If a surgeon is part of the ABHRS are they generally trustworthy to do a good job?

[Gurillo32]

I can see there are a few surgeons who are part of the ABHRS (American board of hair restoration surgery). Does this generally mean that they will do a good job and are well regarded in the industry or can it often be misleading?

[Britanium]

2 minutes ago, Gurillo32 said:

I can see there are a few surgeons who are part of the ABHRS (American board of hair restoration surgery). Does this generally mean that they will do a good job and are well regarded in the industry or can it often be misleading?

Definitely misleading, all of the affiliations such as ABHRS/ISHRS/IAHRS are not a proven way to ensure a quality Dr/Clinic/Hair Transplant. Just take a look through the members list to see for yourself, yes it has some really good Drs included, but it also has some poor ones. 

[NARMAK]

21 minutes ago, J.A.C said:

Definitely misleading, all of the affiliations such as ABHRS/ISHRS/IAHRS are not a proven way to ensure a quality Dr/Clinic/Hair Transplant. Just take a look through the members list to see for yourself, yes it has some really good Drs included, but it also has some poor ones. 

I think it seems like such a shame that a body claiming to advocate highly towards patient excellence in fact could be nothing more than a dupe to con people almost into believing that X Doctor etc. is superior and funnel cash their way and get a financial return as a result of membership fees. 

The hair transplant industry and probably cosmetic surgery industry in general is just ridiculous. I don't understand why government based health agencies are not more closely monitoring this. The FDA for example has to approve X, Y, Z for medication so why don't they set the standards at that level is what i don't get. 

[Britanium]

20 minutes ago, NARMAK said:

I think it seems like such a shame that a body claiming to advocate highly towards patient excellence in fact could be nothing more than a dupe to con people almost into believing that X Doctor etc. is superior and funnel cash their way and get a financial return as a result of membership fees. 

The hair transplant industry and probably cosmetic surgery industry in general is just ridiculous. I don't understand why government based health agencies are not more closely monitoring this. The FDA for example has to approve X, Y, Z for medication so why don't they set the standards at that level is what i don't get. 

Certain other well know advocates/advisors can sometimes refer to them (I’m not naming them here either) Ultimately I like the idea but in reality it has not worked. The only proven method is searching real results on a forum such as this. Not all forums are equal either, this is the most transparent and open one I know, the others I’m part of have a very different outlook. At least here the recommended list is under constant scrutiny, it’s now recently revamped and now has a lot less clinics/Drs than previously. I think it’s as good as it gets here, knowledge wise, no BS and generally excellent advice. To the OP we also say that online reviews are not to be trusted and relied upon either. 

Edited April 3, 2022 by J.A.C

[TorontoMan]

1 hour ago, NARMAK said:

I think it seems like such a shame that a body claiming to advocate highly towards patient excellence in fact could be nothing more than a dupe to con people almost into believing that X Doctor etc. is superior and funnel cash their way and get a financial return as a result of membership fees. 

The hair transplant industry and probably cosmetic surgery industry in general is just ridiculous. I don't understand why government based health agencies are not more closely monitoring this. The FDA for example has to approve X, Y, Z for medication so why don't they set the standards at that level is what i don't get. 

Because this is to some extent subjective 

[NARMAK]

5 minutes ago, TorontoMan said:

Because this is to some extent subjective 

How do you mean? 

I feel like there's plenty of objective metrics you could try to use and set as a standard. 

Also, the idea that members pay a fee and receive a recommendation as a result is then opening the doors for bias potentially. I know government departments require a doctor etc. to also pay a fee and submit tests but i have a feeling those would be perhaps felt to be more robust and strict than say a consumer organisation. 

[Curious25]

The best way to shortlist your surgeon , is to gather your own personal data/research from as many online platforms as possible , from neutrally posting patients, who choose to document their journeys, purely for the educational purposes to the communities that they have came from.

Ideally - contact them, and chat to them directly (the patients that is). And ideally - meet with the surgeons beforehand for thorough in person consults. 
 

I’ve been online for a long time, and have only recently within the last 3 months, came to realise a particular clinic/surgeon who in my opinion beforehand, was one of, if not the best of the best, going off years and years of research, actually may not be deserving of the god given status I once thought was the case - and this was only after speaking to former patients PRIVATELY. 

The politics in this industry are out of control. All you can do is research and communicate as much as possible, and ultimately base your decision on who would make you feel the most comfortable as a patient going for surgery. 

[Curious25]

4 hours ago, NARMAK said:

Also, the idea that members pay a fee and receive a recommendation as a result is then opening the doors for bias potentially.

Yes, and we see it. 
 

4 hours ago, NARMAK said:

I feel like there's plenty of objective metrics you could try to use and set as a standard. 

Objectively, things like graft survival, and donor transection could be measured - but the overall aesthetic such as hairline design, is always going to be contested in a court of law as subjective.  

Edited April 3, 2022 by Curious25

[NARMAK]

24 minutes ago, Curious25 said:

Yes, and we see it. 
 

Objectively, things like graft survival, and donor transaction could be measured - but the overall aesthetic such as hairline design, is always going to be contested in a court of law as subjective.  

Yeah, i think in terms of aesthetics, that subjective side of thing has already got to be slightly put to one side but something objective like say a requirement to try ensure that single grafts are predominantly used in the frontal hairline and use of magnification to achieve this like we see as common practice in the better clinics. 

I think we need to have an independent organisation that's government based that basically takes the framework these consumer led organisations created which is solid in terms of their fundamentals but perhaps leaves questions on that objectivity side. 

[Britanium]

If it’s a international affiliated program, which government? If it’s a independent organisation, they would still need rewarding financially or in other ways such as marketing. And who is qualified to monitor them? At the end of the day it’s always going to remain a elective procedure, this forum is perhaps one of the most reliable ways of finding out unbiased opinions, and collectively we do mostly agree on what makes for a decent Dr/Clinic. We may all have particular favourites based on various intricacies, nuances but generally speaking I would say we are mostly on the same page. 

[Britanium]

Hell even I have changed in my advice over the last 10+ years here, some Drs drop the ball, others pick it up, new ones arrive all the time, it’s never ending. 
Look at how much the forums recommended list has changed over the years ! The Turkish list used to have many names, the Uk the same, even the US has had many come and go. 

[1978matt]

The last time I looked the ABHRS requires an exam, interview, presentation of a number of the Doctor's own cases.  It definately is a better indicator of quality compared to the other two. 

[NARMAK]

3 hours ago, J.A.C said:

If it’s a international affiliated program, which government? If it’s a independent organisation, they would still need rewarding financially or in other ways such as marketing. And who is qualified to monitor them? At the end of the day it’s always going to remain a elective procedure, this forum is perhaps one of the most reliable ways of finding out unbiased opinions, and collectively we do mostly agree on what makes for a decent Dr/Clinic. We may all have particular favourites based on various intricacies, nuances but generally speaking I would say we are mostly on the same page. 

It's definitely something that needs to be reviewed but as an example, the USA has long had the FDA approved medications cited as a certification of something meeting rigorous standards. So if a reputable country did something similar and allowed applications of international clinics to become affiliated then it would perhaps help overcome some issues. 

Personally i do agree that ultimately its always going to be Caveat Emptor and the buyers got the onus to do as much research as they can. 

[Carl Counts]

On 4/3/2022 at 9:10 AM, J.A.C said:

Definitely misleading, all of the affiliations such as ABHRS/ISHRS/IAHRS are not a proven way to ensure a quality Dr/Clinic/Hair Transplant. Just take a look through the members list to see for yourself, yes it has some really good Drs included, but it also has some poor ones. 

I totally agree, VERY misleading. I chose alan bauman (aka bauman the butcher) from their list and got butchered big time. I reached out to them regarding my experience and was basically told that doctors only need to pay their yearly dues to have their names on their prestigious sounding medical board. PLEASE do some serious homework before choosing a doctor or you could end up disfigured for LIFE! I wish you the best

[Gatsby]

Personally it's consistent results that count as opposed to surgeons who pay to belong to a fellowship. But they can be a good starting point to begin doing thorough research.

[NARMAK]

3 hours ago, Carl Counts said:

I totally agree, VERY misleading. I chose alan bauman (aka bauman the butcher) from their list and got butchered big time. I reached out to them regarding my experience and was basically told that doctors only need to pay their yearly dues to have their names on their prestigious sounding medical board. PLEASE do some serious homework before choosing a doctor or you could end up disfigured for LIFE! I wish you the best

That's just a disgusting response you got if that's how they approached it. 

Again, it seems that Caveat Emptor is always in effect and researching thoroughly as possible with patient results is an important thing as well as talking with former patients like on this site 

[Eugenix Hair Sciences]

On 4/3/2022 at 6:34 PM, Gurillo32 said:

I can see there are a few surgeons who are part of the ABHRS (American board of hair restoration surgery). Does this generally mean that they will do a good job and are well regarded in the industry or can it often be misleading?

It is but one of the many factors that are important while searching for a good hair transplant surgeon. It's not the most important factor that should be taken into consideration. The results of the doctor, consistency etc define a good surgeon. A deep research is crucial.