Eugenix - January 2023 - 5300 grafts

[hairman22]

12 hours ago, GoliGoliGoli said:

Patient should have never been accepted as a candidate. Bad scalp to hair color contrast, low caliber of hair thickness, history of not tolerating Fin, severely compromised donor with advance NW7 pattern and sever retrograde alopecia, wide head meaning a larger number of grafts needed compared to someone with a smaller head.

Eugenix accepts patients that other Dr's who specialize in high NW cases would likely turn away. Even worse, they accepted him for surgery with Dr Das who is not known for handling extreme high NW cases. Seems that they prioritize financial gain over the interest of their patients. Really shameful. 

 

Eugenix were by far the most pushy for me to have a transplant with them. Kept emailing me back in January 2022. Didnt like there approach tbh.

For example my consults with Zarev & Pittella they were not pushy at all.

Zarev even was hinting at waiting a bit longer since my hairloss is diffuse but not so bad yet but enough for a small enough procedure

[EricEdwards]

2 hours ago, Bandit90 said:

Head shape greatly influences the amount of grafts required for full coverage. The more Brachycephalic a head shape, the more grafts required to achieve a desired result. Unfortunately, the  OP has a very Bracycephalic head shape, which means he needs A LOT more grafts to achieve an illusion of density. It is absolutely pointless comparing his results against an OP with a Dolicephalic head shape (i.e Caverman). IMO this is a very under spoken about subject in hair restoration, people tend to compliment a surgeon for achieving full coverage with lesser amount of grafts, which can be true to an extent, but a lot of times their head shapes tend to allow this.

I wish the OP well with his result, and the fact he hasn't updated for a few months, can often mean he is happy with results and moved on (which i truly hope is the case here). 

 

Thanks for this. One of the things that I was curious about, was not just the shape of head but the overall size, and whether this impacts on graft numbers and density. Contributors to this forum have answered that for me, including the video of doctor Pittella.

Edited December 22, 2023 by EricEdwards

[Hairwolf]

3 hours ago, hairman22 said:

Eugenix were by far the most pushy for me to have a transplant with them. Kept emailing me back in January 2022. Didnt like there approach tbh.

I felt the same; didn’t get a good vibe at all. Firstly, they got the appointment time to call wrong twice: first time by a whole day and then again by an hour at the rescheduled time. Then after that call was over, I got another call immediately afterwards from someone else! Was like one hand didn’t know what the other was doing.

They were very salesy indeed and kept emailing.  When I told them I chose another clinic, the rep said can we still talk ‘one and the same’ to try and persuade me out of it. Dunno about anyone else, but imo they should take note of this.

[Berba11]

19 hours ago, Melvin- Admin said:

Eugenix isn’t on the list, it’s only Dr. Sethi and Dr. Bansal.

Out of interest then Melvin, how come Eugenix can post on here as 'Eugenix' and showcase the work of Dr's other than Dr P & Dr Arika? I've seen results for Dr Das posted by Eugenix on here. Personally I've no issue with that per se - I like seeing the results all the same - but that does seem to fall outside of the rules.

Also I have to say the distinction between the two founding Dr's and the organisation we know as Eugenix seems somewhat murky. If you endorse the two founding Dr's, then almost by default that's an endorsement for the organisation as a whole given any other Dr's operating under the Eugenix banner are ultimately the responsibility of it's two main founders. As with any organisation, the buck stops with the owners. Would you not agree that recommending/endorsing Dr A & Dr P but not their clinic more broadly is a bit of a grey area?

[Melvin- Admin]

1 hour ago, Berba11 said:

Out of interest then Melvin, how come Eugenix can post on here as 'Eugenix' and showcase the work of Dr's other than Dr P & Dr Arika? I've seen results for Dr Das posted by Eugenix on here. Personally I've no issue with that per se - I like seeing the results all the same - but that does seem to fall outside of the rules.

Also I have to say the distinction between the two founding Dr's and the organisation we know as Eugenix seems somewhat murky. If you endorse the two founding Dr's, then almost by default that's an endorsement for the organisation as a whole given any other Dr's operating under the Eugenix banner are ultimately the responsibility of it's two main founders. As with any organisation, the buck stops with the owners. Would you not agree that recommending/endorsing Dr A & Dr P but not their clinic more broadly is a bit of a grey area?

We allow other surgeons affiliated with recommended surgeons to share their results. For example, Dr. Kostis isn’t recommended but BHR can share his results. There may come a time when they may want to be recommended, and these results will be useful during the recommendation/ vetting process to share with the community. 

But perhaps we need to create a pinned topic that explains that we do not recommend clinics, only surgeons. I don’t want there to be any confusion. Our surgeons that are recommended go through a public vetting process. Any surgeon that is approved must go through this vetting process individually. It would be very easy to add affiliated doctors without going through this vetting process. But that wouldn’t be the right way in our opinion.

It’s listed here

 

[Grouse]

Hoping for the best outcome OP - thanks for sharing your experiences. Hope you’re doing well these days. 

[EricEdwards]

10 hours ago, Berba11 said:

Out of interest then Melvin, how come Eugenix can post on here as 'Eugenix' and showcase the work of Dr's other than Dr P & Dr Arika? I've seen results for Dr Das posted by Eugenix on here. Personally I've no issue with that per se - I like seeing the results all the same - but that does seem to fall outside of the rules.

Also I have to say the distinction between the two founding Dr's and the organisation we know as Eugenix seems somewhat murky. If you endorse the two founding Dr's, then almost by default that's an endorsement for the organisation as a whole given any other Dr's operating under the Eugenix banner are ultimately the responsibility of it's two main founders. As with any organisation, the buck stops with the owners. Would you not agree that recommending/endorsing Dr A & Dr P but not their clinic more broadly is a bit of a grey area?

The clinic states that the quality of the surgeries are unaffected by the individual surgeons or pricing package, as all surgeons have been trained to a set standard of the clinic. I am open to correction on this however.

Edited December 23, 2023 by EricEdwards

[EricEdwards]

On 12/21/2023 at 7:31 PM, Melvin- Admin said:

Eugenix isn’t on the list, it’s only Dr. Sethi and Dr. Bansal. This surgery was done by Dr. Das, she isn’t and hasn’t ever been on our list. We don’t recommend clinics, we recommend surgeons. I don’t believe there is a failure in yield. 

I think the plan to distribute such a small number of grafts over a large area was not a good plan. No matter who the surgeon is, that number of grafts primarily from BHT would yield the same result, when distributed over a Norwood 7 area. It’s simple mathematics as I stated earlier in the thread.

“

But if you do the math, that area was probably 200-250 cm2. You need at least 45 grafts per cm2 to get “illusion” of density. That means you would need 9,000-11,250 grafts in that area to get an “illusion” of density. It would still look thin with short hair, even with those numbers. You need to grow it out a lot more than you have. It looks like its less than an inch on top. You need at least 3 inches to start layering. Also, looks like 1,100 grafts are beard grafts, which means its single hair grafts. You didn’t have a lot of hair placed in that area.”

That said, we haven’t seen a recent update in months. Things may have improved. I will wait to make further judgments until an update is presented. 

It could be the clinic made an offer they couldn't refuse (subject to not discussing on public forums until further notice) but then again I could be wrong!

[EricEdwards]

3 hours ago, Grouse said:

Hoping for the best outcome OP - thanks for sharing your experiences. Hope you’re doing well these days. 

I agree. 

[Berba11]

How is everything @abrorkhasanov? Would be great to hear from you mate.