Dr. Umar or Dr. Deyarman OR?

[SMH4]

Hi Folks,

 

I have done a lot of reading, despite some skeptics, I am leaning towards Dr. Umar (had consult) or Deyarman (consult soon). I'm in need of some repair work from 15 yrs ago to add density (probably 4-5.5k graphs). I think I am realistic in what results are achievable, I'm tired of using topikk on the scraps I have left.

 

The ARTAS system Dr. Deyarman is using is intriguing but so is some of the repair work performed by Dr. Umar. Despite my adequate facial/body hair, Dr. Umar felt my head donor area was adequate and felt using that was the best course of action.

 

Please provide your thoughts and experiences. I feel like this is my only shot to get it right!

[Bill - Seemiller]

Smh4,

 

Both of the physicians you are considering our excellent in my opinion, both have been approved for recommendation by this community. Dr. Umar in particular is well known for his repair work and in many cases has used body hair as filler hair and scalp hair has been completed. He has been quite successful with this type of procedure with the right candidates. That said, Dr. Deyarman also does exceptional work and I would certainly not hesitate to consider him for your next procedure as well. Watch watch race why you're stopping you you shouldn't of gone already pushing it. Also does exceptional work and I would certainly not hesitate to consider him for your next procedure as well.

 

Best wishes,

 

Bill

[voxman]

Talk texting while driving, Bill?

[JeffC45]

Smh4,

 

. Watch watch race why you're stopping you you shouldn't of gone already pushing it.

 

 

 

:confused:

 

[SMH4]

Yeah, Bill...help me out what were you trying to say?

 

Also, met with Dr. DeYarman, very nice man. He said 2k graphs needed instead of 4k. I'm a bit confused....why would the # of graphs differ so much? Also, was told the # of graphs using the ARTAS machine, 2k, was like 4k compared to the FUT method from back 15 years ago. Is that true? The graphs are that much better/effective/yield?