Unhappy with Eugenix transplant

[alexdft]

After reading the whole topic it feels like there was some bad communication/assessment by the clinic. I hope your results improve or, if you go for another surgery, it will be an absolute blast, man. And you definitely shouldn't question your initial expectations, because there was nothing wrong with them. Result is not dense enough compared to what doctors were promising.

[Melvin- Admin]

2 hours ago, asterix0 said:

@AJ_HT But isn't it a good clinic's responsibility to tell the patient that scarring can make it difficult to achieve good results? And if we assume that this is because of scarring and previous scalp damage, how will a touch-up help in any way? Especially when this will be the third surgery in the frontal region?

Yes, you are right that it is. I had assumed that they told you this, if I was wrong on this assumption I apologize. 

My interpretation of the sequence of events was:

- You were given a graft estimate, but were told based on your previous surgeries and donor status that it is a more risky procedure because of these circumstances. 

 

Yes, that is exactly right. As patient's we are not absolved of everything. Expectations must be managed as a patient. There are realities and facts to surgery which must be accepted prior to accepting surgery. 

 

[RandoBrando517]

Bru u was told here u couldn’t do more than 2500 cuz ur donor I still think 2500 was never gonna fill half ur head with alotta density 

[AJ_HT]

2 hours ago, asterix0 said:

@AJ_HT But isn't it a good clinic's responsibility to tell the patient that scarring can make it difficult to achieve good results? And if we assume that this is because of scarring and previous scalp damage, how will a touch-up help in any way? Especially when this will be the third surgery in the frontal region?

Yes, you are right that it is. I had assumed that they told you this, if I was wrong on this assumption I apologize. 

My interpretation of the sequence of events was:

- You were given a graft estimate, but were told based on your previous surgeries and donor status that it is a more risky procedure because of these circumstances. 

 

No matter what the clinic or anybody else says, I wasn't told anything about scarring or it being a risky procedure. Nor was there an issue with the donor area because as my chat shows, Dr Priyadarshini said that approx 2000-2500 grafts were needed for my frontal and mid-scalp region, which were available from my scalp donor.

(Only my crown wasn't getting covered because it required more grafts which were not available). These are the facts.

[AA1989]

12 hours ago, AJ_HT said:

Lastly, you spoke of a consent form. And I didn't want to bring this up in my original post because it would show the clinic in a bad light. But now that you mention it, the form I was asked to sign before the touch-up, wasn't just a consent form. It asked me to sign on a paper which said that I'm happy with the results of my first surgery with Eugenix, and going forward, I will not post my pictures anywhere.

Now here's my question - why will any patient, who is unhappy with their first surgery, sign a form that says that they are happy with it? And why will a good clinic explicitly ask the client not to upload their pictures on social media?

@Melvin- Moderator can you address this very serious allegation with the clinic and report your finding to the community. I know you take a very dim view of NDA's in the HT industry. It would be a worrying development for a recommended clinic to try and manipulate feedback/reviews.

[JoeMan]

 

9 minutes ago, AA1989 said:

@Melvin- Moderator can you address this very serious allegation with the clinic and report your finding to the community. I know you take a very dim view of NDA's in the HT industry. It would be a worrying development for a recommended clinic to try and manipulate feedback/reviews.

Something seems a miss since the OP signed the original paperwork for his 1st surgery with Eugenix at least thats my take on this. Only on his 2nd procedure was he refusing to sign this. They still seem to have performed the procedure. Now if it was a regular surgery document then why would any Dr perform a procedure without a signature? 

Edited March 6, 2022 by JoeMan

[AJ_HT]

35 minutes ago, Melvin- Moderator said:

Firstly, 

I'm not here to defend anyone or any clinic. But I must report my findings as I see them. You are a Norwood 5 so 2,500 grafts is not going to fill up half of your head with perfect density. This is a fact. To date, we have yet to see one picture posted of your midscalp, which was the section that was touched-up. You have been posting pictures of your frontal hairline, which again, you agreed looked good one month prior to your touch-up. 

Here are the facts:

1. You had a previous poor surgery, which made you a difficult case from the start, for various reasons scarring, etc. 

2. We haven't seen any pictures of your midscalp, which is still growing at 7 months

3. You agreed prior to your touch-up that you were happy with your hairline

4. You were told that your donor would not support more than 2500 grafts, which is in the text you shared.

At this point, you do not want to return to Eugenix, which is your right as a patient. I think the community has enough to draw their own conclusions. I refute the idea that patients are absolved of everything. We are not children. If you spend time researching hair transplants, you would know #1. You will require multiple procedures to achieve desired density. #2. Hair transplants are an illusion of density, and your hair will not look perfect in all circumstances. That is why I created this thread

I cannot comment on your touch-up because again, you have not posted any photos. On appearance, it looks like you are now unhappy about the hairline, months after having a touch-up for the midscalp. The clinics offer to count your grafts and replace any that haven't grown is more than fair in my opinion, and what else can we expect from a clinic? Should a clinic be forced to add 4,000 grafts when the patient paid for 2,500 and agreed to that number? No, I don't believe that is fair, nor should it be expected. 

I have not asked for another touch-up in any of my posts. In fact, I've said that even if I'm offered one, I'm not sure of taking it.

Let me elaborate on the facts you have mentioned:

1. You had a previous poor surgery, which made you a difficult case from the start, for various reasons scarring, etc. - Okay (although this wasn't mentioned to me prior to surgery)

2. We haven't seen any pictures of your midscalp, which is still growing at 7 months - You keep saying I haven't shared this picture time and again, but how exactly is a picture of my mid-scalp relevant? The problem being discussed here is with my frontal region. Anyway, since you want it, I've attached the same below.

3. You agreed prior to your touch-up that you were happy with your hairline - I have repeatedly mentioned that it was month 8, and I was happy with the way it looked for MONTH 8 (assuming there would be more improvement till month 12). I didn't think even this would be an issue after 12-15 months. Not sure what I've not conveyed here.

4. You were told that your donor would not support more than 2500 grafts, which is in the text you shared. - And you seem to have ignored the rest of the text that said that I would need only 2500 grafts for my frontal and midscalp region? The donor would not support more than 2500 grafts - which is true. But as per the chat, I didn't NEED more than 2500 grafts for the front and mid-scalp. Why has that piece of information been left out?

Melvin, I respect what you've done for the community on this platform. But by commenting on the donor availability and completely ignoring the fact that the doc clearly said I need 2500 grafts for my surgery, it doesn't seem like you're looking at both sides fairly in this situation.

Anyway, here's a picture of my mid-scalp (but like I said, I don't know how that will help here)

[ITA]

I would like to understand if the doctor Priyadarshini told the OP that he only needed 2500 grafts or that he could only take that number?  Although it seems somewhat strange to me that it is the second one, because as I have already written, Eugenix is famous for mega shaving sessions too and therefore I do not understand why they only took 300 from there and did not ask him to lower his pants too. or check their chest hair to see if they would be able to get grafts from other parts of the body.

[Z--]

Agreed. This is unfortunately a poor result. 2,500 grafts is way, way too small an area for both the front and mid-scalp given the level of loss that is present. Understand that if that's all they can take, and if that was conveyed beforehand with expectations set (e.g. hair will look thin and the illusion of density will not be achieved) that's one thing and is more on the patient for still wanting a miracle. However, if Eugenix indeed claimed that it was enough for the front and/or mid-scalp that's another story and reflects a poor setting of expectations on them.

You can check my post-history, as I've recommended Eugenix time and time again for high Norwoods based on their usually stellar results, but this one seems a misfire (the first I've seen from them, as again, their results are usually really, really good). I hope you are able to resolve this @AJ_HT, as Eugenix are known to stand behind their work and I'd hope they try to make this right.

Edited March 6, 2022 by Z--

[AA1989]

On 3/5/2022 at 2:06 PM, AJ_HT said:

I did extensive research and went to Eugenix after meeting at least 8-9 different doctors in India in 2020.

@AJ_HTYou were clearly extremely knowledgeable going into your repair after such a bad previous experience. For the benefit of members can you show us examples from your research, of what you expected with 2500 grafts? (given a similar start point).

[AJ_HT]

10 minutes ago, Egy said:

I would like to understand if the doctor Priyadarshini told the OP that he only needed 2500 grafts or that he could only take that number?  Although it seems somewhat strange to me that it is the second one, because as I have already written, Eugenix is famous for mega shaving sessions too and therefore I do not understand why they only took 300 from there and did not ask him to lower his pants too. or check their chest hair to see if they would be able to get grafts from other parts of the body.

I was told that my frontal and midscalp would need 2500 grafts, which could be available from the scalp. I was also told that anything more than that would not be possible to harvest from the scalp, and may need grafts from the beard.

And you've got it right @Egy. If more grafts were needed, they could have been harvested from my beard (I have a thick beard). But I was told that my requirement itself is of 2500 grafts. You may refer to the images I have attached in the earlier post in case you wish to verify the same.

[Melvin- Admin]

55 minutes ago, AJ_HT said:

I have not asked for another touch-up in any of my posts. In fact, I've said that even if I'm offered one, I'm not sure of taking it.

Let me elaborate on the facts you have mentioned:

1. You had a previous poor surgery, which made you a difficult case from the start, for various reasons scarring, etc. - Okay (although this wasn't mentioned to me prior to surgery)

2. We haven't seen any pictures of your midscalp, which is still growing at 7 months - You keep saying I haven't shared this picture time and again, but how exactly is a picture of my mid-scalp relevant? The problem being discussed here is with my frontal region. Anyway, since you want it, I've attached the same below.

3. You agreed prior to your touch-up that you were happy with your hairline - I have repeatedly mentioned that it was month 8, and I was happy with the way it looked for MONTH 8 (assuming there would be more improvement till month 12). I didn't think even this would be an issue after 12-15 months. Not sure what I've not conveyed here.

4. You were told that your donor would not support more than 2500 grafts, which is in the text you shared. - And you seem to have ignored the rest of the text that said that I would need only 2500 grafts for my frontal and midscalp region? The donor would not support more than 2500 grafts - which is true. But as per the chat, I didn't NEED more than 2500 grafts for the front and mid-scalp. Why has that piece of information been left out?

Melvin, I respect what you've done for the community on this platform. But by commenting on the donor availability and completely ignoring the fact that the doc clearly said I need 2500 grafts for my surgery, it doesn't seem like you're looking at both sides fairly in this situation.

Anyway, here's a picture of my mid-scalp (but like I said, I don't know how that will help here)

I think we’re now able to compare apples to apples. 

 

I think the community can draw their own conclusions on whether this is a successful repair or not. My point is, we can only expect the clinic to deliver the grafts that have been transplanted. Whether it met your expectations is another topic. Managing expectations is not solely on the clinic. We’re not absolved of research or knowledge as patients. 

Again, 2,500 grafts will not deliver impeccable density. This is a reality. Patients can complain that this wasn’t made clear, but there’s a responsibility as a patient to research beforehand. I don’t believe patients should be treated as children absolved from everything or know-how. I know the consent forms I was sent prior to surgery laid all this out.

[AJ_HT]

15 minutes ago, Z-- said:

Agreed. This is unfortunately a poor result. 2,500 grafts is way, way too small an area for both the front and mid-scalp given the level of loss that is present. Understand that if that's all they can take, and if that was conveyed beforehand with expectations set (e.g. hair will look thin and the illusion of density will not be achieved) that's one thing and is more on the patient for still wanting a miracle. However, if Eugenix indeed claimed that it was enough for the front and/or mid-scalp that's another story and reflects a poor setting of expectations on them.

You can check my post-history, as I've recommended Eugenix time and time again for high Norwoods based on their usually stellar results, but this one seems a misfire (the first I've seen from them, as again, their results are usually really, really good). I hope you are able to resolve this @AJ_HT, as Eugenix are known to stand behind their work and I'd hope they try to make this right.

I'm a reasonable man, sir. And if I was told beforehand that due to donor unavailability I may not get good density, then I either wouldn't opt for the surgery, or if I did, wouldn't come and write such long posts here. So to answer your question, no, the expectations weren't set beforehand. I was told I'd get good density with 2500 grafts.

And now after seeing the way it is being handled, I don't think I'd want to opt for another procedure with them even if they offer to correct it.

[ITA]

Melvin, sorry but I don't think so, if I rely on a clinic or a top surgeon, I have to trust what they/he tells me for the success of my transplant.

[NARMAK]

11 minutes ago, Melvin- Moderator said:

I think we’re now able to compare apples to apples. 

 

I think the community can draw their own conclusions on whether this is a successful repair or not. My point is, we can only expect the clinic to deliver the grafts that have been transplanted. Whether it met your expectations is another topic. Managing expectations is not solely on the clinic. We’re not absolved of research or knowledge as patients. 

Again, 2,500 grafts will not deliver impeccable density. This is a reality. Patients can complain that this wasn’t made clear, but there’s a responsibility as a patient to research beforehand. I don’t believe patients should be treated as children absolved from everything or know-how. 

I'm sorry Melvin but i seriously need to disagree with your assessment here of patient research and knowledge when it specifically comes to how many grafts are required for an illusion of density. This is something the clinic is supposed to take into account. 

Right now if i went to any reputable clinic and demanded they transplant 100 grafts per cm/2 or whatever my narive density is i would get told no. They would tell me specifically that my native density is X and i need Y grafts to get the appropriate illusion of density based on a first pass. 

Eugenix imo are there specifically to evaluate how many grafts are thus required for such a result not the patient and then this should be communicated. An in person assessment is obviously the best way for the clinic to see natural hair calibre and so on. You can't expect the majority of patients to be that knowledgeable generally about it. After that assessment the clinic should take steps to determine realistically how many grafts would be required. In this case to cover the proposed frontal and midscalp region which is what OP was offered as being 2500.

Please review what has been presented by OP and let's try to reach a conclusion here to help him whilst not apportioning a blame which seems to be aimed towards OP presently imo a touch. 

[Melvin- Admin]

26 minutes ago, NARMAK said:

I'm sorry Melvin but i seriously need to disagree with your assessment here of patient research and knowledge when it specifically comes to how many grafts are required for an illusion of density. This is something the clinic is supposed to take into account. 

Right now if i went to any reputable clinic and demanded they transplant 100 grafts per cm/2 or whatever my narive density is i would get told no. They would tell me specifically that my native density is X and i need Y grafts to get the appropriate illusion of density based on a first pass. 

Eugenix imo are there specifically to evaluate how many grafts are thus required for such a result not the patient and then this should be communicated. An in person assessment is obviously the best way for the clinic to see natural hair calibre and so on. You can't expect the majority of patients to be that knowledgeable generally about it. After that assessment the clinic should take steps to determine realistically how many grafts would be required. In this case to cover the proposed frontal and midscalp region which is what OP was offered as being 2500.

Please review what has been presented by OP and let's try to reach a conclusion here to help him whilst not apportioning a blame which seems to be aimed towards OP presently imo a touch. 

You’re free to disagree with my assessment. The conclusion that the patient was never told is a “he said, she said” situation. I was told by Dr. Arika that this patient was counseled and told the realities of his situation. Including, donor scarring and what type of density could be achieved. 

My assertion here is that patients are not absolved of knowledge or research. That’s why I do this work. The clinic has already performed a free touch-up, the patient himself at the time made no mention of the hairline being a problem. He states that it was because it was 8 months, but still proceeded to get a repair in the midscalp at the same time. That doesn’t make any sense. If he wasn’t happy with the front he should’ve mentioned this to start. I don’t see how that falls on the clinic. 

At the end of the day, it is my job to ensure the clinic is acting fairly, and in this case, I believe they are fair. They’ve offered to replace any hair that hasn’t grown, they’ve already done a free touch-up. I’m not sure what else can be expected at this time. Again, everyone is free to draw their own conclusions based on the facts presented.

[AA1989]

9 minutes ago, NARMAK said:

let's try to reach a conclusion here to help

What does the OP want? I asked the question earlier

Quote

What would be a satisfactory outcome to this thread?

I have not received an answer. Indeed, the broader question is what would satisfy the OP and allow them to move on? Ultimately, if the OP can not come to a resolution with the clinic, then he has the option of legal redress, I assume based on misselling/malpractice. I'm sure the clinic would robustly contest this.

[RandoBrando517]

Dont make no sense that he complained about the middle and not the hairline seems like it coulda been handled better on all counts 

[Melvin- Admin]

5 minutes ago, AA1989 said:

What does the OP want? I asked the question earlier

I have not received an answer. Indeed, the broader question is what would satisfy the OP and allow them to move on? Ultimately, if the OP can not come to a resolution with the clinic, then he has the option of legal redress, I assume based on misselling/malpractice. I'm sure the clinic would robustly contest this.

This is getting outrageous. Misselling/malpractice, are you serious?? If anything, the first clinic would be the one liable for malpractice. The situation has improved immensely and his hair looks a lot better, how on earth can you say that is malpractice. Please let me know. 

[ITA]

8 minutes ago, RandoBrando517 said:

Dont make no sense that he complained about the middle and not the hairline seems like it coulda been handled better on all counts 

He has already written several times that the midscalp was left bald, while in the frontline something was growing and he thought it would improve further in the end, but it did not.

[NARMAK]

15 minutes ago, Melvin- Moderator said:

You’re free to disagree with my assessment. The conclusion that the patient was never told is a “he said, she said” situation. I was told by Dr. Arika that this patient was counseled and told the realities of his situation. Including, donor scarring and what type of density could be achieved. 

My assertion here is that as patients are not absolved of knowledge or research. That’s why I do this work. The clinic has already performed a free touch-up, the patient himself at the time made no mention of the hairline being a problem. He states that it was because it was 8 months, but still proceeded to get a repair in the midscalp at the same time. That doesn’t make any sense. If he wasn’t happy with the front he should’ve mentioned this to start. I don’t see how that falls on the clinic. 

At the end of the day, it is my job to ensure the clinic is acting fairly, and in this case, I believe they are fair. They’ve offered to replace any hair that hasn’t grown, they’ve already done a free touch-up. I’m not sure what else can be expected at this time. Again, everyone is free to draw their own conclusions based on the facts presented.

Melvin, the clinic themselves in the very screenshot you posted state "We still have time. The front looks good" and specifically aligns with the OP stating he was at month 8 and had a total of 4 more months to have the frontal hairline mature. A timeframe with which it is unfair to assume a final result as a patient which is exactly what OP has stated in their replies here. The touch up is for the midscalp and the OP has not raised any further complaints regarding that. The OP has simply stated they are now over 12 months and the agreement of offering sufficient density to the frontal hairline as expected after allowing the additional 4 months to get to a final 12 month result has not yielded the desired additional growth, maturity or density OP had expected based on clinical assessment. 

I'm trying to give a fair shake to OP and the clinic here. I'm sure others can also draw their own conclusion. You are certainly right that "He said, she said" is not something that can be really addressed but now i will raise something that has been mentioned. A document amounting to more or less an NDA for OP. Can you please address where you stand on this aspect if it is the case whether for this or any other clinic recommended by this forum as well as generally behaviour that any clinic would try to get a patient to sign. 

Clearly that wasn't a standard patient surgery consent as we know OP had a midscalp procedure which we are calling a touch up but he wouldn't have had it if he didn't sign for surgery. 

Edited March 6, 2022 by NARMAK
Spelling

[RandoBrando517]

4 minutes ago, Egy said:

He has already written several times that the midscalp was left bald, while in the frontline something was growing and he thought it would improve further in the end, but it did not.

They didn’t leave the midscalp bald he har grafts there go to the first page

[AA1989]

3 minutes ago, Melvin- Moderator said:

This is getting outrageous. Misselling/malpractice, are you serious?? If anything, the first clinic would be the one liable for malpractice. The situation has improved immensely and his hair looks a lot better, how on earth can you say that is malpractice. Please let me know. 

If two parties that have entered into a commercial agreement cannot find a resolution, then the OP has the right to seek legal advice. I make no judgement on the success or otherwise of their case, but in a democracy I respect their right to make that choice.

[Melvin- Admin]

7 minutes ago, NARMAK said:

Melvin, the clinic themselves in the very screenshot you posted state "We still have time. The front looks good" and specifically aligns with the OP stating he was at month 8 and had a total of 4 more months to have the frontal hairline mature. A timeframe with which it is unfair to assume a final result as a patient which is exactly what OP has stated in their replies here. The touch up is for the midscalp and the OP has not raised any further complaints regarding that. The OP has simply stated they are now over 12 months and the agreement of offering sufficient density to the frontal hairline as expected after allowing the additional 4 months to get to a final 12 month result has not yielded the desired additional growth, maturity or density OP had expected based on clinical assessment. 

I'm trying to give a fair shake to OP and the clinic here. I'm sure others can also draw their own conclusion. You are certainly right that "He said, she said" is not something that can be really addressed but now i will raise something that has been mentioned. A document amounting to more or less an NDA for OP. Can you please address where you stand on this aspect if it is the case whether for this or any other clinic recommended by this forum as well as generally behaviour that any clinic would try to get a patient to sign. 

Clearly that wasn't a standard patient surgery consent as we know OP had a midscalp procedure which we are calling a touch up but he wouldn't have had it if he didn't sign for surgery. 

I think we’re going back and forth here unnecessarily. I have already said my peace, the facts are here. The text shows that he was discussing the midscalp and not the front. They said “we still have time” to the midscalp, that was not concerning the hairline. So I’m not sure how you’re coming to that conclusion. 

As for NDA’s, I have not seen this document, but yes, I know several clinics who have patients sign a document that will protect them legally, or from a form of extortion. I don’t believe that’s what they presented based on what was said in the document. 

I don’t believe there’s anything left to say, the clinic already offered to do a free touch-up for any hair that hasn’t grown. If the patient doesn’t want to retun that’s his prerogative. This will be my last reply on this subject, it’s run it’s course, the facts are here. You can come to your own conclusion. 

[AJ_HT]

22 minutes ago, Melvin- Moderator said:

You’re free to disagree with my assessment. The conclusion that the patient was never told is a “he said, she said” situation. I was told by Dr. Arika that this patient was counseled and told the realities of his situation. Including, donor scarring and what type of density could be achieved. 

My assertion here is that patients are not absolved of knowledge or research. That’s why I do this work. The clinic has already performed a free touch-up, the patient himself at the time made no mention of the hairline being a problem. He states that it was because it was 8 months, but still proceeded to get a repair in the midscalp at the same time. That doesn’t make any sense. If he wasn’t happy with the front he should’ve mentioned this to start. I don’t see how that falls on the clinic. 

At the end of the day, it is my job to ensure the clinic is acting fairly, and in this case, I believe they are fair. They’ve offered to replace any hair that hasn’t grown, they’ve already done a free touch-up. I’m not sure what else can be expected at this time. Again, everyone is free to draw their own conclusions based on the facts presented.

I'm glad you posted this. As per your discussion with Eugenix, if the primary area was the frontal hairline (as claimed by them), why do we see Dr Priyadarshini in the chat here telling me that the mid-scalp will show improvement? If that was not the primary focus, the response should have been "that was not the primary focus". As simple as that.

Secondly, I think this will probably be the last time I say this - my results in the front seemed good for 8 months. I thought there would be improvement till month 12 so I did not have a problem with it. My mid-scalp though, was extremely scanty, so I knew that no amount of time will magically improve the mid-scalp. 

Aren't we supposed to be patient and wait it out till month 12 at least, to see full density? What is expected of us as patients? Wait till 12 months or get paranoid in 8 months?