WARNING, if considering Dr Hakan Doganay, read this first

[Stig]

No I'm monty from Sign In - SAGA I used to be admin there for 2 years.

 

If you apply for membership and say you want to view montys thread on his hair transplant experience with Dr Dogannay mods will accept you. I'll even add to the thread there to confirm I am him.

 

You'll find a cogent, reasoned thread about my experience with pics which was wholly positive.

 

OK pal?

 

And do you and all the mods happen to share the same house of Dogannay's rep too?

[monty3001]

Whatever mate. I've been posting for 13 years now. Have 3000 post count there that precedes my surgery by years. Read the thread and you'll know I'm legit FFS.

[Stig]

Whatever mate. I've been posting for 13 years now. Have 3000 post count there that precedes my surgery by years. Read the thread and you'll know I'm legit FFS.

 

How about I not and say I did

[Melvin- Admin]

No I'm monty from Sign In - SAGA I used to be admin there for 2 years.

 

If you apply for membership and say you want to view montys thread on his hair transplant experience with Dr Dogannay mods will accept you. I'll even add to the thread there to confirm I am him.

 

You'll find a cogent, reasoned thread about my experience with pics which was wholly positive.

 

OK pal?

 

Why are you referring to yourself as a third person Monty?

[monty3001]

Why are you referring to yourself as a third person Monty?

 

And what are you insinuating?

 

I've refered to myself as monty cos how the hell else am I supposed to ask someone to refer to my thread, written by me, "Monty" other than say go and ask to view "montys thread" all the more bloody relevent when the thread itself is called "montys hair transplant thread" do you not think?

 

Also I've added a note to the thread saying hi, this is me, so it's irrefutable. Jesus....

[PupDaddy]

Well OK, his "points" or more accurately his subjective evaluation of events are entirely in contrast to my subjective evaluations, to such degree that I registered here cos I find them hard to believe.

 

There is nothing "subjective" about Dr. Doganay's admission, posted here through his own online representative, that for paleo's case Dr. Doganay delegated more than a third of the recipient area incision-making to one of his techs. The doctor's rep confirmed that Dr. Doganay only made 65% of the recipient area incisions, leaving the rest to a non-physician technician or nurse. That point is an established, objective fact.

 

Here is another objective fact: No coalition or recommended physician allows non-physicians to cut graft recipient incisions in the patient's scalp. Nor should they ever. That is a bright line that isn't crossed by reputable ht surgeons leading reputable ht clinics.

 

Cutting the graft recipient incisions not only is plainly surgery, it (along with hairline design) is the heart and soul of the artistry of hair restoration surgery. Assuming that viable grafts have been harvested and properly stored, the location/placement, density (incisions per cm2), depth, angle, direction, execution, and je ne sais quoi of recipient incision-making determines the cosmetic result of hair restoration surgery and is what distinguishes one surgeon's transplant work from another. IMO, delegating this cosmetically critical surgical task, or any part of it, to the clinic's technicians betrays a "mill" mentality of volume and profit over regard for the patient or respect for the art of hair transplantation.

[esrec]

There is nothing "subjective" about Dr. Doganay's admission, posted here through his own online representative, that for paleo's case Dr. Doganay delegated more than a third of the recipient area incision-making to one of his techs. The doctor's rep confirmed that Dr. Doganay only made 65% of the recipient area incisions, leaving the rest to a non-physician technician or nurse. That point is an established, objective fact.

 

Here is another objective fact: No coalition or recommended physician allows non-physicians to cut graft recipient incisions in the patient's scalp. Nor should they ever. That is a bright line that isn't crossed by reputable ht surgeons leading reputable ht clinics.

 

Cutting the graft recipient incisions not only is plainly surgery, it (along with hairline design) is the heart and soul of the artistry of hair restoration surgery. Assuming that viable grafts have been harvested and properly stored, the location/placement, density (incisions per cm2), depth, angle, direction, execution, and je ne sais quoi of recipient incision-making determines the cosmetic result of hair restoration surgery and is what distinguishes one surgeon's transplant work from another. IMO, delegating this cosmetically critical surgical task, or any part of it, to the clinic's technicians betrays a "mill" mentality of volume and profit over regard for the patient or respect for the art of hair transplantation.

 

Well said.

[monty3001]

^^^Valid point!

 

However, top 10 reputable surgeons in the world? We all have a rough idea of who 5 of them are. How many of them do the work themselves without techs implanting? 20-30%? I'm asking, not saying but I'd be surprised if 20-30% wasn't an over estimation.

 

The only difference that I can infer is that they charge 5-8 times the price for pretty much the same or lesser service.

 

Now, I'm seriously not having an argument about it. I'm asking, do you disagree?

[esrec]

^^^Valid point!

 

However, top 10 reputable surgeons in the world? We all have a rough idea of who 5 of them are. How many of them do the work themselves without techs implanting? 20-30%? I'm asking, not saying but I'd be surprised if 20-30% wasn't an over estimation.

 

The only difference that I can infer is that they charge 5-8 times the price for pretty much the same or lesser service.

 

Now, I'm seriously not having an argument about it. I'm asking, do you disagree?

 

My understanding is that Konior is most widely known for doing everything himself. I can confirm Shapiro was responsible for 85-90% of my procedure. Only in the final 10 minutes did he step away for a few minutes. I would like to think H+W and Rahal and a handful of others are the same. Obvously FUT vs FUE will impact this, but it ultimately shouldn't.

 

Techs should be heavily involved, but should not be leading the most critical aspects of the procedure.

[monty3001]

My understanding is that Konior is most widely known for doing everything himself. I can confirm Shapiro was responsible for 85-90% of my procedure. Only in the final 10 minutes did he step away for a few minutes. I would like to think H+W and Rahal and a handful of others are the same. Obvously FUT vs FUE will impact this, but it ultimately shouldn't.

 

Techs should be heavily involved, but should not be leading the most critical aspects of the procedure.

 

Perhaps. This is obviously highly debatable.

 

But I paid 3k sterling for my surgery or there abouts which included food and board. Not 15-18k which was prohibitively expensive for me.

 

Bottom line, I'm happy with my choice and I've said my piece.

[win200]

My understanding is that Konior is most widely known for doing everything himself. I can confirm Shapiro was responsible for 85-90% of my procedure. Only in the final 10 minutes did he step away for a few minutes. I would like to think H+W and Rahal and a handful of others are the same. Obvously FUT vs FUE will impact this, but it ultimately shouldn't.

 

Techs should be heavily involved, but should not be leading the most critical aspects of the procedure.

 

I just had an FUT procedure with Rahal in October and can confirm that the only portions of the surgery that involved techs were a) dissection of grafts (like every other FUT surgeon on the planet) and b) implantation of grafts. He and I were alone in the operating room while he made every incision and had a very nice chat.

[Stig]

^^^Valid point!

 

However, top 10 reputable surgeons in the world? We all have a rough idea of who 5 of them are. How many of them do the work themselves without techs implanting? 20-30%? I'm asking, not saying but I'd be surprised if 20-30% wasn't an over estimation.

 

The only difference that I can infer is that they charge 5-8 times the price for pretty much the same or lesser service.

 

Now, I'm seriously not having an argument about it. I'm asking, do you disagree?

 

We should not be talking about the implanting of grafts. Except for Konior and a lesser degree Sahpiro, its a known fact that the mojority of top 10 clinics have the techs do most/all of the implanting. I believe that is true for H&W and Rahal. The issue is the process to make incisions into the recepient area, a process that takes place after the extractions, and before the implanting of grafts. The incision process should be, and for all of the top 5 clinics, is performed 100% by the surgeons. As Doganay uses an implanter pen which combines the incision process with the impanting process, it is a known fact that he only does 66% of this, and therefore he is only making 66% of the incisions himself. This is what should be totally unacceptable.

[PupDaddy]

How many of them do the work themselves without techs implanting? 20-30%? I'm asking, not saying but I'd be surprised if 20-30% wasn't an over estimation.

 

The problem is that you are conflating "implanting" with "incision-making." They are distinct tasks with distinct meanings, depending on the tool used to make the recipient incisions.

 

EVERY HT PHYSICIAN RECOMMENDED BY THIS SITE MAKES EACH AND EVERY GRAFT RECIPIENT INCISION HIMSELF OR HERSELF. THEY MAKE 100% OF THESE INCISIONS, 100% OF THE TIME -- except, we recently learned, for Dr. Doganay, who allows technicians or nurses to make a third or more of the recipient incisions.

 

One of three tools is used to cut graft recipient incisions for hair transplantation: custom cut blades, needles, or implanter pens. Most ht surgeons recommended on this site use custom cut blades to make the graft recipient incisions. Two (Rahal and Diep) use needles to make them. When custom cut blades or needles are used to cut the graft recipient sites, "implantation" refers merely to the route task of following behind the surgeon and placing (putting/seating/inserting/depositing) grafts into these recipient sites. Ordinarily this task is performed by technicians, using forceps. Under this protocol, "implantation" means merely placing/seating/inserting/putting/depositing grafts into recipient sites (incisions) made by the surgeon.

 

The term "implantation" takes on a different meaning, however, when implanter pens are used. An implanter pen is a dual-function tool. It is used both to cut the recipient site AND to deposit (seat/place/insert) a graft into that site. It consists of a hollow needle with a plunger mechanism into which a graft is loaded. The needle is inserted into the scalp (the incision-making part) and the plunger is then pushed to eject the graft into the recipient site (the seating part). Thus, in the case of implanter pens, the term "implantation" refers not only to placing a graft into a recipient site but also to cutting that recipient site in the first instance.

 

Besides Dr. Doganay, Dr. Vories is the only ht physicians presently recommended on this site that uses implanter pens. Unlike Dr. Doganay, however, Dr. Vories does all the "implantations" (cutting recipient sites + injecting the graft into the site) himself, as he should. The tool used to make the recipient incisions under this protocol is the needle of the implanter pen rather than custom cut blades or stand-alone surgical needles, but it the same cosmetically critical, surgical task of recipient site incision-making nonetheless. Technicians load the pens with grafts -- an appropriate task for technicians -- but only Dr. Vories actually uses the pens to pierce the patient's scalp, make recipient incisions and deposit the grafts.

 

I hope that clears things up and explains why it is alarming and disconcerting to some members to learn that Dr. Doganay has been allowing his technicians to wield implanter pens, make recipient incisions, and, essentially, perform hair restoration surgery.

[LondonHTseeker]

EVERY HT PHYSICIAN RECOMMENDED BY THIS SITE MAKES EACH AND EVERY GRAFT RECIPIENT INCISION HIMSELF OR HERSELF. THEY MAKE 100% OF THESE INCISIONS, 100% OF THE TIME -- except, we recently learned, for Dr. Doganay, who allows technicians or nurses to make a third or more of the recipient incisions.

 

Not according to Ezel:

 

"From the reponses thus far I know the fact that he isnt involved w the extraction process and only pops in really at the incision process has brought some light to those considering him."

 

http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/179300-dr-feriduni-9-month-update-2200-fue-17.html

[newbie33]

I suspect Ezel may have meant implanting the grafts, rather than making the incisions. If Feriduni doesn't make the incisions, it would disappoint me hugely and be counter to what he said to me.

[PupDaddy]

Not according to Ezel:

 

"From the reponses thus far I know the fact that he isnt involved w the extraction process and only pops in really at the incision process has brought some light to those considering him."

 

http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/179300-dr-feriduni-9-month-update-2200-fue-17.html

 

I don't read that sentence of Ezel's critique as saying that Dr. Feriduni didn't make all the graft recipient incisions. (Ezel?) I would be surprised to learn otherwise, especially considering that according to Dr. Feriduni's profile he uses custom cut blades for making graft recipient incisions.

 

As I said, to my knowledge, Dr. Doganay is the only HRN-recommended physician found to have been delegating recipient site incision-making to nurses or technicians (non-physicians).

[LondonHTseeker]

Yeah, he probably means the doc mostly only pops in to make the incisions.

[FUE2014]

Yeah Feriduni does 100% of the incisions and the techs implant.

 

I think Doganay now is the only recommended doc on here where the techs are doing incisions.

[Melvin- Admin]

Paleo, now that its been a month since you created this thread, can you post some updated pics, id like to see how things are coming along now that it's been 5 months, also can you show the donor area.

[paleocapa89]

Hi HTsoon

 

I just took some pictures to show my progress. I have been lazy with the picture taking recently for several reasons:

- I didnt experience much growth but some wiry hairs coming out in patches, mostly 2's and 3's, and I needed to go out so I shaved it

- my native hair grew quite long so my donor are is covered now, I would need to cut it short again to check whether the overharvestation/shockloss is still there

- finally found some peace and was able to concentrate on other things.

 

Here are the pics, basically, the black dots are the hairs that are growing, I'll let them grow a little longer and take pictures later.

 

[Dolph1969]

You can see a hairline forming. Hopefully this is the start of some growth and you get a decent result and some closure from the stress of all this.

[biolizard]

TY for the pics and keeping us updated on your progress. That kind of info is invaluable.

 

I see the recipient area is still discolored compared to the surrounding skin.

I'm around 3 1/2 months and my recipient area is really discolored with a bumpy texture too. Bugs the hell out of me. I think I may grow my hair out a little bit and see if that conceals the ugly reddened recipient skin area better.

 

Here is a recent pic of mine for you to do a comparison. You can see why I'm not super thrilled with the way I currently look either.

[paleocapa89]

Yes, my skin is still discolored and bumpy, but at least it's not inflamed anymore which I take as a good sign.

 

Biolizard, I know you had to deal with huge amount of stress as well, but seeing your picture I think you are on a good path to a great result. you already have substantial growth yet you are only 3,5 month post op. I'd say - I know it's hard - but try not to worry so much,

[Melvin- Admin]

The donor area looks way better, doesn't look moth eaten at all, I'm sure if you cut it short again you'll see that it's thinner, I think that goes for anyone who's gotten FUE, but at least it looks better than the pictures you posted before.

 

Recipient area still looks sparse though, hoping more growth occurs in the next 7 months, still only 5 months do you shouldn't throw in the towel just yet.

[paleocapa89]

I'm holding out, but to be honest I am not so optimistic about the future. Sometimes I find myself wondering what would be better, more growth or less growth.

 

More growth is good if it it gives me a cosmetically acceptable result, but bad if it it doesn't, since I don't think I could go through another procedure to repair it. If it is bad, I will probably either have to shave it and/or remove some hair with electrolysis. 2500 grafts down the drain...

 

The only think I'm glad about is that, no matter how things turn out, I won't have to deal with a strip scar. Although on the other hand, if it wasn't for FUE and all the scarless miracle transformation bullshit advertisement that lured me in I would have never went for a FUT operation no matter how bad my hairloss was.

 

I wonder why this forum doesn't have a dedicated repair section where people can learn from other people's experiences and exit strategies. If I want to be cynical, I'd say it is because it would highlight the negative side of hair transplants and hurt the business...

 

But honestly, a repair section would be great. I had to collect information from multiple sources to try to formulate what options I have in the worst case scenario.

Edited November 23, 2015 by paleocapa89