What is better, a megasession or two sessions?

[olmert]

I just had a consult. The doctor proposed doing one FUT session with 2700, and a second FUT session in a year or two with 1000.

 

I asked him why we couldn't just do one mega session. He claimed that, if you pack hair densely in one go, the yield is lower. He said the new grafts need space to breath. He said he normally does two sessions, a year or two apart, and that lets him pack denser.

 

Is this true? It seems to me the scar would be less with one surgery.

 

I understand there are a few doctors who are specialists in mega sessions. Are they getting a lower yield for it?

[Spanker]

I don't think it is out of the ordinary, dependent on your goals and the area being covered and your overall health. A lot of surgeons will say it may take 2 surgeries. There are lots of docs that can do that much though in one shot, but the very particular may need another session. Who is the doc?

[olmert]

The doctor's name is Dr. Elliot at 500 sutter st #503, San Francisco, CA. His website is Contact Us | Pacific Hair

 

I haven't been referred to him by anyone, so I cannot vouch that he has a history of good results.

 

But I am confused. Are the mega-session doctors getting lower yields? Do they have some skill that Dr. Elliot does not have? If I can get the same yield in one surgery, I should would prefer it.

[Cant decide]

There is some truth to the idea that packing too tight could impact yield but there are doctors who are better at mega sessions than others. For example, Dr. Hasson, Rahal, and Wong. These are the guys for huge sessions. That is greater than 4000 for example. But most good docs can handle under 4000 without sacraficing yield. I myself had 5229 in one session with Rahal and I had maximum yield.

 

Having said all that, you have to look at how many grafts you are looking to pack per square cm. Even the best docs do not suggest packing at more than 65 in most cases. Bottom line, its not how many grafts you do in one session but rather how many you pack per sq cm that impacts yield.

[Jotronic]

The benefits of having a larger session are pretty compelling in my opinion. You have less scarring, less cost and it won't take years to get your final result but what you are talking about is something that is not considered to be a bigger session by experienced and talented clinics.

 

What seems like only a few short years ago most doctors, if not all of them, were saying that 4000 grafts just was not a good idea for the very same reason that the doctor you mentioned said. When we were doing these sized sessions, and bigger, several years ago we were challenged to show that bigger sessions work well so eight years ago when the international hair conference (ISHRS with 600 doctors worldwide) was in Vancouver we brought in 25 patients that had 4000 and 5000 grafts or more in one session. Now, many of those same doctors are now doing 4000 grafts and their original concerns and warnings are no longer heard. Why? Because we showed that it was possible if done properly. It takes a larger team of technicians. More expensive microscopes, new training and techniques and a sincere desire to just do more. Some doctors still just don't want to invest in themselves and their team to offer more for the patient.

[Spanker]

His photos look ancient. You wouldn't catch me there.

[RCWest]

Just recently, Hasson and Wong posted a 9000+ graft megasession. If I were you I would go for the whole 3700 in one pass. Almost any clinic on here can handle that many these days. That way you can see full results in 12-18 months instead of having to wait 12-18 months TWICE.

[olmert]

Just recently, Hasson and Wong posted a 9000+ graft megasession. If I were you I would go for the whole 3700 in one pass. Almost any clinic on here can handle that many these days.

 

Do you think clinics can do a 3700 session with me? I am a Norwood IV. But I have a thin and small amount of hair covering a large area. When you take out this area, I am a Norwood VI. So a doctor would be transplanting the hair into this large area and between my existing hair, much more than he will be transplanting into hair-less area. I have been told I will get much shock loss. (If I understand correctly, sometimes shock loss hair comes back, and sometimes it won't.)

 

I can see that a mega session will work when you are transplanting into hairless area. But obviously you cannot transplant as much into an area with thin hair. As said above, the limitation is not how many grafts, but how much density in the recipient area.

 

One doctor even told me that I can expect so much shock loss that after the transplant I will not be much fuller. I will merely have permanent instead of temporary hair.

 

I have attached a pic.

[Spanker]

I think you need to consult a recommended doctor. You can do virtual consults with doctors connected to this site. I see you are looking at a California doc. Dr. Gabel is in best and he is in Oregon. I really think you will be making a huge mistake by not going to the right doc. Do some more research. Below is a Gabel pt that has similar loss.

 

http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/165405-kens-results-wet-hair-10-months-after-transplant-dr-gabel-patient.html

[Jotronic]

Olmert,

 

I don't think you are a NWIV. I would call you a diffused NW5A. 3700 grafts would work well but I think that a bit more would be better. You are correct that even with the amount of hair you still have there is a large area to cover but when properly performed your native hair should not suffer.

 

There are two types of shock loss. Temporary and permanent. Temporary shock loss is unpredictable and unavoidable. We don't know who will get it and to what degree. However, being temporary the hair will come back and once the newly transplanted hairs grow in as well you have an appreciable net gain from the procedure.

 

Permanent shock loss is when the doctor makes the incisions in between existing hairs and cannot match up the incisions to the same angle and direction as the native hair. The needle or blade transects he native hair and kills it and when you are dealing with a few thousand incisions the compounded effect can be seen in the form of less native hair.

 

The only way to safely go into hair like yours is to shave it down so that the true angle and direction can be seen. The spaces in between the hairs can be clearly seen as well thereby eliminating the guesswork and preventing permanent shock loss.

 

Here is a patient that had a similar pattern and diffused hair loss as you. Dr. Wong performed this procedure and transplanted 5584 grafts in one session. The second to last photo shows the recipient area shaved. Under magnification the doctor can visualize the spaces quite well and can make the incisions for the new hair to match the angle and direction of the native hair. Aside from preventing permanent shock loss this also allows the new hair to blend with the native hair and "flows" naturally. I hope this makes sense.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[1978matt]

The doctor's name is Dr. Elliot at 500 sutter st #503, San Francisco, CA. His website is Contact Us | Pacific Hair

 

I haven't been referred to him by anyone, so I cannot vouch that he has a history of good results.

 

But I am confused. Are the mega-session doctors getting lower yields? Do they have some skill that Dr. Elliot does not have? If I can get the same yield in one surgery, I should would prefer it.

 

I've seen 10 year old reviews of 'Elliot & True' on a few forums. It seems they split a while ago. Judging from what I've read he doesnt have as good a rep as Dr True so I'd be a bit careful if I were you!

 

The videos on his website were a bit too 'sales' based if you know what I mean. The best Drs don't need that sort of cr*p to get work!

[RCWest]

Joe, that is a stellar 5500 graft case!