If only 20% of your grafts stayed on, did the doctor screw up?

[rsn]

In my first transplant, 95% of the grafts stuck. In my second transplant (with a different doctor), only 20% stuck. Does this sometimes happen from a randomness beyond the doctor's control? Does this bad result sometimes even happen with the best doctors?

[rsn]

They were both FUT's. They were both doctors recommended here. Both docs didn't seem to me to have much oversight of the techs sticking the grafts in. The techs for the second doctor put the grafts in a hundred times faster than the techs for the first doc.

[hsrp10]

Was the 20% growth rate your estimate or the doctor's?

Was the procedure in the same area of your scalp or different area? How many months are you post-op?

[rsn]

20% is my estimate. But I saw another doctor who is recommended here. This other doctor said the result was horrible, but since he does not bad mouth doctors, he would not say more. I casually mentioned "boy, not even 50% survived," and he said a lot less than that survived from the looks.

 

Now, I should add, with the first transplant, the doctor spread out the 2800 grafts all over the scalp. The second doctor spread the 2200 grafts all in the front. There was heavy, heavy bleeding. Someone very knowledgeable here said the reason doctors can never promise a certain density is that they first have to see how much bleeding follows. So it is possible the bad result came because the doctor was too aggressive putting a lot of grafts in a small area, despite the bleeding. The day after the second transplant, the second doctor did mention that the bleeding was now looking unfortunately heavy.

[hsrp10]

Could be that the grafts were placed too close together and also too close to existing hair follicles compromising blood supply. Or as you mentioned the heavy trauma to the scalp and hair follicles was too great.

Another possible reason is that the first procedure could have left some scar tissue.

 

I've had several procedures but the largest procedure was around the same at 2,200 or so, and I believe smaller touchups are sometimes a safer approach.

Can you get a refund for the second procedure? What has been your second doctor's reaction?

[rsn]

I haven't confronted the doctor who did the botched job. He is in another country. He is recommended here, but does not charge much. The money is nothing to me. What matters is the 2200 hair grafts that were flushed down the toilet. I have thin donor density, and a very tight scalp.

 

Right before the second transplant, the doctor said I could never have a third FUT because I am so tight.

 

Now, two years later, I consulted in person with a brand new doctor recommended here, and he said he can do a third FUT and get 1500 grafts.

[hsrp10]

If it was two years ago and you got only 20% growth we can call that a failed or subpar procedure.

And the mods and users here will try to help you get your money back or at least some type of postive resolution (no promises as I'm not a mod).

 

Do you have any pre-op and post surgery pics?

Hope it works out for you.

[rsn]

Yeah, I have pics. The mods do that?

[hsrp10]

The recommendation process and status is supposed to help and support patients.

[rsn]

It is actually funny because the deciding factor that made me pick this doctor is that a mod posted that he is good. And now, having an approximately 20% survival rate looks actually worse than than having a 0% survival rate because it is clearly not natural. When people naturally bald they don't leave a large region in the front with 20% coverage. My only option has been to brush the hair from the back to try to cover the front and to use Topik and Couvre, which cover the skin.

[Spanker]

could you post some pics of before and after without toppik?

[KO]

I remember your case. Difficult situation. Did your first surgery turn out well? I'd proceed pretty cautiously, consult with people like Konior, Bernstein, Gabel etc.

[rsn]

My first surgery turned out perfectly.

 

Here are the before shots.

[rsn]

Here are after shots.

[KO]

Ok, so while growth was poor, it doesn't visually look like a disaster, so that's good. I'd consult with a few respected surgeons, they'd be able to give you a better answer than forum.

[rsn]

To me, it is a visual disaster. You can see a distinct line. Everything forward of the line is strictly the sparse grafts. Everything behind the line is thicker. The grafts don't look real because hair generally does not grow sparsely over such a big area.

 

It breaks my heart that so many grafts were thrown down the toilet.

[JON86]

Sorry you are suffering with this. Whatever doctor you used did a poor job his fault not yours. Hope you can find a way to fix this.

[Zim]

Sorry to see this. Hope you can get it fixed by a good surgeon.

 

Another recommended surgeon from this site with another botch job. People need to be careful. Could you please disclose the surgeon's name so others can avoid a similar fate?

[Melvin- Admin]

This is why it's so important to remember that no procedure is guaranteed, you have certain doctors that have made it their mission to warn potential patients that the U in FUE stands for unpredictable. However both FUT and FUE can be unpredictable, as patients we should not lose sight of this, this is no doubt a terrible outcome with almost no growth.

 

Name the surgeon he needs to respond as to what happened, he will fix it that's a given if he's recommended on this forum, the community should know why such a poor result can occur from an advertised "fail proof" procedure.

[KO]

I've criticized this particular surgeon multiple times in the past, he doesn't brlong here.

[delancey]

Who is the surgeon?

[lorenzo]

Who is the surgeon?

 

I respect the fact he doesn't want to say who it is. But in his past posts from a few years ago it is stated.

 

This was written in the past

He said the dark spots mean that the blood is not circulating there. He said it is bad, but would not give exact numbers.

So I do not think this result is surprising.

 

The entire surgery with 2300 grafts FUT took less than 3 hours.

I do not know how this is possible? With 13 years experience I think for 2000 grafts the would say the average time is about 6-8 hours. Crazy something doesnt make sense

Edited December 2, 2016 by lorenzo

[chris39]

Always gutted to read about any patient getting a bad result .

 

I checked the back story to this and see that the surgeon is indeed recommended on here .

 

Any surgeon can have subpar results , but there are a few concerning points , namely the speed of the surgery and the lack of medical action when the condition was so quickly apparent . Where was the medication to try and alleviate and improve the situation ?

 

All the more concerning when the surgeon is also a supposed dermatologist .

[rsn]

With 13 years experience I think for 2000 grafts the would say the average time is about 6-8 hours. Crazy something doesnt make sense

 

With the surgery with the first doctor, one tech implanted the grafts slowly.

 

With the surgery with this second doctor, three techs simultaneously implanted the grafts, and they did it lightning fast. I was surprised how much faster they were implanting compared with what was done with the first doctor. The second doctor did not even start the surgery until after lunch. He said he does more than one patient per day.

[richter101]

Sounds like to me you got a bad procedure. I'm sorry to hear. Also, would recommend FUE moving forward.