Dr. Koray Erdogan 5000 grafts

[Kraistoff]

35 minutes ago, adonix said:

Scientific? What about hair surgery is scientific? Its a game of protocols and probabilities. You are right about one thing - you would hope the surgeon would advise accordingly. And guess what - some do.

Ok Einstein 

[Der3k7]

7 hours ago, adonix said:

Scientific? What about hair surgery is scientific? Its a game of protocols and probabilities. You are right about one thing - you would hope the surgeon would advise accordingly. And guess what - some do.

I disagree. Literally everything about a hair transplant can be considered scientific. Even the "artistry" of it and I can explain why if you don't see it.  

Also, I have read a study that shows as you transplant more hair follicles per Sq cm the yield goes down. But i think I remember that the yield only goes down marginally and that the density to where it starts going down is already pretty dense. Meaning you can dense pack and still get 90+% yield as long as everything is done correctly 

Edited October 6, 2019 by Der3k7

[adonix]

1 hour ago, Der3k7 said:

I disagree. Literally everything about a hair transplant can be considered scientific. Even the "artistry" of it and I can explain why if you don't see it.  

Also, I have read a study that shows as you transplant more hair follicles per Sq cm the yield goes down. But i think I remember that the yield only goes down marginally and that the density to where it starts going down is already pretty dense. Meaning you can dense pack and still get 90+% yield as long as everything is done correctly 

So is it scientific or artistry? Those two are almost diagonally opposite.

The problem is not in dense packing. Like I said it is a game of protocols and probabilities. One body can take 20 hours of a surgery over 2 days, or 10000 incisions and holes, etc. Other body might not. One hair graft might be fine after being kept for 5 hours in a solution and waiting for placement, other graft might not. One scalp has enough circulation to accept 5000 new grafts and quickly create all necessary bloodlines, other scalp might not.

Why risk 5000 grafts, when you can do the first pass of say 3500, and do 1500 later, if needed. That approach will always yield better results, and will be better for your donor management as well.

 

Edited October 6, 2019 by adonix

[Der3k7]

"Art", especially in the context of any cosmetic surgery, is much more closely tied to natural science than you would think. There is a reason why certain hairlines, noses, lips, etc are perceived to be more aesthetic and "Natural" than others. Certain growth patterns of hairlines are found in nature and others simply are not. If someone has a hairline transplanted that is completely not like anything that would occur naturally in nature, I garuntee  if you saw it you would be repulsed. This is our evolutionary psychology kicking in. The "artistry" of mimicking a natural and aesthtic hairline is based on what is found in nature and what is perceived as optimally attractive. Certain features are perceived to be more attractive than other features because of evolution. Evolutionary psychology/evolutionary biology or whatever you want to call it. We tend to find physical characteristics that signal physiological health and vitality as more attractive than physical characteristics that are a result of physiological disease or that *might* signal physiological disease...even if it actually doesn't. So yes, even the "design" of a hairline, which is often said to be the least scientific aspect of a hair transplant, is actually rooted in natural science.

To address your statement that it is a game of protocols and probabilities, yes that's true. But so is any surgery. So is any prescription medication. Protocols and probabilities are everywhere in any scientifically based venture. This is non contradictory to something being based on scientific principles. And also the fact that there are lots of variation of blood supply to different individuals scalps and various people's physiologies have different thresholds of what they can withstand...how is this not in the realm of nature and reason? This is a matter to consider in any surgery...In any prescription of medication. That is exactly the scope of medicine and science. To understand nature and all its variances. Engineering, surgery design, and pharmacology all consider these variances in nature and work to design or solve  a problem and manipulate nature to achieve a certain goal. Everything about our bodies are within nature and the realm of natural science. We are a physical system and everything about the methodological process of taking out hair cells from the back of our head and sticking them into the front of our head has the ability to be analyzed within the framework of reason and science. Even the process of optimizing the human element of the process of undergoing a team or non team based surgery has the capability of being analyzed with reason within the framework of understanding nature and processes, even man made ones, and how things work. This is the fundamental broad definition of science. Now, of course in doing a surgery you are not "doing" science. But everything about the procedure itself can be analyzed within the scope of nature and the scientific method.

Also the only scientific literature I have seen has stated that yield is related to how densely hair follicles are transplanted not that it is related to how many total hair follicles are transplanted. I would be willing to bet that yield is much more closely related to how densely hairs are packed vs how many total hairs are transplanted. 

To demonstrate this, imagine both extremes. For the first case take 1000 hair follicles and transplant them all within 2cm^2 or as small an area that they can physically fit. There is not enough room for each follicle to have enough blood supply and settle in. It is unlikely that many will survive. Now for the 2nd case transplant 5000 grafts spread out globally across the entire head. I bet the yield on the 2nd case will be higher. This observation would be consistent with the idea that yield is more closely related to the density of transplanted follicles vs the total number of transplanted follicles. 

Q.E.D.

Lol

Edited October 6, 2019 by Der3k7

[adonix]

54 minutes ago, Der3k7 said:

"Art", especially in the context of any cosmetic surgery, is much more closely tied to natural science than you would think. There is a reason why certain hairlines, noses, lips, etc are perceived to be more aesthetic and "Natural" than others. Certain growth patterns of hairlines are found in nature and others simply are not. If someone has a hairline transplanted that is completely not like anything that would occur naturally in nature, I garuntee  if you saw it you would be repulsed. This is our evolutionary psychology kicking in. The "artistry" of mimicking a natural and aesthtic hairline is based on what is found in nature and what is perceived as optimally attractive. Certain features are perceived to be more attractive than other features because of evolution. Evolutionary psychology/evolutionary biology or whatever you want to call it. We tend to find physical characteristics that signal physiological health and vitality as more attractive than physical characteristics that are a result of physiological disease or that *might* signal physiological disease...even if it actually doesn't. So yes, even the "design" of a hairline, which is often said to be the least scientific aspect of a hair transplant, is actually rooted in natural science.

To address your statement that it is a game of protocols and probabilities, yes that's true. But so is any surgery. So is any prescription medication. Protocols and probabilities are everywhere in any scientifically based venture. This is non contradictory to something being based on scientific principles. And also the fact that there are lots of variation of blood supply to different individuals scalps and various people's physiologies have different thresholds of what they can withstand...how is this not in the realm of nature and reason? This is a matter to consider in any surgery...In any prescription of medication. That is exactly the scope of medicine and science. To understand nature and all its variances. Engineering, surgery design, and pharmacology all consider these variances in nature and work to design or solve  a problem and manipulate nature to achieve a certain goal. Everything about our bodies are within nature and the realm of natural science. We are a physical system and everything about the methodological process of taking out hair cells from the back of our head and sticking them into the front of our head has the ability to be analyzed within the framework of reason and science. Even the process of optimizing the human element of the process of undergoing a team or non team based surgery has the capability of being analyzed with reason within the framework of understanding nature and processes, even man made ones, and how things work. This is the fundamental broad definition of science. Now, of course in doing a surgery you are not "doing" science. But everything about the procedure itself can be analyzed within the scope of nature and the scientific method.

Also the only scientific literature I have seen has stated that yield is related to how densely hair follicles are transplanted not that it is related to how many total hair follicles are transplanted. I would be willing to bet that yield is much more closely related to how densely hairs are packed vs how many total hairs are transplanted. 

To demonstrate this, imagine both extremes. For the first case take 1000 hair follicles and transplant them all within 2cm^2 or as small an area that they can physically fit. There is not enough room for each follicle to have enough blood supply and settle in. It is unlikely that many will survive. Now for the 2nd case transplant 5000 grafts spread out globally across the entire head. I bet the yield on the 2nd case will be higher. This observation would be consistent with the idea that yield is more closely related to the density of transplanted follicles vs the total number of transplanted follicles. 

Q.E.D.

Lol

If you dont get why two surgeries of 3500+1500 are much safer and less risky than one 5000 surgery, I cant help you. 

Keep looking at the mirror, read ‘scientific’ papers and wonder.

Edited October 6, 2019 by adonix

[Guy73]

On 10/2/2019 at 1:32 AM, Der3k7 said:

Man I really got fucked over by my last 2 surgeries. Such low yield and so many grafts used. 

I agree with the other guy. You should have done about 3500 the first run and then go back. I don’t blame you I would blame the doctor. My doctor advice to me was doing that way is a lower risk of low yield. Doctors that just want to try and do a home run everytime with that many grafts seem to be the greedy ones. Just my opinion. But hey if joe Tillman Can get his hair back after a donor deficit then so can you!

[Der3k7]

7 minutes ago, Guy73 said:

I agree with the other guy. You should have done about 3500 the first run and then go back. I don’t blame you I would blame the doctor. My doctor advice to me was doing that way is a lower risk of low yield. Doctors that just want to try and do a home run everytime with that many grafts seem to be the greedy ones. Just my opinion. But hey if joe Tillman Can get his hair back after a donor deficit then so can you!

Lol yeah. Well we will see. Just gonna do a small procedure of 1500-1800 with hasson most likely in about a year. When I start that thread I'll link this one to it and vice versa. 

Edited October 6, 2019 by Der3k7

[Guy73]

1 minute ago, Der3k7 said:

Lol yeah. Well we will see. Just gonna do a small procedure of 1500-1800 with hasson most likely in about a year. When I start that thread I'll link this one to it and vice versa. 

That’s where that joe Tillman went for his last 4 procedures. Also that Stephen mason guy. All YouTube guys. 

[Der3k7]

Yeah I saw. Hasson says I still have a good donor area CONSIDERING how much I have harvested already of course. He estimates I can do a 15-1800 surgery with him and then still have 1000 left for the future to keep things natural so I'll go with that plan. 

[Guy73]

40 minutes ago, Der3k7 said:

Yeah I saw. Hasson says I still have a good donor area CONSIDERING how much I have harvested already of course. He estimates I can do a 15-1800 surgery with him and then still have 1000 left for the future to keep things natural so I'll go with that plan. 

Yeah judging on where you at now and compared to me where I was at before my 3rd I would say you need at least 2500 for you to be satisfied. I mean 1500 will probably be good but I doubt if that is spread out in a large area. 

[Der3k7]

Yeah

[adonix]

3 hours ago, Guy73 said:

I agree with the other guy. You should have done about 3500 the first run and then go back. I don’t blame you I would blame the doctor. My doctor advice to me was doing that way is a lower risk of low yield. Doctors that just want to try and do a home run everytime with that many grafts seem to be the greedy ones. Just my opinion. But hey if joe Tillman Can get his hair back after a donor deficit then so can you!

Exactly.

I did 4000 in my first pass. The doctor said normally he would advise 3500, but would see how it goes with extractions and donor. I wanted to do ‘as much as possible’ in one go thinking it was a long trip and did not want to go back for the second pass soon. It went well, and I would say the yield was >95%. 

Now that I went through and know more - I would limit the surgeries to 3500. There is simply no reason to risk the yield, and none of us will ever be ok after only one surgery and will eventually have to go back.

[Der3k7]

Before and after 5000 precious grafts were wasted....this honestly seems like one of the worst and lowest yield surgeries I've ever seen from asmed on here. Even my temples barely changed and I had 500 put into each temple 

 

 

After 

 

Before 

Edited October 7, 2019 by Der3k7

[Kraistoff]

I can understand why you are disappointed. 

 

What do you think when you cut cut your hair shorter? Is there no improvement at all? 

It does look denser at the top of the hair shafts , but still see through at the bottom of the shafts, what was the hair diameter ? 

[Der3k7]

This is not a problem if hair diameter. Look at how many hairs are coming through my skin. That number is extremely pathetic. It's about how low my yield was 

I can't believe my crappy luck. 2 bad surgeries one with asmed and one with Shelly freidman and flew across the world twice for asmed that was supposed to be one of the best clinics in the world and I also wasted plane ticket I bought for November for them but I'm not going anymore lol. But my main concern is all the wasted grafts 

Edited October 7, 2019 by Der3k7

[Kraistoff]

I understand that I was just asking. 

Frustrating as hell for you mate. Hopefully you will get where you deserve to be . 

Having said that, you still have a decent head of hair most bald blokes would give their left nut for. 

Edited October 7, 2019 by Kraistoff

[Der3k7]

I think hasson will help. I just researched the internet for months before asmed and everyone kept saying Koray erdogan was one of the top 3 in the world 

[Kraistoff]

Was the same for me mate, as soon as I got mine done there were a few doubts which was terrifying . It is a difficult thing to call. 

I cannot style my hair upwards or use any gel to style it upwards as it would look see through but most hair transplants are like that to some degree. 

[Der3k7]

As long as I can really thicken up my currently line so it is a solid line and not see through I will be more content 

[Der3k7]

13 minutes ago, Kraistoff said:

Was the same for me mate, as soon as I got mine done there were a few doubts which was terrifying . It is a difficult thing to call. 

I cannot style my hair upwards or use any gel to style it upwards as it would look see through but most hair transplants are like that to some degree. 

I had a feeling I would get a bad result from day one given my luck and how I started to see bad results after I had already flown to see them in person for my consultation and then booked the surgery and paid the fee and paid for my second plane ticket that's when the bad results started popping up on this site 

[dokke]

Besides offering the touch up - does ASMED ackowledge and/or share your view on this being a sub par result? And if so, have they given any explanation to what might have happened (except for generic reasons)?

[Der3k7]

No they haven't but by offering the touch up it implies they agree. I told them I am turning the touch up down as I no longer have confidence in asmed also because there are too many poor reviews coming out online lately. I'm showing them before and after photos that make it extremely clear my yield is low and explaining to them that it is not fair to me given the 90% garuntee and that since I am refusing that they can fill my free touch up with a paying customer that will generate revenue for them and that given they have wasted so many of my grafts that I can never ever get back I think a partial refund is reasonable. Imagine going to a barber and getting a bad hair cut. They would offer a refund. Many companies offer refunds for poor service or products especially if they offer a garuntee. This should be no different. This is worse than just a bad haircut because I have permanent wasting of donor hairs that will directly hinder my ability to ever be satisfied by a hair transplant because of donor depletion by asmed with poor yield. They are reviewing my situation now and will get back to me this week 

Edited October 7, 2019 by Der3k7

[dokke]

Totally agree on the refund.

Seems they are offering touch ups for cases that are way less severe than yours, so that doesn't seem like a big admittannce on their end. Which sort of implies that they think this yield is to be expected.

[Der3k7]

Yeah my hair causes me anxiety and insecurity every day. I think about it every day throughout the day. Every time I'm in the bathroom, see a mirror or reflective surface 

[dokke]

Whoa! You shouldn't! 

Most people here would kill for your hair, and looks. It's not a bad result in that sense - it's just that one would expect 5000 grafts to look more dense.