Dr. Rahal FUT Result: 3430 Grafts 1 Year Post-op

[Dr. Rahal]

Patient Information

Months Post-op: 12 Months

Year of Birth: 1990

Norwood Scale: 3

Procedure Type: FUT

Treatment Areas: Hairline. Mid-Scalp

Graft Count: 3430

Country: Canada

[Rootz]

This is a fantastic result, but at the same time I'm confused how 3400 grafts was needed for this. Either way, impressive.

[TakingThePlunge]

Stunning!

[win200]

I'd to hear more about this patient. 3,500 is a lot of grafts to use in that region on a 23-year-old--I assume he asked for an unusually aggressive procedure? Phenomenal result, but hopefully he's using meds.

[Spanker]

I hope he is on meds too. He could have had a very solid crown with no history of loss in that region. Overall, this is not an extremely aggressive case IMO. Many of the Turkish FUE docs are giving hairlines like this to pretty advanced guys and I think that the area of distribution is about right for that number of grafts.

Edited April 24, 2014 by Spanker

[imnothere]

3500 grafts on a 24 year old with hardly any hairloss?!

 

Doesn't seem very responsible to me.

[jaity]

Looks to me as though the thought process behind this procedure was to carpet bomb the frontal 3rd in one hit to alleviate the need for future procedures as loss of native hair in this area progresses over the years. The prospect of loss in the back is an eventual risk but I believe a calculated one especially if the patient is on meds

[Dr. Rahal]

the area covered was 71 cm making this an average of 48.3 grafts/cm density, all into a miniturized area that hasn't responded to meds.

[win200]

the area covered was 71 cm making this an average of 48.3 grafts/cm density, all into a miniturized area that hasn't responded to meds.

 

That makes sense and seems pretty reasonable to me. And, honestly, the grafts go pretty far back, so it's not as if they're all concentrated into the very frontal hairline itself. I mean, this is less aggressive than the approach that I'm having Dr. Rahal take on me (granted, I'll be 9 mos. older than this patient at my time of surgery).

[Rootz]

the area covered was 71 cm making this an average of 48.3 grafts/cm density, all into a miniturized area that hasn't responded to meds.

 

Thanks for the clarification, but I'm still confused. The 71cm area is the entire red area post op, right? If so, why would 48.3 grafts/cm be transplanted not just in areas far back from the hairline itself but also in areas where he had a lot of existing hair? I thought 50 grafts/cm at the hairline itself was considered high.

[Dr. Rahal]

In order to have an even visual outcome, you need to distribute the grafts in such a way to put more into areas with less existing (or no) hair and less grafts into areas with more native hair.

Also keep in mind, that the density of single hairs planted in the hairline will be higher than 50 grafts/cm and lower density in the back where the 3 hair grafts are used.

Also, note that the hairs in front top, behind the hairline, are miniaturized and are on their way out. You may not appreciate it with the photos, but def. with the feel and closer look in person. So the contrary to transplanting into those areas, is to leave them alone. This will mean a 2nd surgery will be needed in the very near future. This discussion whether to or not to, did take place between Dr Rahal and the Patient.

It is always controversial whether to or not go into a forelock that has existing hair with a pattern of loss around it. This always comes down to a judgment call during the planning stage. You are kind of damned if you do and damned if you don’t.

[Spanker]

In order to have an even visual outcome, you need to distribute the grafts in such a way to put more into areas with less existing (or no) hair and less grafts into areas with more native hair.

Also keep in mind, that the density of single hairs planted in the hairline will be higher than 50 grafts/cm and lower density in the back where the 3 hair grafts are used.

Also, note that the hairs in front top, behind the hairline, are miniaturized and are on their way out. You may not appreciate it with the photos, but def. with the feel and closer look in person. So the contrary to transplanting into those areas, is to leave them alone.This will mean a 2nd surgery will be needed in the very near future. This discussion whether to or not to, did take place between Dr Rahal and the Patient.

It is always controversial whether to or not go into a forelock that has existing hair with a pattern of loss around it. This always comes down to a judgment call during the planning stage. You are kind of damned if you do and damned if you don’t.

 

 

 

My opinion is that there is usually a better result when you plant the forelock if it is miniaturized very much. If not, there is usually a visual difference in density by the time the 1 year photos come in.

[win200]

My opinion is that there is usually a better result when you plant the forelock if it is miniaturized very much. If not, there is usually a visual difference in density by the time the 1 year photos come in.

 

Definitely agree that forelock planting is tricky. I had pretty healthy hairline that was lowered, and there's definitely a "jump" in density about a cm back--i.e., the transplanted density doesn't match the native density. It's not super noticeable, but the hairline is a tad see-through and then becomes more opaque behind that. It's not really something I anticipated, but I'm used to it now. No one really notices it, but something my surgeon should have warned me about.