Dr. Rahal or Bernstein?

[JT65]

Who would you choose

Edited February 17, 2018 by JT65

[aWidowsPeek]

Bernstein? ah one of the doctors who never posts and we hear nothing about. That's a easy choice. Search results on this forum and you'll get your answer.

 

Diep is better than Rahal imho. Quite a few doctors are. Cheaper too.

[razzy]

Bernstein? ah one of the doctors who never posts and we hear nothing about. That's a easy choice. Search results on this forum and you'll get your answer.

 

Diep is better than Rahal imho. Quite a few doctors are. Cheaper too.

 

I disagree. This is not just bias because I've gone with Rahal as one of my docs. I did look into Diep among others prior to my first HT. He's good don't get me wrong.

 

Cheaper? Not really if you factor in the currency difference between the US and CDN dollar.

[Justin77]

Rahal over Bernstein without a doubt.

 

I've seen many fantastic results from Dr. Rahal, and very few (if any) from Dr. Bernstein. Not that Dr. Bernstein isn't a good doctor, he seems very knowledgeable, but I think he's from an older school of hair transplant docs and goes for much more conservative results. Happy to be proven wrong though if someone has a great result from Dr. Bernstein to share.

[Castillo]

RAHAL X100000000000 TIMES over Bernstein!

[mattj]

I think we're talking about two very different doctors here.

 

Recent video result

 

We've got more videos coming soon.

[hsrp10]

Apples vs oranges? Agree with aWidowsPeak's comments.

 

Rahal, Hasson or Konior for FUT.

For FUE there are better options out there than the 2 you listed.

[mhaider1991]

On 2/16/2018 at 6:33 PM, aWidowsPeek said:

Bernstein? ah one of the doctors who never posts and we hear nothing about. That's a easy choice. Search results on this forum and you'll get your answer.

 

Diep is better than Rahal imho. Quite a few doctors are. Cheaper too.

Strongly disagree with Diep being better than Rahal. Diep has great results, but he damages the donor area to the point of excessive potential grafts lost for future procedures. I would even go as far as to say that his FUE post invasiveness is more than some clinics' FUT.

[Melvin- Admin]

28 minutes ago, mhaider1991 said:

Strongly disagree with Diep being better than Rahal. Diep has great results, but he damages the donor area to the point of excessive potential grafts lost for future procedures. I would even go as far as to say that his FUE post invasiveness is more than some clinics' FUT.

I’ve had three hair transplants and two with Dr. Diep, I’ve visited Dr. Gabel, Dr. Mohebi, Dr. Konoir, Dr. Umar and Dr. Wong all of them in person and none of them told me my donor was damaged after having three hair transplants mind you. 

In fact, I’ve been told I have at least another 1,000-1,500 grafts left which would put me around the 7,000 range. 

I understand you decided to withdraw Dr. Diep  from your selection which is totally fine, but these statements simply aren’t true. 

 I’ve heard every argument and counter argument in the book. I’m well aware that several posters claim 1mm punches damage surrounding follicular units. However, a smaller punch transects more follicular units. At the end of the day it is up to the skill of the surgeon. If the surgeon is careless they can damage the donor of a patient regardless of the punch size or tool.

With that said, Dr. Rahal is a fine surgeon and I really have no problem with you saying hes better than diep if that’s how you feel, but making claims such as going with Diep compromises future procedures simply isn’t true.  

 

@jkm3 had two procedures with Dr. Diep close to 5,000 grafts

@spyk777 had several procedures I believe three with Dr. Diep via FUE 

@E39 had two procedures with Dr. Diep around 4,000 grafts

[mhaider1991]

7 minutes ago, Melvin-Moderator said:

I’ve had three hair transplants and two with Dr. Diep, I’ve visited Dr. Gabel, Dr. Mohebi, Dr. Konoir, Dr. Umar and Dr. Wong all of them in person and none of them told me my donor was damaged after having three hair transplants mind you. 

In fact, I’ve been told I have at least another 1,000-1,500 grafts left which would put me around the 7,000 range. 

I understand you decided to withdraw Dr. Diep  from your selection which is totally fine, but these statements simply aren’t true. 

 I’ve heard every argument and counter argument in the book. I’m well aware that several posters claim 1mm punches damage surrounding follicular units. However, a smaller punch transects more follicular units. At the end of the day it is up to the skill of the surgeon. If the surgeon is careless they can damage the donor of a patient regardless of the punch size or tool.

With that said, Dr. Rahal is a fine surgeon and I really have no problem with you saying hes better than diep if that’s how you feel, but making claims such as going with Diep compromises future procedures simply isn’t true.  

 

@jkm3 had two procedures with Dr. Diep close to 5,000 grafts

@spyk777 had several procedures I believe three with Dr. Diep via FUE 

@E39 had two procedures with Dr. Diep around 4,000 grafts

I respect where your coming from- but Diep has had donor issues and this is not a debate. It may not be the case of you, but has been for many people, especially in this forum. I'll even go and say that Diep may have better coverage than Rahal, but the donor area is a different story. I'm not even talking about punch size, because that is a whole other debate I don't want to get into. But top clinics should figure out a way to get those grafts without major transection and still have solid donor left over. This goes for both FUT and FUE. One part of a great surgeon is not just his results, but how thinking of the future, including donor area.

[Melvin- Admin]

13 minutes ago, mhaider1991 said:

I respect where your coming from- but Diep has had donor issues and this is not a debate. It may not be the case of you, but has been for many people, especially in this forum. I'll even go and say that Diep may have better coverage than Rahal, but the donor area is a different story. I'm not even talking about punch size, because that is a whole other debate I don't want to get into. But top clinics should figure out a way to get those grafts without major transection and still have solid donor left over. This goes for both FUT and FUE. One part of a great surgeon is not just his results, but how thinking of the future, including donor area.

Which members? I don’t recall any that have verified donor damage. Looking at a post-op picture and having a poster make assumptions based on the picture is different than having verified donor damage.

I’m fairly certain I could post a picture of how my donor looked after surgery without cleaning it and several posters would have said my donor was ruined even though it wasn’t. We can’t make these statements based on assumptions. I’m seeing a trend on this forum and not necessarily for Dr. Diep, but other doctors as well; someone will say one thing, than another person will add to that and all of the sudden it’s snowballed, the meanwhile causing serious damage to the doctors reputation. 

 Unless someone has actually posted that their donor has been compromised, we can’t simply go by pictures or other’s assumptions. I provided three verifiable examples of members from this forum who’ve had multiple successful procedures with Dr. Diep. 

[RecessionProof]

Rahal over Bernstein for sure

[Kiwi Guy]

Bernstein has a lot of youtube videos and seems to know what he's talking about. His results in terms of beard to beard transplants etc seem topnotch. From what I understand the reason he isn't spoken about on here is something to do with legal issues between himself and this site... not sure of the exact details.

[mhaider1991]

7 hours ago, Kiwi Guy said:

Bernstein has a lot of youtube videos and seems to know what he's talking about. His results in terms of beard to beard transplants etc seem topnotch. From what I understand the reason he isn't spoken about on here is something to do with legal issues between himself and this site... not sure of the exact details.

I think there's  no denying Bern's knowledge. I just haven't seen exceptional results from him. Don't get me wrong, I think your in safe and good hands if you decide to have surgery with him, but it's not a comparison with Rahal. Rahal is one of the top surgeons in the field, top 3 for FUT IMO.

[HairLossMentor]

Quote

Diep has great results, but he damages the donor area to the point of excessive potential grafts lost for future procedures.

I agree. I have some very real concerns about Dr. Diep's donor area management. In my opinion, the damage I'm seeing is not acceptable. Plus some of his patients are in a lot of trouble should their hair loss progress. Even shaving at a number #1 donor looks okay. The money shot is when a guy shaves down after FUE. Here is an example of what I mean.  Looks like The dots are from a 1 mm punch. 3000+ of those in your donor shot-forever. You really need to stick to .8 and below. Despite what they say, size does matter.

Re: Dr. Bernstein. He's been around for a while and is more of a academic now. Plus he also supports ARTAS and is a shareholder I believe? I just can't support any Dr. who promotes the robot, after I've personally seen the damage it does to guys donor areas. I am open to debate with any Dr. who supports and offers ARTAS. But I doubt that will ever happen. The technology just isn't ready in my opinion. What's scary is that everybody in the industry seems to agree-yet some actively promote the robot, and privately say it's crap. Sad

 

Edited January 6, 2019 by HairLossMentor

[mhaider1991]

15 minutes ago, HairLossMentor said:

I agree. I have some very real concerns about Dr. Diep's donor area management. In my opinion, the damage I'm seeing is not acceptable. Plus some of his patients are in a lot of trouble should their hair loss progress. Even shaving at a number #1 donor looks okay. The money shot is when a guy shaves down after FUE. Here is an example of what I mean.  Looks like The dots are from a 1 mm punch. 3000+ of those in your donor shot-forever. You really need to stick to .8 and below. Despite what they say, size does matter.

Re: Dr. Bernstein. He's been around for a while and is more of a academic now. Plus he also supports ARTAS and is a shareholder I believe? I just can't support any Dr. who promotes the robot, after I've personally seen the damage it does to guys donor areas. I am open to debate with any Dr. who supports and offers ARTAS. But I doubt that will ever happen. The technology just isn't ready in my opinion. What's scary is that everybody in the industry seems to agree-yet some actively promote the robot, and privately say it's crap. Sad

 

BINGO! I am seeing a pattern of Dr. Diep regarding donor management, and it's almost borderline an ethical concern. Think he has great results, but donor management is just as important as the result IMO. 

[Melvin- Admin]

1 hour ago, HairLossMentor said:

I agree. I have some very real concerns about Dr. Diep's donor area management. In my opinion, the damage I'm seeing is not acceptable. Plus some of his patients are in a lot of trouble should their hair loss progress. Even shaving at a number #1 donor looks okay. The money shot is when a guy shaves down after FUE. Here is an example of what I mean.  Looks like The dots are from a 1 mm punch. 3000+ of those in your donor shot-forever. You really need to stick to .8 and below. Despite what they say, size does matter.

Re: Dr. Bernstein. He's been around for a while and is more of a academic now. Plus he also supports ARTAS and is a shareholder I believe? I just can't support any Dr. who promotes the robot, after I've personally seen the damage it does to guys donor areas. I am open to debate with any Dr. who supports and offers ARTAS. But I doubt that will ever happen. The technology just isn't ready in my opinion. What's scary is that everybody in the industry seems to agree-yet some actively promote the robot, and privately say it's crap. Sad

 

There is a difference between saying that scars are visually unappealing and a donor is compromised and therefore won’t support further surgery. We don’t know if his donor is compromised this is the truth. In fact, we don’t knowif his scars improved. His last update was at 6 months post-op. The appearance of scars tend to improve overtime. No one should expect to be scarless after surgery especially at such a low guard. 

[Melvin- Admin]

In the end, I’m not trying to defend Dr. Diep,  I’ve even told members to simply choose another surgeon if they don’t like a certain aspect. However, we can’t in good faith say that a member can not support further surgeries without any proof, especially if the only pictures we have are at 6 months. That’s all I’m saying. I have no problem with you guys saying you prefer one doctor over another for tool size etc. that’s fair.

[dreamHair62]

Frankly No Idea !

[HairLossMentor]

I agree 100% that FUE is not scarless. Though you can minimize visible scarring, that's key. The simplest route to achieve this is punch size. Keep in mind that if the doctor is using a 1 mm punch, the actual size of the punch depends on the thickness of the metal. Depending on the manufacturer, it can be 1.2 to 1.5 mm.

In the wrong hands even 1000 grafts can destroy your donor area. I seen it many many times unfortunately. The problem we're dealing with here is donor management or lack of donor management.  It's a technique used by very few North American doctors.

I commend any Dr. willing to learn FUE- and as with anything in life they will only get better in time. The problem is at the last FUE conference, I only noted 3 doctors from North America… Dr. Rahal, Dr. Wong, Dr. Shapiro. That says something. It was at this conference where they talked about the stuff, share tips of the trade.

Here's a quick explanation of donor management…

Donor management - a strategy to maximize your donor area, both in the number of grafts you can safely harvest for transplantation and visually, allowing you to wear your hair short and get the most amount of grafts possible...

• Tactic #1:  Using calculations, you are able to predict how many grafts you can safely harvest from the safe zone. Not only in one session but over multiple. Punch size is a factor here. Smaller punch means more grafts and less visible scarring
• Tactic #2: partial transection to avoid this kind of stuff-scarring, patchy, moth-eaten look. If it's a 3 hair, you will strategically harvest 2 and leave 1 hair behind.  For it to work you need 8x magnification and .8 punch size and under. The magnification alone is 10k. So not many want to make the investment. 
• Tactic #3: punch type, sharp, dull, etc. motorized vs. manual - each has its place, depending on your skin type. FUE experts are masters at each, and prior to each procedure actually test each. What they are looking for is the technique with the lowest transection and highest graft quality. Note: smaller is still better

You also need a high level of skill to pull this off, why I am so against the robot. In the hands of an amateur hair transplant Dr. you can do more harm with FUE to a guys donor area than any other procedure. Bottom line, if you are using a 1 mm punch, the robot you're not practicing donor management.

Donor management is a highly advanced strategy and means a massive investment both in staff and equipment. But it's also what separates the amateurs from the professionals.

Please refer to this example photo… This is just a quick explanation… There's much more to it. But in the example I applied tactic #2, with just 12 single hairs. And you can notice a visible difference in the donor area.

I do commend Dr. Diep. I'm seeing some good results from him. And I encourage him to continue learning the craft and to learn about and master donor management. It would be super helpful if he would jump in and let us know about his technique, punch size, tools of the trade. I always encourage an open and honest debate. That's what makes this forum great.

 

 

 

Edited January 7, 2019 by HairLossMentor

[Viru.K]

Rahal

[spyk777]

Taken today. Just some pomade.  I am truly amazed how it is holding on: going to be 4 years since Dr. Diep surgery. 

I have had more than a few people say they wish they had my hair. I just chuckle inside. I know the truth of it all  

I would go back to Dr. Diep again if I had to do it all over again. He is an artist.  The illusion of dense hair requires skill and Diep has it.  

I will vouch for him. I am just an ordinary bald chap whose life just got insanely better thanks to him.  

My donor is thin from when it all began.  But it was expected but nothing that ordinary folks will notice. 

 

 

[dreamHair62]

On 1/29/2019 at 4:49 AM, spyk777 said:

Taken today. Just some pomade.  I am truly amazed how it is holding on: going to be 4 years since Dr. Diep surgery. 

I have had more than a few people say they wish they had my hair. I just chuckle inside. I know the truth of it all  

I would go back to Dr. Diep again if I had to do it all over again. He is an artist.  The illusion of dense hair requires skill and Diep has it.  

I will vouch for him. I am just an ordinary bald chap whose life just got insanely better thanks to him.  

My donor is thin from when it all began.  But it was expected but nothing that ordinary folks will notice. 

 

 

great