Dr. Bhatti- 1236 FUE grafts to restore hairline

[California]

Patient age: 28 years

HT technique used: FUE

Number of scalp grafts planted: 1236

Areas targeted: Hairline

The "after" pictures are from 8 months post-op. Pictures & video taken under harsh lighting. 

Here is the link to the YouTube video for this Patient case:

Best regards,

California

[thatoldchestnut]

Nowhere near enough grafts used imo.

[Spanker]

I'm sorry,  but this is a poor presentation in both the video and the pics. You cant tell if it was successful or not. I agree that I dont see how 1200 could be enough grafts. 

[Shera]

Really guys,

Having not seen this before it looks to me like the patient just wanted to reinforce his hairline. He has enough hair in his mid section so I would have thought it would have been too risky to implant there, better to treat with meds.

He appears to have his hairline back for just 1200 grafts therefore keeping enough grafts in the bank for possible future procedures.

Above all he seems to be happy enough to revisit the clinic to showcase his result, is this not what it's all about??

I really don't get how for 1200 grafts this result is not a massive success with near on all the grafts growing out.

Can you guys please explain in details your thoughts, it's always good to take things on board.

Chestnut, I think we had a run in a few years ago over the price of Finasteride in the UK, perhaps it's now time for you to drop your grudge!

 

 

 

[thatoldchestnut]

Not even sure what you're referring to. I don't tend to hold grudges against anonymous forum members about something so trivial. To be perfectly candid, that seems like a very thinly veiled (and i hope ineffective) attempt to discredit my opinion, which Spanker clearly shares.

Call a spade a spade, this may be an acceptable result for the amount of grafts used but 1200 was clearly not enough for the area covered. I have noticed that Dr. Bhatti quite often uses low graft counts on large areas that leaves what, to my mind, is a very poor aesthetic impression.

Edited July 10, 2018 by thatoldchestnut

[Shera]

1 hour ago, thatoldchestnut said:

Not even sure what you're referring to. I don't tend to hold grudges against anonymous forum members about something so trivial. To be perfectly candid, that seems like a very thinly veiled (and i hope ineffective) attempt to discredit my opinion, which Spanker clearly shares.

Call a spade a spade, this may be an acceptable result for the amount of grafts used but 1200 was clearly not enough for the area covered. I have noticed that Dr. Bhatti quite often uses low graft counts on large areas that leaves what, to my mind, is a very poor aesthetic impression.

OK, I must be mistaken as to why you praise all other OK results but consistently knock Dr Bhatti's results when there are complete disasters posted where you never feel the need to comment.

Going back to the result, it is only 8 months old and yet you'll be jumping up and down with joy if one of your favored surgeons had got such a great result after just 8 months using only 1200 grafts.

Just calling a spade a spade...........

 

 

Edited July 10, 2018 by Shera

[Al - Moderator]

1 hour ago, thatoldchestnut said:

this may be an acceptable result for the amount of grafts used but 1200 was clearly not enough for the area covered. I have noticed that Dr. Bhatti quite often uses low graft counts on large areas that leaves what, to my mind, is a very poor aesthetic impression.

You think this result looks poor? In what way? The patient clearly has some early thinning going on through his midscalp and will most likely need further surgery to fill in that area and probably the crown as well in the future. I don't think filling in the hairline with 3000+ grafts is the right way to go when you can see he is thinning throughout. What will he do later when the rest of his hair falls out if he already use 3000+ to get a low hairline? You can't just consider what it looks like today. You have to consider the future as well. I think this results looks pretty good and certainly looks a lot better than where he started.

[Gasthoerer]

This is a very difficult case to assess. Why?

1. The patient clearly has sign of loss in the midscalp and propably requires further procedures considering his age.

2. The hairline is very straight and very low, which can be considered very aggresive.

3. It appears that a very small # of grafts has been taken for the are treated.

4. The result looks stunning (how can you say otherwise?), especially considering #2 and #3, but (!), more pictures from different angles are required (especially close ups from the temples). Also more information (area treated etc.) would help.

Summary:

- Is it an aggresive (low, straight hairline) or conservative case (low ä of FU) ? I do not know...

- Is it a great result of just a picture taken from a great angle with nice lightning? No one knows...

Are you sure the # of grafts is correct?

 

[Spanker]

I agree with Gasthoerer.

I didn't say this is a bad result, I said it's a bad presentation.  Having a straight on comb through and straight on pics only with a comb holding the hair back tells nothing of the result. 

Also, regarding the number of grafts used, that would be a fairly large area for 1200 grafts to make a significant impact on. 

 

So here is my issue with it.  Some dude comes on here for the first time, looks at this "result" and thinks, "I can get a low, straight, full hairline for 1200 grafts! I'm in!"

Then he goes to a consult with someone else and he gets quoted 2500, or the doc refuses the hairline he wants, and he is confused and doesn't understand why he is different. Or even worse, finds a doc to quote him 1200 grafts for a hairline like this and is bummed out with his result because it doesn't look as full as straight on pic with a brush holding the hair back looks. 

 

It's not something I want to argue about. If someone disagrees and that one angle taken like is a good presentation, there is nothing I can say to change their mind anyway. 

[Melvin- Admin]

I will chime in here, I understand what every one is saying and I can see both sides. However, the fact remains that the results appear to be great results. Now that does not mean that everyone will achieve the same result with the same amount of grafts. There is the caveat, every single person researching hair restoration should understand the various factors that come in to play with the final outcome or appearance. The above patient is South Asian which more often then not means their donor characteristics are ideal, thick in diameter and coarse. This gives the "illusion" of more density.

Now if you take someone with fine straight hair and transplant the same amount of grafts the results could look night and day in difference. That is why it is crucial for the surgeon to know and understand how many grafts are necessary for the particular patient. This is why "we" as patients put our trust in physicians and trust their graft estimations, because they are already considering the various factors that ultimately create the final outcome and appearance.

Warmest regards- Melvin

[thatoldchestnut]

14 hours ago, Shera said:

1. I must be mistaken as to why you praise all other OK results but consistently knock Dr Bhatti's results...

2. You'll be jumping up and down with joy if one of your favored surgeons had got such a great result after just 8 months using only 1200 grafts.

 

 

1. I don't routinely praise ordinary results, nor do I consistently knock Dr. Bhatti's. Please don't egregiously misrepresent my conduct.

Again, this just smacks of disingenuous attempts to marginalise my opinion, which I'm perfectly entitled to hold. I have no motive to criticise Dr.Bhatti, I'm merely providing an observation which other members are free to listen to, or disregard completely.

2. I never directly criticised the result, I simply stated that, in my opinion, this case used too few grafts for the area covered. Furthermore, I most certainly would not be "jumping up and down with joy" if one of my "favored surgeons" produced this result, I would meet it with precisely the same skepticism as is the case here.

Frankly, it's more than a little ironic that you are insinuating that I, who has no incentive whatsoever to do so, am enacting some sort of vendetta against Dr. Bhatti; whereas you, as a direct representative of his clinic are simply judging the case on its merits.

Differences of opinion are one thing but I do not appreciate being characterised as unnecessarily zealous/malicious in my appraisal of results, as nothing could be further from the truth.