Are hair transplant 'slow growers' really a thing?

[fisher4man]

There is varying differences between hair restoration clinics on what is slow growth. I've read up to 12 months in most. Very few folks claim over that amount, unless there is some sort of unusual circumstance.

 

What do the studies say? What do the majority say?

 

This needs to be settled upon. I find it disheartening when a patient waits over 18 months and yet is in the same boat, but now with time lost and further delays. Very rarely did any drastic difference occur beyond 12 months from most results posted across forums. I don't know how a conclusion of over 18 months can be made regarding graft growth based on those examples.

 

I think we all agree that at least 12 months should have passed after the HT before we can evaluate the result and starting accusing docs.

 

For the final evaluation, 12 months for FUT is enough, but for a large scale FUE it may be 18 months.

 

This is just my personal opinion. So I would like to invite the coalition/recommended doctors ın this thread to share their opinion.

[Cryingoutloud]

I don't NEED the surgeons' opinions.

 

Most of us have seen enough results and the timelines associated with those results to know that minimal or zero growth at 9 months is tantamount to a write-off.

[fisher4man]

I don't NEED the surgeons' opinions.

 

Most of us have seen enough results and the timelines associated with those results to know that minimal or zero growth at 9 months is tantamount to a write-off.

 

OK, agree with you Crying for no growth after 9 mos, , but what about if there is moderate (acceptable) amount of growth (but not considered to be sufficient) after 9 months?

 

Will we cry for our refunds or will be accept to wait for more 6 months?

 

Some new growth and especially thickening of the individual hairs will still occur after 12th month, especially when it comes to FUE on individuals with thick hairs and less density over donor areas.

 

And this is unreasonable statement: .............. number of grafts should have given better density. (What about the hair density over donors at the beginning?)

 

We should differentiate FUT from FUE first, here, which technique we are talking about regarding growth time frame after the operation??

[fisher4man]

OK my personal opinion about the topic lastly;

 

For FUT: Stop the haircut at 9th month, then post pictures at 12th month.

 

For low scale FUE (FUE for NW1-3 before age 35-40): the same as for FUT.

 

For large scale FUE (FUE for NW4-7 with more than 3000 grafts, after age 40-50, low capacity, low density donors): Stop haircut at 15th month, then post pictures at 18th month.

 

If the result is really insufficient growth, we can cry out for our refunds. And I think never any doc. would dare to say "wait more months." We should take back their most important guns from their hands before.

 

I really bored to see crying folks 3-8 months after HT claiming insufficient yield but without providing pictures or with pictures with very short haircut. I know what the doc. will say if moderators ask his/her opinion about that. I wanna see something different, interesting explanation from the doc.

 

Crying; If you do not need docs' opinions, you must not need hair transplant also.

I respect all crying men/women, earlier or later.

[Cryingoutloud]

 

Crying; If you do not need docs' opinions, you must not need hair transplant also.

I respect all crying men/women, earlier or later.

 

Er ok, whatever you say but here's a tip; the subtleties of wit can easily be lost in clumsy use of the English language.

 

I meant that I don't need surgeons' opinions on slow growth since AS I SAID - I was told I was a slow grower by my first doc. My second doc's expertise and competence has shown me that I an NOT a slow grower.

[fisher4man]

Er ok, whatever you say but here's a tip; the subtleties of wit can easily be lost in clumsy use of the English language.

 

I meant that I don't need surgeons' opinions on slow growth since AS I SAID - I was told I was a slow grower by my first doc. My second doc's expertise and competence has shown me that I an NOT a slow grower.

 

I have not said that you were slow grower.

 

You make me feel embaressed and your patronizıng tone is unfair, commenting about my ınability to exprsess myself. I do all my best to express myself as accurate as possible. This is an ınternational forum and we should respect everyones comment.

[gillenator]

Guys,

 

There's no question about differences in individuals' regrowth and the timelines that support them. Parts of the equation are the variances in each individual's auto-immune system, follicle cyclical behaviors, other medical issues, age differences. etc, etc. Those are subjective factors and very difficult to track and/or document, and especially so if labs and biopsies are not used in the evaluation process. So we are left to notice the differences with our naked eyes right?

 

Here's the deal. Regrowth from any HT procedure can potentially be charted and monitored if only the clinics would use the technology that is available today.

 

Even as far back as fifteen years ago when I used to work inside the clinics, we used to take high density digital photos of the patient's recipient area and then downloaded the pics on a hard drive. When thumb drives hit the stores, we offered the photos to our clients so they had them ready and available to view at any time. We took before and after shots from varying angles and then the images can be magnified at any time in the future.

 

We had the patients come back in the clinic at 3 month intervals for follow-ups and more pics. The individual patients could see the results or lack of them directly. It is also possible to note and chart sympathetic shock loss because with digital high density photos, you can distinguish between native hair and the grafts. You can track the regrowth and yield to a high level of accuracy.

 

Yet clinics typically do not offer this type of follow-up service, some do but they are few in number. Some charge for this. Most clinics are too busy doing procedures that they do not have the support to track yields and I suppose it could also present some problems for the clinics when the yields are subpar. Think of what a can of worms that could be for any clinic.

 

But my point is that the technology and/or the means to track and chart these type of things are available today and that would diffuse the ambiguous dialogue.

[Transhair]

Thanks for the replies. Guess I'll just have to wait it out until month 10 and hope for a boom of growth

[gillenator]

Thanks for the replies. Guess I'll just have to wait it out until month 10 and hope for a boom of growth

 

I think the other critical factor that you will benefit from is maturation of hair caliber from the grafts. For most individuals, the optimal improvement of visual coverage is seen once 12-15 months pass.

 

IMHO, the degree of hair caliber is more of a factor in gaining the illusion of coverage than density itself.

 

The bottom line is that the benefits of any procedure cannot be fairly assessed until both regrowth and caliber maturation is fulfilled...

[mikeey]

gillenator .... considering that you have worked in a HT clinic , so obviously u have better power of Personal experience from the patients who come for Progress at 3- 4 Months ?

 

what is the reasonable expectation of Hair sprouting from the skin at 4 Months Post HT , I Know for a Fact that NOT ALL GRAFTS will pierce the skin and Grow By 4 Months , But if we were to Put a % estimate of the Grafts that Might have already Pierced the skin By Month 4 .... How much would you think grows by that time ?

 

Some guys here suggest that By Max Month 3-4 Almost all Viable Hair has SPROUTED and after that its only Maturing and Thickening .... is that even True ?

 

Pls give us some knowledge of your experience , as More and More guys are going for FUE .... the Confusion is getting " BIGGER "

[gillenator]

mikeey,

 

Good question. Let me first state that there are variables and other factors that can affect the regrowth timetable so possibly I can just express what is the normality when the surgeon is skilled and competent.

 

At 3-4 months post-op, the regrowth is just starting to break above the scalp line and very little new growth is visible for a large percent of patients. IMHO, that is attributable to the fact that a much larger amount of the transplanted hair follicles go into the telogen phase 2-3 weeks post-op and rest for another 3 months in that dormant phase.

 

The nice thing about using high powered magnification is that it is possible to see the new hair bristles just starting to break surface and some that are directly below the surface, especially those individuals with dark hair color.

 

No, it's just not true that almost all of the regrowth has sprouted about the scalp line and visible at 3-4 months post-op. It's just starting to sprout and that is for a much higher percent of patients across the board. It's really at the 5-7 month period that the regrowth is coming through on average 75% of the grafts and very visible.

 

Exceptions? Sure. Let me explain. FUE surgeons who are very skilled with their manual extraction techniques can see two things improve. More of the grafts remain in the growth phase and yes the regrowth can occur faster because there is less overall trauma to the grafts. If the trauma can be reduced, then a higher percent of the follicles can potentially remain in the growth phase. And we hear this more often when guys say that some of their grafts do not shed as quickly and continue to grow immediately post-op.

 

Some of the top docs are also coating or placing the grafts in cool solutions like ACELL that can reduce the volume of free radicals that can begin to fester and attach to the grafts once they are taken out of the scalp. This is true for both FUHT and FUE. The quicker that the graft tissue is placed back into the scalp, the better. Yield improves and so can the regrowth period.

 

But it's hard to say what percentage because first of all, there are very few clinical studies or documentation being done to show/prove the variations. I consider Dr. Cooley to be one of the top and very few docs who are devoted to clinical improvements in this area, including the documentation to support it. It's also hard for me to say which docs go the extra mile in graft preservation because I don't work for them.

 

It's in the result that counts...and after all, that's what we all want..