3600 Grafts - Dr Koray Erdogan 13th March 2018

[Bill - Seemiller]

On 11/24/2018 at 3:12 AM, Payam said:

You say one poor result yet on this very forum there are a number of them, boulderbalder, webhandler, rwethereyet, planetstephen, ht0416 and me, these were the ones i found with a quick search and more on other forums as well, they are not hard to find.

Look at Acegiks first thread (older case), Asmed supposedly told him 99% of the grafts survived his first transplant, how is that possible?

Payam,

I request that you contact me privately and send me the URLs to each result you feel is considered poor and I will look at each one and evaluate them.  Again, I don’t want to turn this particular topic into this discussion so please send me a private message as I requested. 

Thanks,

Bill

[Payam]

Really need your help here guys, can someone with more experience estimate what my implanted density was based on these pictures?

[FarsanUk]

7 minutes ago, Payam said:

Really need your help here guys, can someone with more experience estimate what my implanted density was based on these pictures?

Contact your clinic and ask them. I asked them they told.me straight away (46 per cm2 depending on balder areas or not). No one here is a doctor why are you asking people even with experience this question? Just ask the clinic it's simple.

[LordBaldwin]

23 hours ago, Kingbilla said:

I have been seeing your thread for some while now and to me it seems like your HT failed. It yielded below average results. But I really hope you get great result at the end of the day.  

This makes me anxious because I had my HT just few months after you and I really hope same tech. team didn't work on me.

I'll advise you to stay positive and hope for the best. Asmed is a good clinic and I am sure they will help you out anyway possible .

Are we really considering "below average" growth at this stage to be a failure, though?  Half the results have to be "below average" on a normal distribution.  Do you consider everything below average to be a failure?  Also, it seems like he could very well be a slow grower.  

[Kingbilla]

36 minutes ago, LordBaldwin said:

Are we really considering "below average" growth at this stage to be a failure, though?  Half the results have to be "below average" on a normal distribution.  Do you consider everything below average to be a failure?  Also, it seems like he could very well be a slow grower.  

So you think below average is acceptable? 

With 3600 grafts his head should be covered with hair at this stage. Hair line is weak and density is poor. See the video. What do you consider a normal distribution? Find me one case who had this poor growth at 8 months and ended up having drastic improvement in following fee months. 

When you say slow grower. How much slower the growth has to be. Unless the grafts underwent hibernation I don't think it's the case of slow growth. 

But I really hope I am wrong for payams sake. There's a major room for improvement and only time will tell how it will end up.

This is just my opinion and I could be wrong.

Edited November 25, 2018 by Kingbilla

[fortuneplant]

 

2 hours ago, LordBaldwin said:

Are we really considering "below average" growth at this stage to be a failure, though?  Half the results have to be "below average" on a normal distribution.

Depends if the failure is acceptable or not. Say, the supersonic jet concorde in its 34 years of existence, has only one airplane crash in its entire history. But if that crash percentage is acceptable, that would mean one plane malfunctioning in the US airspace everyday.

Edited November 26, 2018 by fortuneplant

[Payam]

8 hours ago, FarsanUk said:

Contact your clinic and ask them. I asked them they told.me straight away (46 per cm2 depending on balder areas or not). No one here is a doctor why are you asking people even with experience this question? Just ask the clinic it's simple.

Mate don't you think I did that? He explained how I could do it myself, but I don't know how to exactly measure my recipient area based on the pictures.. was the transplanted area cm2 somewhere in our post op documents perhaps?

Edited November 26, 2018 by Payam

[LordBaldwin]

7 hours ago, Kingbilla said:

So you think below average is acceptable? 

With 3600 grafts his head should be covered with hair at this stage. Hair line is weak and density is poor. See the video. What do you consider a normal distribution? Find me one case who had this poor growth at 8 months and ended up having drastic improvement in following fee months. 

When you say slow grower. How much slower the growth has to be. Unless the grafts underwent hibernation I don't think it's the case of slow growth. 

But I really hope I am wrong for payams sake. There's a major room for improvement and only time will tell how it will end up.

This is just my opinion and I could be wrong.

IMO, if the hair is noticeably better than it was before the surgery, it's not really a failure... especially not at 8 months.  It doesn't really make sense to expect to come out of one's first surgery looking like Khal Drogo by the 8 month mark, every time.   If you look at Payam's pictures, there's clearly been more and more hair every month.  If you look at his video (which shows his 'bad' side), it's actually quite a bit better than it was a few months ago.  

Concerning growth rates, I'd watch the 'Feller and Bloxham - Hair Transplant "Slow Growers"' video on Youtube.  It shows a case where a guy came back at 8 months with really weak growth, but it ended up thickening up very nicely by 18 months.

I've seen a few other examples on this forum (I can PM you a couple of them if you'd like).   

 

Edited November 26, 2018 by LordBaldwin

[Payam]

15 minutes ago, LordBaldwin said:

IMO, if the hair is noticeably better than it was before the surgery, it's not really a failure... especially not at 8 months.  It doesn't really make sense to expect to come out of one's first surgery looking like Khal Drogo by the 8 month mark, every time.   If you look at Payam's pictures, there's clearly been more and more hair every month.  If you look at his video (which shows his 'bad' side), it's actually quite a bit better than it was a few months ago.  

Concerning growth rates, I'd watch the 'Feller and Bloxham - Hair Transplant "Slow Growers"' video on Youtube.  It shows a case where a guy came back at 8 months with really weak growth, but it ended up thickening up very nicely by 18 months.

I've seen a few other examples on this forum (I can PM you a couple of them if you'd like).   

 

That guy was a norwood 5-6 though I think?, I was a norwood 3 so I expected a little more than just some extra hair on the head, if a transplant doesn't have density it looks unnatural, especially with my hair type. Could you send me your examples please man?

[LordBaldwin]

21 minutes ago, Payam said:

That guy was a norwood 5-6 though I think?, I was a norwood 3 so I expected a little more than just some extra hair on the head, if a transplant doesn't have density it looks unnatural, especially with my hair type. Could you send me your examples please man?

Just PM'd you.  Btw, I understand what you're saying about being NW3 vs his higher Norwood, but the point I was trying to get across was that there can still be substantial thickening after 8 months.  

[LordBaldwin]

Just to show you what I mean by month to month growth, let's do a little review of your bad (left) side.

Here you are at 2 months:

 

Three months: 

 

Four months (pretty similar to 3, with slight improvement):

 

5 months (noticeable change):

 

7 months (the width of the exposed scalp appears to have shrunk significantly):

 

Then a screenshot from your recent video at 8 months (more improvement):

 

I think it's important to mention that hair will always look its worst when parted this way.  I will note, however, that the amount of exposed scalp does seem to be shrinking.  Also, when we look at a couple of other screenshots (see below) with the hair brushed back instead of parted, it doesn't look too bad, even now.

 

As a final point, for those who don't want to look it up, here are screenshots from the Feller and Bloxham video I referenced above.  The first image is 8 months.  The second is 18.

Edited November 26, 2018 by LordBaldwin

[Payam]

Adding two additional photos, my implanted density should be 2800/70=40 I think since they added 200 extra to the front on the second day, I will try to get an average on what is currently growing

[FarsanUk]

21 minutes ago, Payam said:

Adding two additional photos, my implanted density should be 2800/70=40 I think since they added 200 extra to the front on the second day, I will try to get an average on what is currently growing

Payum  what did They Say when you asked them what the density was? If they're telling you to figure it out yourself don't just sit there and take it. Tell them it's your right to know. Demand it. And they will give it. They very easily gave it to me a few days ago. Also I never knew that you had 1400 grafts in the crown. You havnt shown us this at all so I'm assuming that was fine other wise you would be talking about that too. It's important to show all aspects of your result not just the parts you are unhappy with other wise it defeats the purpose of these forums.

[Payam]

29 minutes ago, FarsanUk said:

Payum  what did They Say when you asked them what the density was? If they're telling you to figure it out yourself don't just sit there and take it. Tell them it's your right to know. Demand it. And they will give it. They very easily gave it to me a few days ago. Also I never knew that you had 1400 grafts in the crown. You havnt shown us this at all so I'm assuming that was fine other wise you would be talking about that too. It's important to show all aspects of your result not just the parts you are unhappy with other wise it defeats the purpose of these forums.

I asked again and they answered now that they believe it was 40-44fu/cm2 on average.

I had 800 grafts put in the crown as I didn't want that many grafts on there, I think the crown is a waste of grafts due to the risk of poor growth and when it's so easy to conceal with toppik, and frankly I can always fill it up with body hair later, the hairline is your top priority.

The reason I'm not bothering with crown pictures right now is simply because I'm not seeing any difference comparing to my preop pics, but then the crown takes longer to grow so by month 10 hopefully there will be a noticeable difference and I can show you a comparison.

[ILtrooper]

11 hours ago, LordBaldwin said:

IMO, if the hair is noticeably better than it was before the surgery, it's not really a failure... especially not at 8 months.  It doesn't really make sense to expect to come out of one's first surgery looking like Khal Drogo by the 8 month mark, every time.   If you look at Payam's pictures, there's clearly been more and more hair every month.  If you look at his video (which shows his 'bad' side), it's actually quite a bit better than it was a few months ago.  

Concerning growth rates, I'd watch the 'Feller and Bloxham - Hair Transplant "Slow Growers"' video on Youtube.  It shows a case where a guy came back at 8 months with really weak growth, but it ended up thickening up very nicely by 18 months.

I've seen a few other examples on this forum (I can PM you a couple of them if you'd like).   

 

Huh? Based on your assessment, Hypothetically speaking So you take 5k grafts from me and 1k grows, which would equal to having 1k hairs more than I had before up front, but I am out of 4K grafts  and ontop of that those 1k grafts have poor density, which now looks worse than it did before because of that and this procedure isn’t considered a failure? 

 

[LordBaldwin]

2 hours ago, ILtrooper said:

Huh? Based on your assessment, Hypothetically speaking So you take 5k grafts from me and 1k grows, which would equal to having 1k hairs more than I had before up front, but I am out of 4K grafts  and ontop of that those 1k grafts have poor density, which now looks worse than it did before because of that and this procedure isn’t considered a failure? 

 

If we were to accept your premise that the hair density remains poor over the long term and that the hair will look *worse* than it did before the surgery as a result, once all is said and done, then yes, I'd agree with you.  But...

I think it's premature to assume that the survival rate of his grafts is as abysmal as you're implying, or that his procedure was a failure, at 8 months... especially since it's still been improving month to month.  Has the likelihood of a good to great result decreased over time?  Yes, to some extent, but some people do see growth up through the 18 month mark.  Is it possible that you're right and that this won't improve significantly from this point forward?  Yes, it's possible, but I don't think it's constructive or helpful to jump to conclusions and call this a "failure" before the results are final (especially when there's evidence out there that many people are slow growers).  If he were to end up where he is now at 18 months, I'd agree with your conclusion.    

[Payam]

11 hours ago, LordBaldwin said:

If we were to accept your premise that the hair density remains poor over the long term and that the hair will look *worse* than it did before the surgery as a result, once all is said and done, then yes, I'd agree with you.  But...

I think it's premature to assume that the survival rate of his grafts is as abysmal as you're implying, or that his procedure was a failure, at 8 months... especially since it's still been improving month to month.  Has the likelihood of a good to great result decreased over time?  Yes, to some extent, but some people do see growth up through the 18 month mark.  Is it possible that you're right and that this won't improve significantly from this point forward?  Yes, it's possible, but I don't think it's constructive or helpful to jump to conclusions and call this a "failure" before the results are final (especially when there's evidence out there that many people are slow growers).  If he were to end up where he is now at 18 months, I'd agree with your conclusion.    

I respectfully disagree mate, please show me a case from a NW3 with a reconstructed hairline with low density and pluggyness that resolved itself after 8 months? I've looked at hundreds of results and haven't found a single one. The case above is not applicable to my situation, I need about double the fu/cm2 in the hairline to remove the pluggy appearance. Every surgeon I have reached out to now have told me that for my specific case I should wait until the 10-12th month before assessing the damage.

After 10-12 months you are past two growth cycles, the hair will mature yes, and if you were lucky like the guy above and had a burst of growth at month 8-10, your new sprouts will take a couple of months to mature and you might end up with a decent result. I literally have between 50% to 25% of the implanted density (40-44fu/cm2) in my hairline guys, I mean at what point do you just  and face the facts at hand and accept defeat?

I'm sorry for whining, It makes me so sad because I put all my trust and hope in this man, not some nameless techs or Dilek or my coordinator but in Dr Erdogan.

I am gutted over this, that much has been established, but it's almost time to move on from this and look forward. Like I said before I have correspondence with a couple of surgeons. I will wait until the 12th month before actually going under the proverbial knife again, but I am starting to plan for it already.

I believe on the right side and middle I could get away with 500 grafts, I think the left side needs around 1000 grafts and I simply cant do 1500 grafts with my donor capacity.. it would deplete it for the future I believe.

My thinking is I could put most grafts into the right side and the front, and slick my hair to cover the left(bad) side to get away with using the least amount of grafts, going all out on the HTs are an illusion thing for now and reassessing when I'm older.

Another option of course is to simply use as many grafts as needed to fix everything( low density, asymmetry, doubles in hairline) but I would probably be in trouble in 10 years when my hair loss progresses, although I have Robin Williams level body hair so theres always that. Third option is to leave it, there is added risk now due to the scar tissue and I might even be worse off after a second surgery due to transection, shock loss or poor yield. A second surgery probably won't really tell us anything about my physiology if it fails since we are now transplanting on impacted tissue which from what I've read is much harder than virgin scalp, is this true? I would have though the increased vascularization would add some benefit?

Whatever happens, if I go with with another transplant I need a surgeon who either does everything themselves or are more involved in the process, and win lose or draw are with me every step of the way. If it fails it fails, but at least then I can be certain it's due to me and not some unknown factors, and that did everything in my power to make it right.

Sorry for ranting, what do you think?

[FarsanUk]

"Robin williams chest "^^^^ 🤣🤣

[JayLDD]

On 11/24/2018 at 6:42 PM, Payam said:

You say one poor result yet on this very forum there are a number of them, boulderbalder, webhandler, rwethereyet, planetstephen, ht0416 and me, these were the ones i found with a quick search and more on other forums as well, they are not hard to find.

Look at Acegiks first thread (older case), Asmed supposedly told him 99% of the grafts survived his first transplant, how is that possible?

To be fair Payam and this is what I don't think you seem to understand, I could find you 5 or more poor growth cases in the last 3 years or so from Feriduni, Cooley, Rahal, and Hasson/Wong among just some top surgeons (likely the majority of the others also) and I'm not saying that as to insult them, I'm saying it because you seem to be under the assumption that hair-transplant surgery is somehow a guarantee and that a bad result somehow indicates that you're the victim of some type of malpractice whenever it occurs.  I've seen necrosis cases from two of these surgeons too. You say you didn't do your research initially which is why you went to ASMED, I would recommend you do some research on other surgeons to learn the reality that not everyone gets a good result no matter where they go. 

On top of that ASMED have more posted results online than any other clinic, literally hundreds (of documented positive results including about 50 from the last 18 months) and do 4 patients a day. Some of the clinics above and many others that are only doing 1-2 surgeries per day with literally a fifth or less of the patient posted results of ASMED online and yet still have more bad results, the difference is they were lucky enough however that they didn't get people littering delusional complaints over the forum, including some for over two years from those that literally didn't even have a bad result (that also were offered a free touchup). I know that certain members are offended by statistics and facts, but if a clinic is doing 4 surgeries a day and have 4 times the amount of poor results as a clinic doing one surgery a day, statistically their success rate is the same. The reality is that ASMED have 5 times the posted results of some of these other clinics and are doing 2-4x the amount of patients, and still have less poor results than 90% of other clinics, I know because I've looked.

I also know that certain irrational individuals will throw out the bulldog and biased insults to me again (not you specifically) but the reality is that I am PMed multiple times weekly sometimes by people asking for advice on surgeons and the majority of the time I'm not even suggesting ASMED as a first recommendation, I'm not saying this because of bias I'm saying it because a small group of wannabe activists are trying to damage the reputation of a clinic when they themselves clearly don't know what the hell they're talking about, refuse to acknowledge or research facts, and don't apply standards universally.  You specifically PMed me about my thoughts 3 months ago if the result didn't turn out well and I said if possible regarding finances you should go to another surgeon, specifically one that does a slow and more meticulous approach like Konior or Keser, if that doesn't show a lack of bias nothing does.

Also on some of the cases you mentioned,

Acegiks did indeed have gaps after his first procedure, but after two procedures this is where he ended up and for less money than a 3000 graft procedure with Konior:

 

 

Also you bring up ht0416 whose transplant looks like this, and the vast majority on the thread he posted results on thought it was a good result:

 

and when wet 

 

 

Personally I think the shape of the hairline isn't perfectly natural or irregular enough and is too rounded, but ASMED bring up the desired hairline design multiple times, once pre-shave and a day before the procedure so you have plenty of time to change your mind and question with your coordinator. The density is absolutely not an issue, this is not a failed transplant in any sense.

 

I honestly want you to get a successful repair and meet the goals you had before you began surgery, but considering what you're still saying you are yet to do proper research on hair transplants. I think anyone would appreciate at this point that your result was not a success, no bones about it, but you also weren't poorly treated or a victim of any sort. Yes ASMED have bad results and more than one, but so does every other top clinic that you choose to ignore for the purpose of an agenda.  You were unlucky (maybe the flu like symptoms you had after the procedure caused some issues, who knows) , move on and plan a repair with a surgeon that suits your needs in an absolute sense but this time do your research without the tunnel vision you started off with and seem to retain.

Also as Baldwin mentioned, you do have obvious steady improvement and in terms of coverage you're in a significantly better position than preop, there has been substantive growth and even if it takes a repair to get achieve natural density, it will require many less grafts down the track to get a result you're happy with. Your point about donor capacity not being able to achieve coverage in this area after the first procedure is absolutely silly, I can guarantee you are in a position to get a successful repair via FUE at the 1500-1800 graft range while still maintaining the donor for future procedures.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 27, 2018 by JeanLDD

[VicTNYC]

16 hours ago, Payam said:

Third option is to leave it, there is added risk now due to the scar tissue and I might even be worse off after a second surgery due to transection, shock loss or poor yield. A second surgery probably won't really tell us anything about my physiology if it fails since we are now transplanting on impacted tissue which from what I've read is much harder than virgin scalp, is this true? I would have though the increased vascularization would add some benefit?

Payam, 

This is exactly why the full 18-months or more is needed to wait an see, and give your scalp an ample amount of time to completely recover if there is something physiologically off. I’m glad that you see this point that there may be a possibility that a 2nd surgery even in the best hands could still be off or fail. It’s definitely something very critical to consider before spending thousands of $$ more on a 2nd HT.

Im still pulling for you, that you get a better improvement in the following months.

[Payam]

On 11/27/2018 at 3:43 PM, JeanLDD said:

To be fair Payam and this is what I don't think you seem to understand, I could find you 5 or more poor growth cases in the last 3 years or so from Feriduni, Cooley, Rahal, and Hasson/Wong among just some top surgeons (likely the majority of the others also) and I'm not saying that as to insult them, I'm saying it because you seem to be under the assumption that hair-transplant surgery is somehow a guarantee and that a bad result somehow indicates that you're the victim of some type of malpractice whenever it occurs.  I've seen necrosis cases from two of these surgeons too. You say you didn't do your research initially which is why you went to ASMED, I would recommend you do some research on other surgeons to learn the reality that not everyone gets a good result no matter where they go. 

On top of that ASMED have more posted results online than any other clinic, literally hundreds (of documented positive results including about 50 from the last 18 months) and do 4 patients a day. Some of the clinics above and many others that are only doing 1-2 surgeries per day with literally a fifth or less of the patient posted results of ASMED online and yet still have more bad results, the difference is they were lucky enough however that they didn't get people littering delusional complaints over the forum, including some for over two years from those that literally didn't even have a bad result (that also were offered a free touchup). I know that certain members are offended by statistics and facts, but if a clinic is doing 4 surgeries a day and have 4 times the amount of poor results as a clinic doing one surgery a day, statistically their success rate is the same. The reality is that ASMED have 5 times the posted results of some of these other clinics and are doing 2-4x the amount of patients, and still have less poor results than 90% of other clinics, I know because I've looked.

I also know that certain irrational individuals will throw out the bulldog and biased insults to me again (not you specifically) but the reality is that I am PMed multiple times weekly sometimes by people asking for advice on surgeons and the majority of the time I'm not even suggesting ASMED as a first recommendation, I'm not saying this because of bias I'm saying it because a small group of wannabe activists are trying to damage the reputation of a clinic when they themselves clearly don't know what the hell they're talking about, refuse to acknowledge or research facts, and don't apply standards universally.  You specifically PMed me about my thoughts 3 months ago if the result didn't turn out well and I said if possible regarding finances you should go to another surgeon, specifically one that does a slow and more meticulous approach like Konior or Keser, if that doesn't show a lack of bias nothing does.

Also on some of the cases you mentioned,

Acegiks did indeed have gaps after his first procedure, but after two procedures this is where he ended up and for less money than a 3000 graft procedure with Konior:

 

 

Also you bring up ht0416 whose transplant looks like this, and the vast majority on the thread he posted results on thought it was a good result:

 

and when wet 

 

 

Personally I think the shape of the hairline isn't perfectly natural or irregular enough and is too rounded, but ASMED bring up the desired hairline design multiple times, once pre-shave and a day before the procedure so you have plenty of time to change your mind and question with your coordinator. The density is absolutely not an issue, this is not a failed transplant in any sense.

 

I honestly want you to get a successful repair and meet the goals you had before you began surgery, but considering what you're still saying you are yet to do proper research on hair transplants. I think anyone would appreciate at this point that your result was not a success, no bones about it, but you also weren't poorly treated or a victim of any sort. Yes ASMED have bad results and more than one, but so does every other top clinic that you choose to ignore for the purpose of an agenda.  You were unlucky (maybe the flu like symptoms you had after the procedure caused some issues, who knows) , move on and plan a repair with a surgeon that suits your needs in an absolute sense but this time do your research without the tunnel vision you started off with and seem to retain.

Also as Baldwin mentioned, you do have obvious steady improvement and in terms of coverage you're in a significantly better position than preop, there has been substantive growth and even if it takes a repair to get achieve natural density, it will require many less grafts down the track to get a result you're happy with. Your point about donor capacity not being able to achieve coverage in this area after the first procedure is absolutely silly, I can guarantee you are in a position to get a successful repair via FUE at the 1500-1800 graft range while still maintaining the donor for future procedures.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I mostly agree with you save for a few points, i really think i got screwed because of my hair calibre coupled with the small punch sizes Asmed uses as well as the surgery being rushed to manage the number of grafts and the skill level of my techs. It is the most logical explanation having gone through dozens of recent clinic posted results from the past two years on the swedish forums and only seeing two close to my hair diameter. The research I have done so far leads me to believe my case required as you said a meticulous and slow approach by a skilled specialist.

How can I not blame the clinic for this? They should have looked at my case and said "we need to go slow and meticulous with this one, maybe even space it out over two days", but that is not within their business model. I should have gone with cuoto, konoir or maybe baubac and keser and i genuinely believe they would have given me a far better result with even leas grafts used.

You're right in that I can't be sure it was the techs, but I think the clues point in that direction. Whatever it was I went through the doors of that clinic because I trusted them and I was let down, they absolutely did me wrong if you look at my result from the low density to the multigrafts in the front row of the hairline. I mean I have to cover it with my existing hair because it looks so unnatural, maybe if I was 55 years old I could reveal the hairline and It wouldn't look so bad to my peers but at 34?

I am not deliberately trying to ruin the clinics reputation and I don't have an agenda, but again looking at Acegiks case, the clinic told him he had 99% growth on his return visit, this obvious lie doesn't raise any eyebrows? 

Also I appreciate your advice on what surgeon to chose, I don't think you have an agenda but you are very quick to jump to Asmed defense while at the same time relentlessly shitting on other clinics for the smallest misstep. 

I went to Asmed expecting a premium transplant with good density and a, natural hairline, why would I expect any different? 

By the clinics estimate I have 4000 donor grafts left, I strongly doubt this however and expect other top clinics to estimate around half of that when I send my pictures out next month, in which case I am truly fucked since my people of my ethnicity don't have a huge donor supply like Caucasians, I needed this transplant to be a success. I don't want to be 44 with a depleted donor and a bald head, at the same time I don't want to live out my 30's with this mess, so what do I do? Right now I am considering waiting 3-4 years for either a FUE with Cuoto, or a FUT with Konoir which would probably be the wisest choice for me considering the future.. but a big part of me wants to try and patch this with "only" 500-700 grafts now with someone like Naidimi or Baubac if possible to make it look acceptable, not perfect, just acceptable. I fear maybe FUT might the only way for my hair calibre unless I want a 1mm punch used on me like Diep does, but he does that for a reason with I believe with Asian hair types.

 

Edited December 4, 2018 by Payam

[PGDMMB]

Payam do you think your poor results could be a result of poor cleaning and removing of excess scabs. At the early stages of your progress you expressed concerns of that mad cracking that caused all those gaps in your hairline. I have heard this cracking occurs when the cleaning you need to do in the first week is not done correctly

[LonelyGraft]

Payam

didnt they space out ur surgery over 2 days? I thought they only do 2k grafts a day max?

 

what was ur donor micron size and what size punch was used?

[Payam]

3 hours ago, jj51702 said:

Payam

didnt they space out ur surgery over 2 days? I thought they only do 2k grafts a day max?

 

what was ur donor micron size and what size punch was used?

They did 2600 in my front in one day and 200 the following +800 in the back.

Punch size used was 0.65 to 0.7...

[Gasthoerer]

11 hours ago, PGDMMB said:

Payam do you think your poor results could be a result of poor cleaning and removing of excess scabs. 

 

13 hours ago, Payam said:

... i really think i got screwed because of my hair calibre coupled with the small punch sizes ….. and only seeing two close to my hair diameter. The research I have done so far leads me to believe my case required as you said a meticulous and slow approach by a skilled specialist.

How can I not blame the clinic for this?

Payam, I looked at all your pics, even the close ups and I would not be happy either in your situation. I fully understand your concern. You have not the greatest growth (yet) and there are some multis in the hairline as well as some poor angles. While the latter two needs to be discussed, the density topic gets way overblown IMO.

1.  @PGDMMB, at the very beginning of this thread I showed a link (which got lost, after the transfer to the new forum) showing the timeline of a FUT case from the often celebrated Konior with much (!) more crusts than Payman had. The result turned out great. We also learned just recently, that the highly praised H&W don't advice spraying and cleaning as other clinics. Fact: There is no evidence that the cleaning process affected the growth for payam. 

2. Do you really think it was the small punch size, which caused poor growth? By what? Transection? So do you think that ASMED implanted a high amount of transected grafts, intentionally or un-intentionally? I really doubt that. Secondly, thicker grafts are typically more robust, hence there is no (!) lead that your case required a more (!) meticulous approach than other cases. It might require bigger punch diameter, but if they measure the thickness, why should ASMED not adjust the punch? 

There reality is, hairtransplants are no real science. They are highly risky. Even the best (!) clinics have terrible results, much worse than yours. There is a bad FUT case from H&W (who are considered as on of the strip clinics) just recently in here. What is the reason for the bad result in that case? Bad techs dissection all the grafts by preparing them after the strip was taken? No, I guess everything was just as in all the great cases. It was just bad luck. Unfortunately, it happens.

 

Edited December 4, 2018 by Gasthoerer