Hasson and Wong Donor extractions well out of safe zone!!!

[gillenator]

No questions about it that everyone's "safe zone" is different. Might be better stated as "varied".

 

That is why it is always a good idea to observe others' hairloss patterns within our own respective families. Especially with older men. Almost everyone has a pretty defined "safe zone" when they are younger. But things change with age including our safe zones.

 

Some of us can experience donor zone thinning as we age. The implication then is that hair that is harvested within what we think is the safe zone in our 20's and 30's can potentially be lost in the future as we age.

 

It's a subject that is not discussed very often, donor zone thinning. IMHO, hair samples should be taken throughout the donor zone and then examined under a scope comparing those samples with terminal hair samples to note any effects of miniturization, meaning, decreases in hair shaft diameter attributed to DHT.

[mahhong]

This is an interesting and very important thread, and both sides have valid and valuable points to make.

 

My experience of hairloss (looking at others and my own) is that, very broadly speaking, there are some men who bald more intensely and obviously than others, and it is in those men the safe zones can best be identified.

 

For example, there are many men who appear (on the surface) to go slowly through the Norwood stages; receding at the hairline and crown slightly but in a very obvious way, almost like a "wave" of hairloss that grows over time. Jude Law is one common example of what I'm talking about; he's in his late 30's/early 40's and now has fairly significant loss throughout the frontal third into his vertex, but his balding pattern is not established in my opinion. He could be an NW7 by the time he's 60, or stop at an NW4 in 5 years time.

 

When I look at my father's hairloss, however, his was much more widespread and diffuse. By the time he was in his late-20s his whole balding area was fairly well established and now, at the age of 52, although he's lost most of the hair in this "balding area", the 'limits' of his balding haven't really changed in 25 years.

 

In my opinion it's clear to see, in certain types of men and balding patterns, where the DHT resistant zone begins and the clear margin between donor and balding areas. Usually these men seem to have more aggressive loss early on in their lives (20's/30's) and a more diffuse balding pattern (not diffuse in the DPA/DUPA sense of the word, but diffuse MPB).

 

I could be totally wrong, but I would feel that, like my father, in the next 5-7 years my own balding pattern will be fairly clear to a good doctor. I'm not "receding" but losing hair in a pretty diffuse way, with the temples and crown most prominent in loss. I have a pretty strong feeling I'll be a NW6 within the next 20 years (unless I do something about it), but by the same token I also feel the limits of my hairloss will be much more firmly established in the next 3-5 years than men who recede in that "wave" like fashion.

 

I think Dr. Hasson has seen enough heads to be able to make sound judgements on the donor safe zone for individuals, which I would ultimately suggest is different on each person. There may be a commonly held "safe zone" that applies to all men, but you only have to look at two or three dozen bald men to realize hairloss is a pretty individual condition, with no two heads really being the same. There are an awful lot of men who have more (or less) donor hair than the "average" safe zone criteria, and it's really up to the doctor to make a thorough examination of the individual and plan the route for surgery.

 

My belief is that what Dr. Hasson is doing is actually realizing and quantifying more detail in the Norwood scale, and that there's no such thing as an outright NWI/II/III etc. Those guidelines remain true, but with modern microscopic examination techniques and good patient history it's likely Dr. Hasson can fathom with a good degree of certainty what's going to happen up there on your head in more detail than the blanket NW scale can ascertain.

[bonkerstonker]

Mahhong your Jude law theory is a very good point and I have to agree with you that Jude laws future loss would be impossible to predict so dr hasson would be a lot more cautious with him but for me he was very confident because i have a full horse shoe Nw 5 thinning area that has been like that for 10 years solid.

[Atomic]

I don't think future hairloss is completely predictable. My own for instance has become a suprise. I continue to loose hair at 53 & there is no way anyone could have predicted this when I was 30!

I predict a lot of young guys will be in for a suprise one day.

[Dutch]

No one has a crystal ball to completely predict this, but if you have a pattern outlined on your head, then the miniaturised hairs can be visible to the surgeons who know what they're doing.

I have a friend who's a Norwood 1 maybe, but the rest of his hair seems to be bullet proof. No one else in his family under the age of 70 has hairloss. So look at how tough it would be to deal with his case from a surgeon's point of view.

[bonkerstonker]

I don't think future hairloss is completely predictable. My own for instance has become a suprise. I continue to loose hair at 53 & there is no way anyone could have predicted this when I was 30!

I predict a lot of young guys will be in for a suprise one day.

 

Yes but did u have a solid Norwood shape when you were younger like a nw5 or nw6? What we're thinking is people with these full head shapes seem to stay the same Nw obviously if u were a Nw 1 with a solid barrier this is no good for predicting future loss.

[recedingboy]

It's clear that egghead had an ulterior motive for starting this topic, but that fact doesn't mean that the point raised isn't valid. I'm not going to spend my time digging through old patient logs, but I can say that I too have seen many examples of strips taken very high. And whle Dr. Hasson has taken the time to explain why he does so on other forums, I just just don't buy the explanation. The sides on many men drop far below where some of those strips have been taken. Granted, it doen't matter what anyone else's hair does, only your own, and if your hair doesn't drop on the sides, then you're safe. However, Dr. Hasson cannot know what a patient at age 35 will look like at age 55 with regards to the height of the hair on the side of his head. And as for retrograde alopecia forcing the strip to be taken higher, perhaps instead of taking a higher strip, that should be viewed as a sign that a hair transplant shouldn't be done on that particular patient in the first place. Just because H&W do something, or say something, or hold a particular philosophy, does not mean that it is right. This myth of infallibility needs to go away and go away soon.

 

I hope that we are all mature enough to engage in a discussion about this topic without resorting to name calling, posturing, or cheerleading. Egghead's goal was to see this turn into an online fracas. Do not let him accomplish that goal. We can disagree with one another and remain civil and respectful.

 

I agree with you on this. Bonkerstonker in particular appears to do just that. It is very important that open discussion of all information, good and bad, possible and impossible be made so that every angle is considered and viewpoint is shared and that no one doctor, regardless of how their reputation is or was, can get too comfortable thinking their reputation (and client base) is established and they have little to worry about. That we must take their recommendations and practices as gospel.

 

This open exchange of information is actually EXTREMELY important for the credibility, and subsequent longevity of any website that deals with this topic. To be clear, bonkerstonker is absolutely right in responding back with supporting information to counter what a board member says, but I, even though new here, would suggest that the mods take greater action on the personal attacks/name calling. If someone has something here to share that could be relevant, they should be able to do it without fear of reprisal, condemnation, ostracization, etc. If people don't feel comfortable sharing on this website, they will simply go to another or, worse do nothing and feel defeated and suffer from their hairloss without the benefit of sharing/suupport with others. That hurts this website and the member.

 

I think it could also be argued that just because some members may appear to have no agenda than to attack a doctor, I think it could be argued the other way around as well, that some appear to have an agenda to support, at all times, a particular doctor. If I have a great experience at a particular doctor, it doesn't mean everyone will. I'd be continuously open minded and not be doggedly loyal because mistakes can happen, even by the best of docs. I'm sure bonkerstonker willy try to defend himself or maybe call me a name, I don't really care, as they say it is what it is.

[bonkerstonker]

Reecedingboy thanks for your thoughts. Firstly yes I'm quite aggressive but not for the sake of cheerleading it's just generally against fake attacking posters like egghead it winds me up as I feel they swoop in here to tarnish surgeons.

 

As I've said before I welcome the debate as I my self questioned the high donor scars before I was educated. I agree with most of what you said above.

[recedingboy]

Reecedingboy thanks for your thoughts. Firstly yes I'm quite aggressive but not for the sake of cheerleading it's just generally against fake attacking posters like egghead it winds me up as I feel they swoop in here to tarnish surgeons.

 

As I've said before I welcome the debate as I my self questioned the high donor scars before I was educated. I agree with most of what you said above.

 

 

I don't want to stir up controversy, it is just as a newbie and in my opinion just trying to be objective here; the way things should be run on any website like this.

 

I personally think libel is terrible, and that it could be potentially damaging. For this reason, I think a fair approach or site policy would be the following: that a person that makes an allegation of a particular clinic/doctor need to provide some reasonable (whenever possible) supporting information. This may mean egghead would need to cite photos of what he considers to be areas of 'danger zone' extractions, mark it up in photoshop, MS paint, etc. and then provide that in the thread. If he is not good at computer operation, at least cite the photos and then describe what he is referring to. Let others on the board evaluate his allegations.

 

If the allegation is such that it is not easily verifiable, they should provide as many details as possible and possibly provide the site operator with personal contact details (not anonymous emails), so that they may be able to contact them personally to verify the legitimacy of the poster. That would also put people in check because then, if the case was ever to be deemed libel, that poster could be tracked down. I understand that this might take time on part of the site operators, but presumably only legitimate posters would be willing to provide personal info, so I don't think there will be very many.

 

If the poster fails to provide either of the above, the post should be deleted.

 

For what its worth, I'm a business owner in a highly competitive industry. My business is on the the various reviewer websites here in the states (insiderpages, google, yahoo, etc.). I've had my fair share of false posters attempt to give my business a bad name. I've also had legitimate customers express concerns and have put real examples of what they deemed to have been poor service. I take those examples like a man and if necessary learn from it (however mostly they are being unrealistic in expectations), but I don't always challenge those posts. I had challenged some that were blatantly wrong though, so I can certainly appreciate misinformation being spread and the potential for damage it can cause, but at the same time I think we must be careful to not try to invalidate genuine posters (like amaindia was - and yes if he was being overtly nervous in your opinion, in my opinion he should still be coddled because, although a grown dude, lets face it with hairtransplant surgeries, the costs involved, the emotional, psychological and physiological implications are all very scary, esp. for someone flying in from a totally foreign country.)

Edited June 5, 2011 by recedingboy

[bonkerstonker]

Start your own forum and place them rules and you've cracked it. In reality when you've spent a few years on hair forums you will realise there is a lot of fighting and difference of opinion that can not be controlled because forums are all about everyones own opinion if we all thought the same we would not need forums. Why don't you ask bill if you can be a little security guard and keep the forum safe and secure.

 

Aman is not a fake poster he's a compulsive worrier and I gave him tough love which I have already apologised to him for as i felt i was a bit too ruff its pointless you dragging up old news that has been rectified by my self and opening up old wounds for aman. if you personally have a problem with me you can pm me or come see me but don't drag this thread into something about me when we're debating the important issue of high scars.

Edited June 5, 2011 by bonkerstonker

[gillenator]

If your friend is a Norwood 1, then what in the world would he be doing talking to a HT surgeon and the doctor if he is ethical would be asking the same thing.

[Atticus]

If your friend is a Norwood 1, then what in the world would he be doing talking to a HT surgeon and the doctor if he is ethical would be asking the same thing.

 

Yeah, I'm confused about that as well.

 

Atticus

[bonkerstonker]

Gil Lol sorry typo nw3. iPhones do your head in.

[gillenator]

bonkers,

 

Nooowww that makes more sense! I had to laugh when I saw your typo because I know you are knowledgable about this stuff!

 

It's always encouraging to see people do their homework.:cool: