Jump to content

1780 grafts by Dr. Ivan S. Cohen


Recommended Posts

  • Senior Member

Very natural. Thanks for sharing.

"Doc" Blake Bloxham - formerly "Future_HT_Doc"

 

Forum Co-Moderator and Editorial Assistant for the Hair Transplant Network, the Hair Loss Learning Center, the Hair Loss Q&A Blog, and the Hair Restoration Forum

 

All opinions are my own and my advice does not constitute as medical advice. All medical questions and concerns should be addressed by a personal physician.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sorry, but 661 grafts shud be reserved for FUE not FUT and the patient is still thin up front and it appears as tho the grafts didn't take on the left side. there is a clear patch of hair missing there.

 

not a good result. patient needed about a 1000 grafts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Senior Member
sorry, but 661 grafts shud be reserved for FUE not FUT and the patient is still thin up front and it appears as tho the grafts didn't take on the left side. there is a clear patch of hair missing there.

 

not a good result. patient needed about a 1000 grafts.

 

BUSA,

 

I think you've misread this post. The patient received 1780 grafts. 661 were singles.

David - Former Forum Co-Moderator and Editorial Assistant

 

I am not a medical professional. All opinions are my own and my advice should not constitute as medical advice.

 

View my Hair Loss Website

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well, then thats even worse cause it looks like he got about 400 grafts and as stated he has an obvious bald spot on the left side of his head where no grafts took place. even at 1780 grafts thats way to small for an FUT session risking poor scar healing.

 

with 1780 grafts for an area that small it shud be stuffed with grafts and very dense. its neither stuffed or dense. in fact, it looks quite thin even with the poor pictures he has presented.

 

his yield is just not very good and it never is with the work he presents.

 

this guy just doesn't do good work. I've yet to see anything from him that has the "Wow" factor. I'm really not sure why he is even recommended here.

 

and the other issue with recommended doctors here like him is he was recommended here for his FUT work which was nothn special to begin with but rarely posts any FUE work and the FUE work he posts is really small sessions and they don't even look good.

 

no one has ever recommended him for FUE when ppl ask who wud u go to in the northeast. his name is never mentioned yet someone looking to have FUE done wud look at the recommended doctors in this area and see that he is recommended for FUE work.

 

he is not recommended for FUE work cause his FUE work is terrible so that is very misleading for someone who thinks if HTH recommended him then his FUE work has to be great. its not.

 

I really think this network for which THOUSANDS come to for direction and advice shud separate the doctors who are recommended for FUT vs. FUE cause both are two totally and separate disciplines. several doctors were recommended under FUT then decided that FUE is now becoming the future of HT and then started dabbling with FUE.

 

this guy has NEVER demonstrated even (1) case FUE that ppl would look at and say "Yea he shud b recommended". its very misleading Dave.

 

 

BUSA,

 

I think you've misread this post. The patient received 1780 grafts. 661 were singles.

Edited by BUSA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Senior Member

Busa,

 

You are certainly entitled to your opinion regarding particular results. However, I disagree with your assessment of Dr. Cohen and searching the forum for his results will show that other members have also posted positive responses to his work.

 

I also think that this result is appropriate for the number of grafts used. However, viewing photos of the graft placement would help us better judge that.

 

and the other issue with recommended doctors here like him is he was recommended here for his FUT work which was nothn special to begin with but rarely posts any FUE work and the FUE work he posts is really small sessions and they don't even look good.
You go on quite a bit here about FUE for some reason. This procedure has nothing to do with FUE. Are you implying that we should only recommend physicians that perform FUE or, if they perform strip surgery, then they must also perform FUE?

 

While FUE has made leaps and bounds over the past few years in terms of yield and session sizes, strip surgery is certainly not obsolete and is still the preferred procedure for many hair loss sufferers today.

 

When a physician is recommended by our community, they present examples of their work for review. That work can be strip or FUE. It can be manual, motorized, robotic, etc. We don't discriminate based on such criteria. What we are concerned with is the final outcome. Is it natural? Cosmetically appealing? Is the patient happy with the result? If there were complications, did the physician stand behind his work?

 

What we provide are tools. It's the responsibility of each prospective hair loss patient to use those tools to fully research each doctor that interests them prior to moving forward with surgery and we counsel members to do that very thing. Aside from pre-screening and recommending hair transplant surgeons, we offer a wealth of advice via our Hair Loss Q&A Blog as well as maintaining a high-profile here in the discussion forum to help patients make informed decisions when choosing a doctor. The best physician for one patient is not necessarily the best doctor for the next. In the end, patient satisfaction is the deciding factor when it comes to rating physicians.

 

You've called us misleading and taken many opportunities to undermine the criteria by which we recommend hair transplant surgeons and to further demean many of the doctors recommended here. The very same criteria that has built this community into arguably the largest and most respected hair restoration discussion forum on the Web.

 

Whenever I see members repeatedly bashing the foundations of this community, I'm left wondering why they persist in coming here at all.

David - Former Forum Co-Moderator and Editorial Assistant

 

I am not a medical professional. All opinions are my own and my advice should not constitute as medical advice.

 

View my Hair Loss Website

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Senior Member

It looks like many grafts didn't take. I would have expected a much better result from almost 2000 grafts in such a small area. Also, for a small case like this, I would have opted for FUE. I would love to have this patient's hair loss pattern.

I am not a medical professional and my words should not be taken as medical advice. All opinions and views shared are my own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys,

 

I think many of you overestimate what 200 grafts can achieve. Also, keep in mind that the number of grafts is only one factor that determines the result. The number of hairs, hair characteristics and placement is also highly important.

 

Also, please keep the FUT/strip versus FUE debate off topics where physicians are showcasing FUT/strip results. Despite the popularity of FUE, FUT/strip is still a viable hair transplant procedure and produces excellent results.

 

Best wishes,

 

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

BUSA why are you blathering on about FUE? This doctor specializes in strip, and this is a strip procedure.....who cares whether he does great FUE or not.
really? then why did he just invest in a ARTAS machine then at $200k? u can take ur foot out of ur mouth now....:rolleyes:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...