HT Surgery vs. Neurosurgery

[Guest]

I have the strong impression from this forum that most of you believe that only a handful of truly great hair transplant doctors exist in the world. I also have the impression many of you would not refer someone to any of the "lesser" doctors for surgery.

 

There are only a handful of truly great orthopedic surgeons in the world, but there are thousands of others that will perform an excellent job for anyone short of a professional athlete.

 

Why aren't the lower tier of HT doctors held in higher esteem? Is the value of my time and the hassle of traveling many miles (not to mention misc. travel expenses that WILL accrue, regardless of a reimbursment program) really worth having surgery with an elite surgeon?

 

I assume most of us are from similar demographic and social backgrounds... and we are not movie stars. While people seem to be rational when comparing their athletic skills to Phil Mickleson, we seem to be somewhat optimistic when analyzing our "appearance potential." Are these top doctors so much better that any others should not even be considered... is the difference that significant?

 

I am not arguing anything; just seeking some specific explaination of varying levels of skill in hair transplantation. Can different people justify different tiers?

[Guest]

I have the strong impression from this forum that most of you believe that only a handful of truly great hair transplant doctors exist in the world. I also have the impression many of you would not refer someone to any of the "lesser" doctors for surgery.

 

There are only a handful of truly great orthopedic surgeons in the world, but there are thousands of others that will perform an excellent job for anyone short of a professional athlete.

 

Why aren't the lower tier of HT doctors held in higher esteem? Is the value of my time and the hassle of traveling many miles (not to mention misc. travel expenses that WILL accrue, regardless of a reimbursment program) really worth having surgery with an elite surgeon?

 

I assume most of us are from similar demographic and social backgrounds... and we are not movie stars. While people seem to be rational when comparing their athletic skills to Phil Mickleson, we seem to be somewhat optimistic when analyzing our "appearance potential." Are these top doctors so much better that any others should not even be considered... is the difference that significant?

 

I am not arguing anything; just seeking some specific explaination of varying levels of skill in hair transplantation. Can different people justify different tiers?

[Guest]

You'll be surprised to find out that the best surgeons often charge the same if not less than those at the bottom. Also - chosing between "ok HT", and "no HT at all", I would chose "no HT at all." You don't want to replace your dissatisfaction caused by your hair, with depression caused by your hair.

 

"There are only 10 types of people in the world: those who understand binary, and those who don't..."

[NW]

Varsity,

 

Excellent question,

 

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Why aren't the lower tier of HT doctors held in higher esteem? Is the value of my time and the hassle of traveling many miles (not to mention misc. travel expenses that WILL accrue, regardless of a reimbursment program) really worth having surgery with an elite surgeon?

 

 

Most guys/Gals do not know how bad HT's can be, it can screw you up and look horrible, however properly done can give you a great improvement, most people value the look of their hair & would prefer an "improvement" rather than a "disappointment".....count me as one willing to travel for the best.

 

NW

[Guest]

Anyone considering a hair transplant wants the absolute best, but how broad is the line dividing the best from the other surgeons? In other medical professions the level of skill between the elite and the next level is very fine.

 

Why isn't this the case with HT surgeons? A chart of the skill that exists in this industry should be bell curved... theoretically. Why isn't it? Is the science new and still lacking significant research? Does it lack appeal to medical students? Is it difficult to master?

 

Why can't the practice of hair restoration be more easily compared to other medical disciplines?

[arfy]

There is a huge aesthetic aspect to hair transplantation. It's not as simple as just performing the basic task of moving hair from the back to the front. Compare that to other disciplines where the basic task is the way the doctor is judged... how many ways is there to set a broken bone, or remove tonsils, for example? Aesthetic judgement is something that is not as easily taught, and some docs have more aesthetic talent than others. No matter how many cases they do, and how much study and workshops they go to, some doctors have less aesthetic skilll than others.

 

There is also the question of consistency. No doctor has 100 percent amazing results, and probably no doctor has 100 percent terrible results (lets hope not). The ones who are considered the best, are doing consistently good work. Any doctor can come up with a few good-looking patient photos. That doesn't make him a top doctor, just because he's done six great-looking results. Unless he is totally incompetent, every doctor has "some" success stories. That does not make him worthy of recommendation. The top doctors (of which there are only a few, IMO) are doing consistently great work.

 

I agree that the difference between a good HT doctor and great HT doctor can seem small. But this small difference can make the difference between how detectable your transplant is. In my opinion, this makes it very very important to only consider the elite-level doctors.<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Is the science new and still lacking significant research?

Realize that most doctors do not use the state-of-the-art approach (the all-FU transplant, with microscopically-dissected grafts). Most doctors are using the same approach they used 10 years ago (Micrografts in the hairline, and Minigrafts behind the hairline).

 

The hair transplant industry is notoriously resistant to change, because the field is more about commerce than it is about medicine. As long as a doctor is making money doing a certain HT approach, he is very reluctant to change approaches. Remember that until the early 90s, big punched-out plugs were the predominant technique, even though the concept of a donor strip was introduced in the mid-70s (the strip concept did not "catch on" until the late 80s, and many clinics continued to punch out plugs into the 90s).

 

So what would seem logical, or best for patients, is probably not a way to understand the world of HT.

 

[This message was edited by arfy on October 10, 2003 at 05:37 PM.]