Recipient Dominance

[jolly]

hi guys ,

does anyone believe in  recipient dominance ? I think its a true to believe this  phenomenon as I have seen a few cases where the initial growth was robust but gradually the transplanted hair fell out in a matter of 5  years , and the cases were FUT and the hair were harvested from the permanent zone , so the chances of unsafe zones  grafts gets eliminated.

have any of you guys faced similar experiences  please share .

[Melvin- Admin]

If recipient dominance was a myth, this site wouldn’t exist. Those cases are probably because those individuals suffer from DUPA. 

[Al - Moderator]

On 9/20/2020 at 2:52 PM, jolly said:

does anyone believe in  recipient dominance ? I think its a true to believe this  phenomenon as I have seen a few cases where the initial growth was robust but gradually the transplanted hair fell out in a matter of 5  years , and the cases were FUT and the hair were harvested from the permanent zone , so the chances of unsafe zones  grafts gets eliminated.

 

You are assuming the permanent zone is actually permanent, so with that you then assume that the reason for the hair loss must be because there is recipient dominance rather than donor dominance. The reason your conclusion is incorrect is because the "permanent" donor zone is not so permanent. This is one of the lies that all hair transplant Drs keep repeating. If they didn't say this then most of them would be out of business. Who would get a hair transplant knowing that the hair taken and placed on top may start falling out as soon as a year or two? Not many, I'd say.

If the transplanted hair is falling out then the donor area hair is almost always falling out as well. You may not notice it because there is more hair in the donor than was transplanted. If you have 80 grafts per cm2 in the donor zone and take a strip of that and place grafts in the recipient at 40 grafts per cm2 you will then have basically 80 grafts per cm2 in the donor and 40 cm2 in the recipient. Now suppose you lose 30% of the hair in the recipient area over the next 10 years. You now have 28 grafts per cm2 in the recipient which looks obviously very thin. You will have also lost 30% in the donor zone too, but you will still have 56 grafts per cm2 there, so you may not even know yet that it's thinning. The result is it looks like you only thinned out in the recipient zone and not the donor zone.

 

[Homeerestre]

It would be a nightmare spending lots of money to something that will not last. I really do hope it's a myth.

[Al - Moderator]

The transplanted hair will last just as long as it would have lasted in the area that it was taken from. If it would have grown for the next 50 years if it wasn't transplanted then it will grow for 50 years after it's transplanted. 50+ years of hair transplants being done proves this.