Who would be the best FUE surgeon for my hairline (pictures)

[bismarck]

A little background -- I am 34, and have been described as a NW2 to 3V.

 

Medical therapy wise, I have taken Ketoconazole for the last decade, 1% switching to 2% this past year. I began finasteride 3 years prior, but 6 months after switched to dutasteride, which seemed to put a pause on my my hairloss, although without much regrowth. I've taken Minoxidil inconsistently, although it messes up my eyes for some strange reason.

 

I have been spending too much time on the forums. Ultimately, I feel I have a milder case of hair loss, and don't want to deplete my donor zone, but I do want a meaningful difference. I was wondering who you all think the best FUE surgeon would be for my degree of loss?

 

It seems the European FUE docs are worth their salt. Based on the advice here and review of pics, I've come to favor Bisanga, Feriduni, Lorenzo, Mwamba, and the Dogans.

 

Here is my experience thus far --

 

It seems Lorenzo is conservative at hairlines, although a vertex master. Pricing wise, he does not seem that different from the Belgian superstars from what has been posted here, although I will have a better idea of his rates when we speak.

 

Bisanga's rep said they would go fairly conservative, and stay away from the vertex due to the risk of shock loss. For the frontal hairline, he said they would do about 1500 grafts. It seems that a lot of his cases are "fillers". ie. the patient will have thinning in front and Bisanga will go behind the hairline to fill in the areas of thinning, and create a more defined hairline. However, I haven't seen many milder cases (ie. NW 2-3) where he actually brings the frontal hairline down significantly.

 

Feriduni is good, he also seems conservative for my taste. For many of his posted hairlines he seems to barely brings down the line 1 cm, and sometimes even less. Not quite as conservative as Bisanga, but sometimes I can barely tell he was there, in both a good and bad sense. He is also booked till July of 2015. Even for consultation he is backed up 1-2 weeks, and has not formally responded to me as of yet. Perhaps the busiest of the hair loss surgeons I have contacted thus far, I'm sure in large part due to his conscientious work ethic and strong online presence.

 

Mwamba seems excellent. Although based in Belgium, he seems to favor the more aggressive approach of the Turkish docs, which I like. He actually spoke with me directly on the phone and spend at least 15 minutes in consultation. He cited 2000-2500 grafts overall with PRP to my vertex, for which he would add 800-1700 euros, depending on how many areas were treated. 90% of his work is manual. He was honest in stating that if his hands were tired, he switched to mechanical harvesting about 10% of the time, and I appreciated his being straightforward about this. His price was 5 euro if I let the techs do the implants, 10 if I let him. The results on here speak loud, so I don't really have a major issue with this.

 

The "Dogans" -- Doganay and Erdogan seem to have a lot of strong hairline work in people with lower Norwoods on FUE gallery. I also like that they are more aggressive than the western European docs.

 

Erdogan is only manual with assistant based extractions. I spoke with Erdogan's assistant who sent me an estimate of 2600 grafts, with 600 being for the temples specifically, with a symbolic diagram illustrating where he would place the implants. He uses the manual technique, and his assistants do the extractions. Koray himself does the incisions. The price is about half that of Mwamba and Lorenzo.

 

Doganay is motorized with a premium for manual work, which seems to imply that he is less comfortable with it, although his rep indicated that he stated that there is no difference as far as outcome. Punch sizes range from 0.6 - 0.8 mm. They include free PRP and are also about half the cost of the western Europeans.

 

Konior is excellent, but I'm am less in favor of FUT. From the posts here it seems that while he can do FUE, it's not typically in his wheelhouse.

 

I will post the symbolic diagram Erdogan sent in a second post.

 

Other surgeons that I have not done as much research on have been Reddy (UK) and Rahal. I generally have avoided the motorized guys like Feller and Baumann because it just seems like a recipe for disaster and lends itself to donor site depletion/decimation.

 

The information out there is overwhelming. Between google, the major surgical forums, the videos, the podcasts, it is possible to be literally inundated with information 24 hours a day. As I am currently on a break from work, this has been precisely what I have been doing.

 

It has been quite an odyssey, and I'm sure I'm not alone on this one. Hair can be so personal and so important in nearly every aspect of life, both professionally and personally. Please feel free to share any thoughts you have, either on the surgeons I have mentioned, ones that I have not

Edited October 11, 2014 by David - TakingThePlunge

[bismarck]

Attached is the symbolic diagram sent to me by Erdogan. It seems very similar to what I am looking for.

 

The surgeons that seem to have shown consistent work on lowering hairlines for lower NWs seem to be Erdogan, Mwamba, and Doganay.

 

Doganay is manual, as I mentioned, so I am more hesitant with him.

 

Konior is excellent as well, and perhaps one of the best strip surgeons for similar work, but for better or worse, I am not a huge fan of FUT.

Edited October 11, 2014 by David - TakingThePlunge

[1978matt]

Attached is the symbolic diagram sent to me by Erdogan. It seems very similar to what I am looking for.

 

 

So you want to be a GQ model?

 

I know you are on Dutasteride but what happens if you have health issues later in life and have to stop taking it?... or it loses effectiveness?

 

I think a lot of top doctors will be hesitant to give you a hairline like that. Why not go for an age appropriate NW2 with some light temple recession?

 

I've taken the liberty to sketch something below...

Edited October 9, 2014 by David - TakingThePlunge

[bismarck]

So you want to be a GQ model?

 

I know you are on Dutasteride but what happens if you have health issues later in life and have to stop taking it?... or it loses effectiveness?

 

I think a lot of top doctors will be hesitant to give you a hairline like that. Why not go for an age appropriate NW2 with some light temple recession?

 

I've taken the liberty to sketch something below...

 

Matt, thanks for your input. I have followed your hair loss experience for quite awhile, and appreciate your wisdom.

 

I see your point that medication or not, there is no guarantee regarding long term stability, and I should not be too aggressive (and we do not have much long term data on Dut).

 

Do you think 2000-2500 grafts is too much? It seems from your response and the diagram you sketched that you feel Erdogan, Doganay and Mwamba are being too aggressive. Mwamba indicated he would lower my hair line ~1 cm, which I did not think was too much.

 

I have to say that I really dislike my temples and would like to have a nice hairline into my 40s. Once DHT resistant follicles are implanted, I feel like you are drawing a line in the sand so to speak (ie. transplanted follicles are much less likely to recess).

 

If I have to wear a hair piece or coloring to cover up the thinning hair deep to my DHT resistant hairline after that, I would prefer this to a higher hairline with greater density at the high scalp.

 

But your post really brings up the central crux of the issue -- how do you want to distribute your plugs in the long run?

 

Either: 1) A lower hairline with thinner density, or 2) a higher hairline with greater density?

 

Only time will tell how thin the density or how high the hairline, depending on which surgical approach is taken.

 

Cosmetics seem to lend themselves to disguising the former better, but as life gets on and we become lazier, perhaps the latter is preferable.

 

If this is really what it comes down to I think to have 5-10 more years of a lower, 'age-inappropriate' hairline is worth it for me. I am not married and would like to pretend I am still young for a few more years.

 

If I hit 40 and realize I still want to play at Peter Pan, at least the cosmetic option would still be available with a lower DHT resistant hairline. If, on the other hand, I went with a higher hairline with a denser vertex, I would not be able to disguise it that well.

 

Does this sound like a reasonable thought process? Have others gone through the same thinking?

 

I have spent so much time on these forums, I feel like I've disappeared down the 'rabbit warren' as Spex is fond of saying. Any other insight would be much appreciated.

[KO]

It seems to me that you were meant to be operated by Dr Rahal.

 

That being said, I just don't think it's a great idea to aim for juvenile hairlines, even when you are on dutasteride. Dutasteride is potent, but as you know, the long term effects are unknown. Matt's hairline drawing is a good one IMO,

[JoeTillman]

Hi Bismark,

 

You have options and you can go a few different ways. I took Matt1978's hairline he drew in for you and I filled it in with your hair. I added the temple points on the sides because the hairline drawn is too low to not have temple points. Your profile would look too front heavy without them. I think the front is too low personally but you might like it.

 

The second one is one I put together. The hairline is higher but you still have some temple point work done. The higher hairline gives you less of a receded look though. This might be the answer to your issue. A higher hairline that still gives you a strong frame for your face thus allowing for higher density without using too many grafts.

Edited October 11, 2014 by David - TakingThePlunge

[1978matt]

Hi Bismark,

 

You have options and you can go a few different ways. I took Matt1978's hairline he drew in for you and I filled it in with your hair. I added the temple points on the sides because the hairline drawn is too low to not have temple points. Your profile would look too front heavy without them. I think the front is too low personally but you might like it.

 

The second one is one I put together. The hairline is higher but you still have some temple point work done. The higher hairline gives you less of a receded look though. This might be the answer to your issue. A higher hairline that still gives you a strong frame for your face thus allowing for higher density without using too many grafts.

 

I meant hair above the red line although you weren't to know that! However, I'd go with somewhere in between mine and yours, basically at a height dictated my the rule of thirds.

 

Not 100% sure on the temple points but it may just be the way photo shop makes them look so dense.

Edited October 8, 2014 by David - TakingThePlunge

[bismarck]

Hi Bismark,

 

You have options and you can go a few different ways. I took Matt1978's hairline he drew in for you and I filled it in with your hair. I added the temple points on the sides because the hairline drawn is too low to not have temple points. Your profile would look too front heavy without them. I think the front is too low personally but you might like it.

 

The second one is one I put together. The hairline is higher but you still have some temple point work done. The higher hairline gives you less of a receded look though. This might be the answer to your issue. A higher hairline that still gives you a strong frame for your face thus allowing for higher density without using too many grafts.

 

Wow, really helpful illustrations. Thanks for taking the time to do that.

 

It does seem that bringing down the widows peak helps the hairline look more natural, and also leads to more angulation at the temple to allow things to flow better. How many grafts would you estimate that would need?

 

I think I've seen cases that looked like that amongst Mwamba's work, Feriduni's may be slightly more conservative. Definitely gives me something to gear myself towards.

 

Curious, what program did you use to do that? Photoshop?

 

I meant hair above the red line although you weren't to know that! However, I'd go with somewhere in between mine and yours, basically at a height dictated my the rule of thirds.

 

Not 100% sure on the temple points but it may just be the way photo shop makes them look so dense.

 

I'm sorry, I don't completely follow -- hair above the red line?

 

Also, what is your rule of 1/3rds?

[1978matt]

Matt, thanks for your input. I have followed your hair loss experience for quite awhile, and appreciate your wisdom.

 

I see your point that medication or not, there is no guarantee regarding long term stability, and I should not be too aggressive (and we do not have much long term data on Dut).

 

Do you think 2000-2500 grafts is too much? It seems from your response and the diagram you sketched that you feel Erdogan, Doganay and Mwamba are being too aggressive. Mwamba indicated he would lower my hair line ~1 cm, which I did not think was too much.

 

I have to say that I really dislike my temples and would like to have a nice hairline into my 40s. Once DHT resistant follicles are implanted, I feel like you are drawing a line in the sand so to speak (ie. transplanted follicles are much less likely to recess).

 

If I have to wear a hair piece or coloring to cover up the thinning hair deep to my DHT resistant hairline after that, I would prefer this to a higher hairline with greater density at the high scalp.

 

But your post really brings up the central crux of the issue -- how do you want to distribute your plugs in the long run?

 

Either: 1) A lower hairline with thinner density, or 2) a higher hairline with greater density?

 

Only time will tell how thin the density or how high the hairline, depending on which surgical approach is taken.

 

Cosmetics seem to lend themselves to disguising the former better, but as life gets on and we become lazier, perhaps the latter is preferable.

 

If this is really what it comes down to I think to have 5-10 more years of a lower, 'age-inappropriate' hairline is worth it for me. I am not married and would like to pretend I am still young for a few more years.

 

If I hit 40 and realize I still want to play at Peter Pan, at least the cosmetic option would still be available with a lower DHT resistant hairline. If, on the other hand, I went with a higher hairline with a denser vertex, I would not be able to disguise it that well.

 

Does this sound like a reasonable thought process? Have others gone through the same thinking?

 

I have spent so much time on these forums, I feel like I've disappeared down the 'rabbit warren' as Spex is fond of saying. Any other insight would be much appreciated.

 

If Mwamba said 1cm then he has not assumed anywhere near the hairline Erdogan suggested. 1cm would be to the top of the 'cm' where it says '60cm2'. 2000-2500 sounds about right

[1978matt]

Wow, really helpful illustrations. Thanks for taking the time to do that.

 

It does seem that bringing down the widows peak helps the hairline look more natural, and also leads to more angulation at the temple to allow things to flow better. How many grafts would you estimate that would need?

 

I think I've seen cases that looked like that amongst Mwamba's work, Feriduni's may be slightly more conservative. Definitely gives me something to gear myself towards.

 

Curious, what program did you use to do that? Photoshop?

 

 

 

I'm sorry, I don't completely follow -- hair above the red line?

 

Also, what is your rule of 1/3rds?

 

Oh I just meant the hairline would start immediately above the red line rather than on it. JT's version looks like hair has been placed on top of the line.

 

Google 'rule of thirds hair transplant'...

Edited September 1, 2014 by 1978matt

[bismarck]

If Mwamba said 1cm then he has not assumed anywhere near the hairline Erdogan suggested. 1cm would be to the top of the 'cm' where it says '60cm2'. 2000-2500 sounds about right

 

I don't think Erdogan meant to literally fill the areas he circled on the diagram, as his number of grafts was also cited 2600. I don't think it would be possible with that number of grafts.

 

Bottom line is I need to spend more time on their previously published patients to see what they're comfortable with doing, and what they have tended to do in the past.

 

Google 'rule of thirds hair transplant'...

 

Ah I see, thanks. It's interesting that by the rule of thirds, the hairline should be close to the bottom of the circle on Erdogan's diagram (slightly below the bottom of the cm). But I certainly understand the points made in this thread about not a balance between a good hairline and maintaining a strong donor reservoir.

 

Thanks to everyone for your insights and guidance.

[bismarck]

One thing that is fairly confusing to me is how dramatically different the number of grafts estimated between the surgeons were.

 

Bisanga listed 1500, Mwamba 2000-2500, Hakan Doganay 2000 and Erdogan 3000.

 

They have all been described as being part of the elites of FUE, so what would account for this?

 

Is there really that much variability in the procedure?

 

Looking at Erdogan's 3000 graft procedures here, it feels like my Norwood is not on the same level as for what he typically needs to graft x3000.

 

I would hate to deplete my donor zone unnecessarily.

[chrisdav]

It will vary on how much surface area is covered, how many grafts per square cm you have in the different areas of your scalp and your donor characteristics.

 

You have already answered your own questions - the more aggressive and dense the hairline, the more grafts you utilise and the less you have left for further hair loss down the line.

[BaldingBogger]

Age appropriate and conservative is the way to go IMO.

 

It is hard to envisage a hairline outline once hair is grown out on it but it should look considerably better than the initial outline once hair grows out and will give the illusion of a lower hairline and fuller temples.

 

I would concentrate on filling the temples and temple angles and also reinforcing your original hairline. Lowering i think is asking for trouble.

 

In each case you also make the presumption you will have 100% yield. Yield is a big variable and many many guys end up going back for 2nd ops due to less than optimal yields. Bare in mind the cases you see online are the showcase ones in the main and the ones the clinics want you to see. Or where guys have continued updating blog due to their good results. A lot of guys abandon updates online when it dosent work out.

 

There are a ton of cases that dont go online with less than decent yield.

 

Bare all these factors in mind but conservative planning is the key word for any HT IMO.

[london81]

MY hair loss looks very similar to yours and I have just had 1807 FUE with Dr. Feriduni to reconstruct hairline and temples.

 

I was also quoted 3000 grafts by Dr. Erdogan for the same area and I asked why the graft numbers were so high and someone from the clinic told me 'We are trying to increase density in our results' which is all very well and of course more grafts will increase density but is this right for the patient long term?

 

Here is my hairline Dr Feriduni did. I'm very happy because it's conservative with something that will suit me both now and in the future. All these people who say Feriduni's hairlines are 'aggressive' are just talking nonsense really. He will give the patient what is appropriate for them based on all the factors, age, hair loss history, donor, medication, hair type etc For me, he only has the patients very best interests at heart.

[Mickey85]

Attached is the symbolic diagram sent to me by Erdogan. It seems very similar to what I am looking for.

 

The surgeons that seem to have shown consistent work on lowering hairlines for lower NWs seem to be Erdogan, Mwamba, and Doganay.

 

Doganay is manual, as I mentioned, so I am more hesitant with him.

 

Konior is excellent as well, and perhaps one of the best strip surgeons for similar work, but for better or worse, I am not a huge fan of FUT.

 

Erdogan is a great FUE surgeon but I would not recommend this design at all. I personally feel it is much much too aggressive as most guys in their teens who have never lost a hair in their life don't have hairlines that low and that closed. You don't have to go for a norwood 2 look but something inbetween Erdogan's design and a norwood 2 would be ideal and would still look killer and youthful. Perhaps the same hairline design but raised up 7-8mm(which would save you 700-800 grafts right there, 100 grafts are needed per 1millimeter) and maybe open up the temples ever so slightly. Remember that you may lose more hair down the line and if you exhaust 2000-3000 grafts on the frontal third of the scalp alone, you are left with basically 3,000 to maybe 4,000(above average density) grafts to cover the other 2/3rds of the scalp(mid-section and crown). The average non-balding male has approximately 30,000 grafts on the top of his head(mid-scalp, crown and frontal third) and the average male has 5,000-6,000 grafts available via FUE so you can see that if your baldness does progress, you are in for an uphill battle if you use up too much on a small area now(or use those precious grafts lowering your hairline too much). Be cautious and smart.

[london81]

Excellent advice Mikey! Couldn't agree more.

[Mickey85]

Excellent advice Mikey! Couldn't agree more.

 

Thank you It should really be more known that with current hair transplantation surgery, surgeons basically have 1/6th(average) of the grafts at their disposal to use on an area that once contained six times the amount. This only applies to a norwood 6 of course but even in your 30s and on Proprecia(or one of it's derivatives) you are still not in the clear as of yet. A great surgeon told me that he went from a norwood 2 to a norwood 5 from from 30 to 40 years old and quite possibly would have progressed had he not have taken Proprecia.

[bismarck]

the more aggressive and dense the hairline, the more grafts you utilise and the less you have left for further hair loss down the line.

 

It is a subtle balancing act. At times, I feel like I'm using a loan shark to pay off credit cards, or borrowing against my home. Tricky to avoid cutting off the nose to spite the face.

 

Age appropriate and conservative is the way to go IMO.

 

Bare in mind the cases you see online are the showcase ones in the main and the ones the clinics want you to see. Or where guys have continued updating blog due to their good results. A lot of guys abandon updates online when it dosent work out.

 

There are a ton of cases that dont go online with less than decent yield.

 

This is one thing I have struggled with. Even the top surgeons don't seem to have many cases online that aren't self-submissions.

 

The foreign forums seem to help a bit with this as the docs themselves don't seem to post as much there. Where else would someone go if they wanted more patient sourced cases as opposed to surgeon/representative sourced? Granted the pics are often not as clear or well done, but it does follow that you are getting a more random sampling.

 

Also, I know Lorenzo gets cited as having the best yields out there (albeit perhaps conservative with hairlines), but is there anyone else that stands out in the international market?

 

As you point out, it seems nearly impossible to know with any degree of certainty, as the surgeons that post more cases may have just been doing FUE longer, have higher volume, or more assertive internet presence. I wish I had a crystal ball (or crystal bald, as it were).

 

the average male has 5,000-6,000 grafts available via FUE so you can see that if your baldness does progress, you are in for an uphill battle if you use up too much on a small area now(or use those precious grafts lowering your hairline too much). Be cautious and smart.

 

I definitely see your point -- insightful as always. One thing you mentioned that caught my eye, you stated the average male has 5-6k grafts by FUE. Does FUT offer more or less by comparison? I know this has been discussed before, and that historically it was higher, but has this equalized with time?

 

MY hair loss looks very similar to yours and I have just had 1807 FUE with Dr. Feriduni to reconstruct hairline and temples.

 

Here is my hairline Dr Feriduni did. I'm very happy because it's conservative with something that will suit me both now and in the future. All these people who say Feriduni's hairlines are 'aggressive' are just talking nonsense really.

 

Thanks London, I definitely noticed your pics before and appreciate you taking time to chronicle your experience. You went with the best and got a really solid result. I agree, many of Feriduni's hairlines don't seem aggressive at all, at least from the cases I've seen. Often, he seems to remain conservative and "fill in" or "reinforce" what is already there, rather than lower it. Bisanga seems a bit conservative as well to my uneducated eye, although Mwamba may be a bit more assertive in this sense.

 

Thank you guys again for your opinions and insights. This place is a candle in the dark.

[bismarck]

One thing you mentioned that caught my eye, you stated the average male has 5-6k grafts by FUE. Does FUT offer more or less by comparison? I know this has been discussed before, and that historically it was higher, but has this equalized with time?

 

Here is an interesting post by Mwamba that seems to answer the above (emphasis my own):

 

In my own experience, I have been able to harvest around 1200 grafts in the region below the occipital protuberance or the forbidden area for strip.

 

An average donor area with 70 to 80 fu/cm2 has 14000 to 16000 follicles. You can harvest up to 40% in total to be safe but in one session, you can go up to 20 % .So 2800 grafts to 3200 grafts is the average grafts you can harvest safely in majority of patients.

 

From your example , it seems like you are asking about graft yield from the FUE. In my hands, I average 98 to 99%. If I do 300 punches, I will usually get 295 to 300 grafts .

 

So by the numbers, 5600-6400 grafts total are available in the average donor. I am not sure if I read into the earlier statement right, but because FUE can go into the so called forbidden area, 1200 more grafts are available as compared to FUT?

 

Mwamba cites his yield as 98-99%, which I imagine are similar to Lorenzo's, and I imagine considerably above the non-elites, although it is of course by self-report.

 

Does anyone know if formal FUE yield averages have been published in the peer reviewed medical literature? (ie Pubmed)

[Sean]

Are those temples in the photoshopped pics with hair added realistic? Will they be pushed that far out or more inverted / angulated like a samurai with a poney tail in japanese samurai films? Will they be as dense or have pockets behind them due to grafts placed only in the direction of the temporal angle vs behind the temples in an even and consistent manner? A lot of people wish for temples like that, that arent too recessive looking. Temples that are pushed distinctly forward to lessen the width of forhead will compliment a restoration procedure well if they are done properly.

[bismarck]

Are those temples in the photoshopped pics with hair added realistic? Will they be pushed that far out or more inverted / angulated like a samurai with a poney tail in japanese samurai films? Will they be as dense or have pockets behind them due to grafts placed only in the direction of the temporal angle vs behind the temples in an even and consistent manner? A lot of people wish for temples like that, that arent too recessive looking. Temples that are pushed distinctly forward to lessen the width of forhead will compliment a restoration procedure well if they are done properly.

 

Interesting aesthetic point. Judging from different surgeon's picture's, some prefer the more rounded contour, while others prefer sharper angulation.

 

Ultimately, there is no realistic way to predict what the surgeon will do beyond developing a consensus statement by comparing yourself to past patients that have hair lines similar to yours.

 

Honestly, if you saw the diagrams and databases I've made on my computer...it looks like a beautiful mind. Not sure if I'm going off the deep end or about to win the Nobel prize.

 

Either way, the lesson I'm realizing more and more deeply is to not do anything without research. Surgery is effective, but it is a painful process, and basically irreversible.

 

Nothing in life worth having comes easy. And so here we are in the rabbit warren. :rolleyes:

[1978matt]

Here is an interesting post by Mwamba that seems to answer the above (emphasis my own):

 

 

 

So by the numbers, 5600-6400 grafts total are available in the average donor. I am not sure if I read into the earlier statement right, but because FUE can go into the so called forbidden area, 1200 more grafts are available as compared to FUT?

 

Mwamba cites his yield as 98-99%, which I imagine are similar to Lorenzo's, and I imagine considerably above the non-elites, although it is of course by self-report.

 

Does anyone know if formal FUE yield averages have been published in the peer reviewed medical literature? (ie Pubmed)

 

When he says 98-99% he is probably talking about transection rather that growth yield. The reason being that he quotes '300 punches giving 295-300 grafts'.

 

Someone on here quoted Lorenzo as telling him he guarantees a minimum 85% yield.

[chrisdav]

When he says 98-99% he is probably talking about transection rather that growth yield. The reason being that he quotes '300 punches giving 295-300 grafts'.

 

Someone on here quoted Lorenzo as telling him he guarantees a minimum 85% yield.

 

 

I agree with the bottom statement but not the first one. He is implying he has a 1 to 2 percent transection rate and for a larger session size I am not so sure.

Edited September 4, 2014 by chrisdav

[1978matt]

I agree with the bottom statement but not the first one. He is implying he has a 1 to 2 percent transection rate and for a larger I am not so sure.

 

I think you're actually agreeing with what I meant since 295/300 X 100 = 98%..

 

So yeah, 1-2% aren't viable.