moderator]

Something to think about:

 

In 1989 there was an article in Men's Health magazine that said advances in hair transplants and other hair growth methods are happening so fast that within 5 years it wil be unnecessary and even unacceptable for anyone to be bald. They said that anyone who is bald after that time will be laughed at and looked down upon so much more than today because that person will be in such a minority since virtually everyone will have spent a few dollars to either grow all their hair back or to keep it and never even start to go bald (who wouldn't want to keep all their hair).

 

It was in probably either the July or August 1989 issue. I remember it well because it was part of my research into getting a HT at the time. I had my first procedure done in September 1989.

 

Again.... That was 1989. 18 years ago.... and we aren't really a whole lot closer than we were then. Just something to think about.

[thanatopsis_awry]

Thats a good point BeHappy; almost always things take much, much longer than people want them too -- especially journalists n' writers who want to pump up juicy new breakthroughs!

 

Why can't hair restoration be like computers and every year the latest best thing becomes antiquated!?

[calvinmd]

Behappy, that's exactly what I wish more people understood these days. The end of widespread baldness has been "5-10 years away" since at least the early 1980s. I'm personally not willing to get any HTs that can't stand alone with no future advancements and no continued meds.

 

 

 

I dunno.

 

I do think we're closer than ever before now, and I also think that 15 years is gonna be a whole different story too. It's not so much becuase of any single advancement but rather the enormity of the market that is coming.

 

I'm not the first one to float the idea that boys are getting MPB younger & younger than ever in the past. And at the same time, the importance of youth & attractiveness (in the photogenic sense, not the same as true bodily health) has been skyrocketing for males in particular. It shows all signs of only getting worse. (It's not just that 100% of the guys in the future are gonna care more than before. It's that once a high enough percentage of them do, the others won't be able to get laid & promoted without hair anymore and they'll HAVE to care just to get treated normally again.)

 

They'd better solve this problem soon. At some point in the next 10-25 years, the demand for a real baldness cure is gonna start outweighing the demand for crude oil and the mainstream medical community is really gonna take the gloves off.

 

 

------------------------------------------------

[HTinthefuture]

Originally posted by BeHappy:

Something to think about:

 

In 1989 there was an article in Men's Health magazine that said advances in hair transplants and other hair growth methods are happening so fast that within 5 years it wil be unnecessary and even unacceptable for anyone to be bald. They said that anyone who is bald after that time will be laughed at and looked down upon so much more than today because that person will be in such a minority since virtually everyone will have spent a few dollars to either grow all their hair back or to keep it and never even start to go bald (who wouldn't want to keep all their hair).

 

It was in probably either the July or August 1989 issue. I remember it well because it was part of my research into getting a HT at the time. I had my first procedure done in September 1989.

 

Again.... That was 1989. 18 years ago.... and we aren't really a whole lot closer than we were then. Just something to think about.

 

You made a good point, but the fact you forget is that technology in some ways works exponentially. Ie they find a cure by one thing by accident while researching a cure for another. The longer time goes on while we are beomcing more and more technologically advanced, the more likihood of there being a cure. Just think, back in 1989 nobody even knew the word email or internet, unless you worked for nasa or the cia. I do think that there are many things that go on behind the scenes that are very political and hinder curing various diseases. dont forget, there is more money in treatment than cure. If company xyz came up with a cure for baldness, it would not be long until company abc, 123, etc follow along. thus driving the profits down etc. this cure will put all other treatments existing now in the trash, and the tons and tons of potential revenue down the drain with it. people have known fish oil fights many ailments including cancer for years (I took it as a kid), yet it recently has only started to become mainstream, why because cancer is finally starting to cost the govt's more money than they are willing to pay and it is in their best interest to help the average person empower themselves to fight it.