Who's Better? Dr. Rahal or Turkey Docs?

[JoeTillman]

Most surgeons are capable of producing a low dense hairline, the question really is should they actually do it.

 

"Dense" I guess is subjective but I strongly disagree with your "most" comment. I do agree with the latter question, "should they actually do it?". In many cases the answer is a resounding "no".

[hairweare]

OK, Joe perhaps a good thing that "most" are not capable as dense is often the enemy of natural or artistic. I stand by my comment that particularly among young patients whose later progression of hair loss remains to be seen, just opting for a dense hairline can turn out to be a mistake and not all doctors have the integrity to dissuade them from such a poor plan.

[JoeTillman]

Agreed.

[fueguy]

well, Turkey has a couple great doctors but also has quite a few clowns so ur question is too vague. I wud chose Erdogan over Rahal tho since Edogan is the best in Turkey hands down no debate. I think u will get better density and it will cost a hell of a lot less. hairline design wud be close imo.

 

Agree. Only a few good ones out of Turkey. And all are FUE. Forget strip. Maybe it costs less for USA guys. But if you’re from Canada like me, forget it. The Canadian dollar has taken a hit and with the exchange rate, travel, etc. you will come out on par. Personally I choose Rahal over Edogan. Edogan does ok work. But Rahal's unmatched for density and hairlines.

 

It's pretty established that strip has a higher graft survival rate than FUE.

Says who? Just because both Feller and Lindsay have admitted that their FUE survival rate is 40% less than strip does not mean it is.

 

You get FUE and shave, maybe some scarring, maybe not.

If you get FUE and shave, you will see white dots. Others might not notice. But you will.

 

If you want to shave, get smp for the dots.

 

No guarantees, no warranties, no reversing the procedure. That why it called 'elective' surgery.

 

Well said!

 

I saw it. Thanks! I'm definitely going to get FUT (strip). I also stumbled upon "ultra refined follicular unit grafting." I wonder if Rahal performs this also.

 

“ultra refined follicular unit grafting” is just follicular units transplantation.

 

Most surgeons are capable of producing a low dense hairline, the question really is should they actually do it.

 

Anything above 55-60 is a waste and not needed.

[KO]

I think Rahal's FUT work is phenomenal. For FUE though I don't think he is better than other docs.

[ersko72]

I appreciate the pics on Rahal's website are better than Erdogan's - but that could just be wiser pic selection. It's the pics from patients & their stories that are a better indicator of a typical outcome.

 

I'm open to the possibility of Erdogan's FUE creating the same density as Rahal's FUE, but am having trouble finding customer supplied pics + reviews to back it up. Has anyone seen many patient stories for Erdogan? Importantly, have there been any disappointing outcomes?

[taurusrisen]

I haven't seen ANY strip doctors perform better work the Erdogan has with FUE so you can think wat u want but in the end you WILL have the dreaded "I had a HT strip scar" no matter how you slice it wen choosing to go FUT. doesn't matter who you chose!

 

then you will need MORE FUE grafts to fill in ur strip scar so FUT is NOT the best solution period!

 

Hi, I dont think you understand. I'm electing to go the FUT route. That eliminates FUE or docs that perform FUE. Its generally established that FUT generates better hair survival after harvest and therefore greater density yield. I dont plan to shave the back of my head since I've always looked good with long hair (in the style of Antonio Banderas or Duran Duran) and will continue to grow it long.

[taurusrisen]

Agree. Only a few good ones out of Turkey. And all are FUE. Forget strip. Maybe it costs less for USA guys. But if you’re from Canada like me, forget it. The Canadian dollar has taken a hit and with the exchange rate, travel, etc. you will come out on par. Personally I choose Rahal over Edogan. Edogan does ok work. But Rahal's unmatched for density and hairlines.

 

I'm coming from USA (NYC) so I think the exchange rate will be favorable in my case.

 

Says who? Just because both Feller and Lindsay have admitted that their FUE survival rate is 40% less than strip does not mean it is.

 

But its generally accepted by both docs and patients that FUT's survival rate is greater than FUE. I'm now somewhat confused. You said you chose Rahal over Erdogan. But if you think FUT isn’t any better than FUE why are you choosing Rahal over Erdogan knowing that Rahal is better known for strip?

 

I’m going with strip. Most people across the forum agree that it’s a better technique for hair survival than FUE.

 

Anything above 55-60 is a waste and not needed.

 

At the consultation, Rahal told me he'd give me 50 grafts/cm. I'd apprecaite it if someone could provide pics of good results showing what 50 grafts/cm looks like.

 

I appreciate the pics on Rahal's website are better than Erdogan's - but that could just be wiser pic selection.

 

But all docs pre-select pics.

[voxman]

Jeez guys, this back and forth conversation could go on for years.

 

To quote NIKE, "Just Do It."

[BUSA]

Hi, I dont think you understand. I'm electing to go the FUT route. That eliminates FUE or docs that perform FUE. Its generally established that FUT generates better hair survival after harvest and therefore greater density yield. I dont plan to shave the back of my head since I've always looked good with long hair (in the style of Antonio Banderas or Duran Duran) and will continue to grow it long.

yes many years ago FUT wud yield more grafts and u wud be lucky to see even 3000 FUE grafts transplanted and that was considered a MEGA session.

 

I don't see evidence of that today. ppl can make that argument all they want but FUE these days consistently produces 5000-6000 grafts which is just as many as you see from FUT doctors performing strip these days.

 

1 out every 50 strip procedures will have a disfiguring scar. its a barbaric procedure and completely goes against the first rule in medicine which is "Do no harm". the strip procedure grew directly out of the crude punch graft procedure. its simply a crude variation and evolution of the punch which is why the majority of ppl on this forum chose FUE not FUT.

 

not to mention the number of grafts destroyed taking a scalpel to the back of ur head and carving out a chunk of flesh. yes grafts are destroyed when u cut the scalp to remove the flesh containing grafts so watever yield u think FUT gives u by saving grafts is canceled out by the number of grafts destroyed getting them.

 

the yield from a top FUE doctor is over 95%. ur not gonna get any better yield with FUT yet you risk the dreaded tell take strip scar as a result.

 

if ur reason for not wanting FUE is because u need to shave ur head down in that area then I wud say u have ur priorities backwards. ur hair will grow back after being shaved. the scar you will have for a lifetime!

[taurusrisen]

 

I don't see evidence of that today. ppl can make that argument all they want but FUE these days consistently produces 5000-6000 grafts which is just as many as you see from FUT doctors performing strip these days.

 

1 out every 50 strip procedures will have a disfiguring scar.

 

the yield from a top FUE doctor is over 95%. ur not gonna get any better yield with FUT yet you risk the dreaded tell take strip scar as a result.

!

 

You didn't read my last post. My aim is to get the most density possible. If FUT delivers greater hair survival than FUE, then thats what counts in my case. Like I said in my prior post, I got long hair in the back. That being the case, 6 months post op, the long hair in the back will have grown long to conceal any scar.

 

So why do docs and patients overwhelmingly say that FUT possesses a greater survival rate than FUE? Are you saying that the docs with years of experience with both FUE and FUT are wrong? If thats what youre saying, then what are your medical credentials to back up such a claim?

[paddyirishman]

Your hair will thin at the back over the years as you get older! in years to come you could very well regret having a scar like many!

The doctors that say there is more yield in FUT are the ones who have not Fully mastered FUE . There are some great doctors in the world who can give you what you want and more in terms of density and yield with FUE.

Do not be narrow minded my friend.

 

All the best .........................Paddy.

[ersko72]

I think what Taurusrisen is saying is that he perfectly understands he'd have a scar with FUT, however his personal preference is to accept a scar in favour of greater yield/density.

 

I can relate. I also have a big preference for no scar, however my bigger fear is poor density. If the same density/yield can be achieved with the best FUE specialists (compared to the best FUT specialists -eg Rahal), then I'm all for booking a trip to Turkey or Belgium.

 

The trouble is there isn't many patient outcomes from the best FUE docs that surpass the bets FUT docs.....or maybe I'm not looking hard enough for the good news 'wow' results?

[KO]

You didn't read my last post. My aim is to get the most density possible. If FUT delivers greater hair survival than FUE, then thats what counts in my case. Like I said in my prior post, I got long hair in the back. That being the case, 6 months post op, the long hair in the back will have grown long to conceal any scar.

 

So why do docs and patients overwhelmingly say that FUT possesses a greater survival rate than FUE? Are you saying that the docs with years of experience with both FUE and FUT are wrong? If thats what youre saying, then what are your medical credentials to back up such a claim?

 

I do not understand why you are arguing. You decided on FUT, go for it!

[hairweare]

Ersko, correct you are not looking hard enough or in the right places.

[BUSA]

You didn't read my last post. My aim is to get the most density possible. If FUT delivers greater hair survival than FUE, then thats what counts in my case. Like I said in my prior post, I got long hair in the back. That being the case, 6 months post op, the long hair in the back will have grown long to conceal any scar.

 

So why do docs and patients overwhelmingly say that FUT possesses a greater survival rate than FUE? Are you saying that the docs with years of experience with both FUE and FUT are wrong? If thats what youre saying, then what are your medical credentials to back up such a claim?

dude do wat u want. if u want a big scar from ear to ear on the back of ur head go for it. many years ago FUT wud yield more grafts. that simply isn't the case these days.

 

why is that Erdogan, Lorenzo and Maras who are considered probably the 3 top doctors on the planet all perform FUE? u think its because FUT produces better results. it doesn't. if it did they wud be exclusively doing FUT. their not. their exclusively performing FUE.

 

wat wud make u think carving a huge chunk of flesh from the back of ur scalp wud be the preferred way to go? cause some FUT doctor told u so? doctors prefer FUT cause its easier to perform and isn't as labor intensive. time is money. u wanna be that sucker then go for it! its ur head and ur money.

 

but just know ur NOT gonna get better yield with FUT if u go to a top FUE doctor but you will absolutely be left with an ear to ear scar on the back of head looking like u just auditioned for a horror flic!

[taurusrisen]

I think what Taurusrisen is saying is that he perfectly understands he'd have a scar with FUT, however his personal preference is to accept a scar in favour of greater yield/density.

 

I can relate. I also have a big preference for no scar, however my bigger fear is poor density.

 

 

Exactly. Why sacrifice density for a scar when I’ll be growing my hair long in the back?

 

I do not understand why you are arguing. You decided on FUT, go for it!

 

What the hell are you talking about??! Nobody is arguing.

 

Your hair will thin at the back over the years as you get older! in years to come you could very well regret having a scar like many!

The doctors that say there is more yield in FUT are the ones who have not Fully mastered FUE.

.

 

As I’ve said before (its getting repetitive now), I’ve always had long hair in the back and will keep it long. I’m 99.99% sure the scar wont be visible through all that hair.

 

How do you know that the docs who say theres more yield in FUT aren’t that skillful in FUE? Did you ask them all?

 

dude do wat u want. if u want a big scar from ear to ear on the back of ur head go for it. many years ago FUT wud yield more grafts. that simply isn't the case these days.

 

u think its because FUT produces better results. it doesn't. if it did they wud be exclusively doing FUT. their not. their exclusively performing FUE.

 

wat wud make u think carving a huge chunk of flesh from the back of ur scalp wud be the preferred way to go? cause some FUT doctor told u so? doctors prefer FUT cause its easier to perform and isn't as labor intensive. time is money. u wanna be that sucker then go for it! its ur head and ur money.

!

 

First of all, calm down, its not that serious. Second, how do you know FUT doesn’t produce better results? And third, the docs who do FUE do so to satisfy clients who don’t want a scar, not necessarily because they think it’s a better density harvest than FUT. If FUT produced less density than FUE then why don’t FUT docs get on the FUE bandwagon?

 

But I admit I did talk to a Rahal rep. I asked him which was better. He said both produce equal results with FUE costing more than FUT. This is somewhat strange but will follow up with him or another rep just to confirm.

[mav23100gunther]

"What the hell are you talking about??! Nobody is arguing."

 

Be nice!

 

 

 

"First of all, calm down, its not that serious. Second, how do you know FUT doesn’t produce better results?"

 

He doesn't!

 

 

"And third, the docs who do FUE do so to satisfy clients who don’t want a scar, not necessarily because they think it’s a better density harvest than FUT."

 

Beep, wrong - although the FUE docs do perform FUE due the law of supply and demand, they also perform FUE as an alternative to FUT when strip patients have been stripped out, or have horrid laxity, or require scar repairs via FUE transplants into the scar. You also gotta believe that some docs like Erdogan believe in FUE and stand behind the results. Dr Maras recommended I go with FUE rather than FUT because he believes he can get a better density result as he can cherry pick the number of 2s and 3s (which you can't do in FUT) - so I think in the right hands, FUE could probably match FUT - although I myself would still hedge my bets on FUT to achieve better density.

 

"If FUT produced less density than FUE then why don’t FUT docs get on the FUE bandwagon?"

 

Almost all FUT docs have jumped onto the FUE bandwagon, including Dr. Hasson & Wong now, but to your point that's probably more to keep up with the times (supply & demand) than because of the density issue.

 

 

"But I admit I did talk to a Rahal rep. I asked him which was better. He said both produce equal results with FUE costing more than FUT. This is somewhat strange but will follow up with him or another rep just to confirm"

 

Yup, of course the rep will state this, but don't believe it for a a second -especially if we are talking about Rahal. Just take a read through Sean's Rahal FUE thread. After two tries, Rahal is even going to pay for a FUE procedure with another surgeon for the guy. Rahal has definitely gotten better, but his FUE results are nowhere near his FUT results. It still shocks me how many informed patients elect to pay such a fortune for FUE in the states when it's so much cheaper in Europe for better quality FUE results. I guess a fool and his money are soon parted.

[BUSA]

First of all, calm down, its not that serious. Second, how do you know FUT doesn’t produce better results? And third, the docs who do FUE do so to satisfy clients who don’t want a scar, not necessarily because they think it’s a better density harvest than FUT. If FUT produced less density than FUE then why don’t FUT docs get on the FUE bandwagon?

 

But I admit I did talk to a Rahal rep. I asked him which was better. He said both produce equal results with FUE costing more than FUT. This is somewhat strange but will follow up with him or another rep just to confirm.

listen, I'm jus says that u won't notice anymore or less grafts with either procedure if done by capable hands.

 

I get that u have long hair so its less of a concern from now. yes FUE will cost more. FUT doctors don't get on the band wagon simply because they don't want to take the time to learn a new procedure. FUT is easier to perform and takes less time.

 

I get it its ur decision I'm jus sayn why risk the scar? u probably won't have any issues with the scar but 1 in 5 do. do u wanna be the 1? but I'm telln ya Rahal is correct both will produce the same results essentially.

 

good luck with watever decision u make. its ur head, ur money and ur choice. I hope it works out for u either way cause we all know how much it fukn sux losing ur hair which means ur confidence as well usually.

[Aftermath]

I appreciate the pics on Rahal's website are better than Erdogan's - but that could just be wiser pic selection. It's the pics from patients & their stories that are a better indicator of a typical outcome.

 

I agree 100% with this statement. IMO the results people post on here themselves don't seem to match the website pics. I'm not saying the website pics are falsified, but as u say the pic selection probably comes into it. its about whether you want to show your typical result or a collection of the top 1% you've ever treated and IMO the pics on the website are the top 1% (or less) the doc has ever produced. Just look at some of the threads posted by actual patients and compare.

 

I appreciate your reply. But there are 2 problems with your response. First, no HT doc can guarentee any result. Second, I've seen Hasson and Rahal to me seems to be a bit better in terms of density.

 

 

"I've seen Hasson and Rahal to me seems to be a bit better in terms of density" - agree to disagree, I have spend hours and hours looking at pictures from both and I swear that Hasson seems to be getting better density when he doesn't spread the grafts to the crown area. Take a look at cases where he left the crown area alone. Its all relative in terms of dense packing. When I consulted with both surgeons, Dr Hasson believed he could get 1,000 more grafts in one go than Rahal believed he could get via strip. They were going after the same coverage area, and because my preference was to leave the crown area alone, obviously Hasson's assessment was more dense packing due to the higher grafts. Your question was who will give you the greatest density. If Hasson can consistently get more grafts in a single session via strip, and you are specific that you prefer density over coverage, then I stand by my view that Hasson with get you better density than Rahal. As I said, we agree to disagree.

 

I also agree to disagree. Where appropriate dr hasson is not only fully capable of doing lower denser hairlines but in terms of overall density he's probably the best at it. IMO he produces the most consistent results of any HT surgeon out there. The difference between him and some others is ethics. Where he can do this, he won't do this (very low dense hairlines) if he feels that its inappropriate for that particular patient and won't serve them in the long run. A lot of docs will put a very low dense hairline on a patient that are in their mid 20s with a high chance of further loss just because the patient wants it and to satisfy their short term goal with no thought towards what will happen when the hair loss progresses. with dr hasson he takes into account your long term situation and really does care about his patients futures.

[taurusrisen]

"What the hell are you talking about??! Nobody is arguing."

 

Be nice!

 

What are you talking about?? The other guy is saying I’m arguing when I’m not.. duhhh!

 

Beep, wrong - although the FUE docs do perform FUE due the law of supply and demand, they also perform FUE as an alternative to FUT when strip patients have been stripped out, or have horrid laxity, or require scar repairs via FUE transplants into the scar. You also gotta believe that some docs like Erdogan believe in FUE and stand behind the results. Dr Maras recommended I go with FUE rather than FUT because he believes he can get a better density result as he can cherry pick the number of 2s and 3s (which you can't do in FUT) - so I think in the right hands, FUE could probably match FUT - although I myself would still hedge my bets on FUT to achieve better density.

 

Youre not understanding something here. Patients ON AVERAGE get FUE because they don’t want the scar. (Note the caps)

 

Yup, of course the rep will state this, but don't believe it for a a second -especially if we are talking about Rahal. Just take a read through Sean's Rahal FUE thread. After two tries, Rahal is even going to pay for a FUE procedure with another surgeon for the guy. Rahal has definitely gotten better, but his FUE results are nowhere near his FUT results. It still shocks me how many informed patients elect to pay such a fortune for FUE in the states when it's so much cheaper in Europe for better quality FUE results. I guess a fool and his money are soon parted.

 

You sound so angry like you got it in for Rahal. So I’m a fool according to you. Well, I’d rather be a young fool with dense hair attracting girls than an old man with a failed HT who's too old to get girls and cries online all day about FUT.

 

FUT doctors don't get on the band wagon simply because they don't want to take the time to learn a new procedure. FUT is easier to perform and takes less time.

 

I don’t think thats true. I think successful HT docs will learn new techniques to further their career and skillset. If not, they lose clients, money and rep.

[Yonex]

you need to do more research, you are not ready for a HT at the moment, fut or fue!

[mav23100gunther]

"What are you talking about?? The other guy is saying I’m arguing when I’m not.. duhhh!

 

 

Woaaa - easy there Tiger, no need to be condescending - I'm a big fan of you buddy, you are da man. Why did you go back and edit your statement and delete the "You're weird" comment? I actually agree with it. I mean I am sitting here in my tightie whity underpants posting on a hair loss forum website and right clicking the heads of pretty woman on Match.com and okcupid.com - I would say that qualifies me as weird!

 

 

"You're not understanding something here. Patients ON AVERAGE get FUE because they don’t want the scar. (Note the caps)"

 

I agree with you now, although that's not what you said earlier, there is a big difference between ON AVERAGE and ALL. But hey, it's all symmantics right - don't worry I'm still your biggest fan.

 

 

 

 

"You sound so angry like you got it in for Rahal. So I’m a fool according to you. Well, I’d rather be a young fool with dense hair attracting girls than an old man with a failed HT who's too old to get girls and cries online all day about FUT. "

 

Um, go back an reread my comment. I was talking specifically about FUE procedures. Let me break-it down for you though - I think it's crazy for patients to be paying a fortune for FUE procedures in the US at in excess of $8 per graft when you get better quality results for less than 3 euros a graft in Turkey and Europe. I believe you said you were going with FUT, so guess what, I don't think you are a fool, and even better, I am still your biggest fan.

 

Also for the record, as I have posted elsewhere on this forum, I rate Rahal's FUT in my top 4 alongside Hasson, Shapiro, and Konior. I am just not convinced yet with his FUE results. See big boy, I don't really have it in for Rahal after all.

 

 

Anyway, looks like you have made up your mind to get FUT with Rahal. I think that's a solid decision, so good luck and let us know how it goes. You are in good hands with Rahal my man.

[taurusrisen]

you need to do more research, you are not ready for a HT at the moment, fut or fue!

 

Obviously you haven't read my thread. Go back to the beginning and read instead of embarrassing yourself.

[Yonex]

I have and you really haven't a clue what you're doing, all I see is you being arrogant and obnoxious