3 day post op FUE. Is this right?

[thomas975]

Hi i just finished a 3000 graft FUE from Dr. Hall in Austin. Does this look right? I dont see how this could be 3k grafts. Does it look right? Its been 3 days since the operation.

 

I had a great experience with them and they were very nice but not sure about the job itself. Thanks for any input.

[BUSA]

lol no offense bro but that definitely is NOT 3000 grafts implanted. looks more like 750 grafts implanted.

 

but it does look as tho in the donor area that far more grafts were removed. just doesn't look like they were implanted into ur head.

[shanson]

Yes this does not look like 3000 grafts. Im not sure how 'lol' is a helpful response or that it would help you in any way...

I would be on the phone to the clinic and asking the Dr questions about the graft numbers. Or even go to another Dr at another clinic to get another opinion.

All the best with it.

Edited April 26, 2015 by shanson

[TakingThePlunge]

I highly recommend carefully photo documenting the recipient area and perhaps have someone assist you in counting the incision sites. A agree that this appears to be far fewer than 3000 grafts.

[thomas975]

Thanks guys, no offense takin. I just wanted some honest opinions on it. I need to talk to the Dr. about this

[BadBeat]

I agree with the other posters...also, what's the deal with those random grafts scattered around the middle of your head? I'm not sure if I've seen that before.

[Dolph1969]

Was it 3000 grafts or hairs?

[thomas975]

3000 grafts. Dang I just got a bad job. This sucks. I talked to the Dr and he insists its okay. What options would I have to challenge this? Thanks for the help guys.

[shanson]

I'd go somewhere else and see if they could give an opinion on how many grafts they would say you have had. try to find out how many grafts have been taken from the back of your head and how many have been placed in the transplanted area. Have everything documented.

I do not know how i would be feeling in your shoes at this time. I hope you can get some answers.

[ontop]

I don't know it could very well be 3K grafts as he had most of zone 1 fulled up.

Can't be 100% sure just by them pics though.

 

Ask the Dr of the graft break down, if he's on the up & up he would have that on record for you.

 

Other than that go & get a 2nd opp so while its still fresh be easyer for them to see.

[BUSA]

take some close ups with an HD camera from multiple angles as David suggested and then post em up

[JohnCasper]

I agree with everyone above. This does not look like 3,000 grafts, or individual hairs. Also, there is such a random nature to the implantation. Hope you can get some additional information and/or confirmation from the doctor. Hope you got what you actually paid for.

[Blake Bloxham]

Thomas,

 

Unfortunately, it doesn't look like 3,000 grafts were implanted. However, it does look like a significant amount of grafts were removed from the donor region?

 

I think a few things may have happened:

 

Ideally, there are two steps to extraction via FUE: scoring of the skin and delivery of the graft. When the skin is scored but the graft is unable to be delivered successfully, the graft is lost to a phenomenon called the failed attempt to successful extraction ratio. I think there is a chance your skin was scored 3,000 times, but there was much less than 3,000 grafts delivered and implanted. This means you may have experienced a high failed attempt to successful extraction ratio, and could explain why it looks like there are many more extraction sites to actual grafts implanted.

 

Another possibility is that 3,000 grafts were scored and delivered, but many were transected and, therefore, implantation wasn't attempted.

 

Unfortunately -- and I'm not trying to bash the procedure -- both these are realities of FUE. Let us know if we can help in any other way. Good luck.

[sutureless]

But assuming there are less than 1000 grafts implanted, how could there be transection of so many grafts? unless the job done was very substandard?

[stinger99]

This is horrible. I'd be extremely upset with the Dr. It is not 3000 grafts, completely scattered And I don't see how this can be justified as a good job from the Dr. I'd be so pissed.

[paddyirishman]

This doctor has allowed you to leave the clinic without giving you any explanation of what occurred in your HT procedure, PRETENDING all was good and well. I would strongly urge you to take all of the good advice given above in the previous posts .

I hope and wish you the very best ........................Paddy.

[Michael Vories, MD]

3000 grafts should never have been scored with so few implanted. If the transection rate was this high, then the procedure should have been aborted and spared the patient the follicular wastage.

[pkipling]

This is extremely puzzling. I hope you're able to get to the bottom of this. Document it with photos and set up an appointment with another HT surgeon asap to get another professional opinion on the books.

 

I really can't imagine how this could've happened - and why the doctor is seemingly acting like this is completely normal is beyond me.

 

Best of luck.

[Swooping]

Thomas,

 

Unfortunately, it doesn't look like 3,000 grafts were implanted. However, it does look like a significant amount of grafts were removed from the donor region?

 

I think a few things may have happened:

 

Ideally, there are two steps to extraction via FUE: scoring of the skin and delivery of the graft. When the skin is scored but the graft is unable to be delivered successfully, the graft is lost to a phenomenon called the failed attempt to successful extraction ratio. I think there is a chance your skin was scored 3,000 times, but there was much less than 3,000 grafts delivered and implanted. This means you may have experienced a high failed attempt to successful extraction ratio, and could explain why it looks like there are many more extraction sites to actual grafts implanted.

 

Another possibility is that 3,000 grafts were scored and delivered, but many were transected and, therefore, implantation wasn't attempted.

 

Unfortunately -- and I'm not trying to bash the procedure -- both these are realities of FUE. Let us know if we can help in any other way. Good luck.

 

I'm curious now, but how can this be a reality Blake? If I would be a surgeon I would take a sample of 100 or let's say 50 randomized grafts from the donor and analyze those on transection (typically by microscope I guess). From that point one could calculate the average transection rate and decide whether someone is a good candidate.

 

How would that go in a typical scenario you describe? Someone punches out 3000 grafts and checks them one by one? How, on eyesight? How do they quickly decide which one is viable and which one not? Assuming one would operate in this way it sounds pretty illogical too as it may indeed lead to high graft wastage as Dr. Vories mentioned here. Thank you in advance for explaining.

 

@OP I would strongly advise you to take a high resolution picture (macro) preferably of both your donor and recipient. From the pictures provided it does definitely look less than 3000 grafts.

[Blake Bloxham]

Swoop,

 

Generally, most do smaller extraction tests to make sure patients are even FUE candidates. Most doctors check a number of grafts -- like you described above -- and ensure they are getting okay extraction. It's normally somewhere between 75% to 80% (I think I've heard Dr Vories say he will cancel and recommend strip if he isn't getting at least 80% during the test, and I know Dr Feller does similar analysis). Many check angle and depth requirements during this test as well.

 

Remember, this isn't the only factor affecting yield. Just because a graft isn't obviously transected does not mean it will grow okay.

 

Technically, you could check all the grafts. Many clinics still have the technicians examine and trim the FUE grafts under a microscope. However, usually transection is more obvious and doesn't require this type of analysis.

 

But, I think the first scenario I described is more likely what happened. Dr Vories' comments echoed this. It seemed like there were a large number of grafts scored, but there were issues with delivery. This means you see 3,000 score marks in the skin, but a much smaller number were actually delivered and implanted. This could mean the grafts that were delivered underwent a lot of stress/strain as well.

 

Hopefully this makes sense.

[hairweare]

Some quick research reveals that Dr. Hall has a general plastic surgery practice and does not specialize per se in hair restoration. His webpage also states that he utilizes the Neograft procedure so the question arises did the doctor or a technician do the actual procedure? Dr. Vories who commented earlier once used this device but has subsequently abandoned it in favor of the more hands on manual methodology which requires the full participation of the physician, skill and experience in addition to a learning curve. I wish that your result will be satisfactory but I have my doubts based on the pictures that you have posted.

[zx_toth]

Yikes dude. Sorry about the experience. I went on the Dr's website and most of his results look that they were likely from the propecia he probably prescribes and not the hair transplants he performs as all of them seem like minimal aesthetic improvements and some of the pictures seem to be intentionally blurred ... my spidey sense telling me something is not right here.

[Noodles123]

Wow.... Even a lay person would be able to tell that this clearly is not 3000 grafts. Looks like there was a significant amount of attempts, but only a fraction were actually implanted. I agree with everyone that you should thoroughly document this, as this is clearly far below the standard of care. This is out and out deception. A lot of shady surgeons sometimes try to confuse patients by using "grafts" and "number of hairs" interchangeably, but even if this was "by number of hairs" it would not amount to 3000 hairs.

 

Sorry dude. This guy has no ethics at all, and unfortunately he seems to have wasted a lot of your grafts.

[Swooping]

Swoop,

 

Generally, most do smaller extraction tests to make sure patients are even FUE candidates. Most doctors check a number of grafts -- like you described above -- and ensure they are getting okay extraction. It's normally somewhere between 75% to 80% (I think I've heard Dr Vories say he will cancel and recommend strip if he isn't getting at least 80% during the test, and I know Dr Feller does similar analysis). Many check angle and depth requirements during this test as well.

 

Remember, this isn't the only factor affecting yield. Just because a graft isn't obviously transected does not mean it will grow okay.

 

Technically, you could check all the grafts. Many clinics still have the technicians examine and trim the FUE grafts under a microscope. However, usually transection is more obvious and doesn't require this type of analysis.

 

But, I think the first scenario I described is more likely what happened. Dr Vories' comments echoed this. It seemed like there were a large number of grafts scored, but there were issues with delivery. This means you see 3,000 score marks in the skin, but a much smaller number were actually delivered and implanted. This could mean the grafts that were delivered underwent a lot of stress/strain as well.

 

Hopefully this makes sense.

 

Thanks, appreciate the response. I understand it more clearly now. I assume the neograft can contribute to such problems even more.

 

@OP sorry for gliding a bit off topic, keep us updated about the situation please.

[Blake Bloxham]

Swoop,

 

No problem!