Jump to content

comparison of dr.de freitas and keser for the extension of the hairline by one centimetre


Recommended Posts

  • Senior Member
12 minutes ago, jjalay said:

Well, you know what they say if you ask you are an idiot for 1 minute, if you dont ask you are an idiot for a lifetime. I would not only ask the doctor but a would ask to meet with the technisians that are going to be onmy surgery and ask them too about their experience with hairtransplant and for how long they have been working with this doctor.

yes but what i am saying is most doctors can tell you an answer you will never be able to verify. 99% of the respected clinics if you tell them hey i want to talk to your technicians and verify their experience will show you the door. In theory what you are saying is good in reality it is unlikely you will be able to execute it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Senior Member
24 minutes ago, jjalay said:

If you have a double graft for example and the one follicle is in telogen phase and the other follicle in anagen phase the only way to see this is with microscopes, and i have seen such an example myself. How is this doctor going to see this without microscopes?

Both Pekiner and Heitmann are using microscopes, Heitmann has a technisian to examine and sorten the grafts.

Ask Keser. He will tell you. Just so you know, telogen by definition is hair that is fallen out or about to fall out. If it has fallen out there is nothing to see there. EVEN under 100x magnifcation that telogen hair will not be "visible" cause it is not there. It will only be realized 2 years later when it grows back in. what you are stating are the hairs that are about to fall out. 
Having a few percent of doubles in your hairline will not make or break your hair transplant result. having an hourly technician take a short cut will. (not saying every tech will do it just a possiblity). 

 

Heitman may have changed this recently. for the longest time he did everything himself. He is doing slightly bigger cases now so it is possible he has hired techs to sort the grafts now. 

Like i said i dont know anyone of these guys personally. but they are all quality.

 

I do not know freitas. he maybe quality too. I am just saying that the statement "keser does not use microscope dont go to him" is not a valid statement. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Senior Member

I think that both Keser and De freitas are great and they both are in my top 5 European surgeons.

The topic is "who is better for hairline?"
a) Hairline design:
both DF and K design great hairlines.
Df hairline are charmie and beautiful but, from an anatomical prospective, K's hairlines are close to perfection.
I studied a lot HL design and there are many ways to design CORRECTLY an hairline. 
HL is the frame of the face: from what I see, DF looks for an hairline that fits your face  while K looks for the anatomically perfect HL. 
DF's HL are flatter and wider and with an ottuse frontotemporal angle while K HL are more rounded and (this is the big difference) a norrower angle.
I see that this big difference is related to the (point b) fact that DF usually doesn't rebuild temples (he just makes the upper side) while K does.

b) temples and temporal peaks
K is one of the very few to rebuild the temporal hairline and the temporal peaks.
HL design is a bidimensional concept: the frontal HL and the temporal HL (that included the temporal peaks).
To lower the frontal HL you need to rebuild the temporal HL and, when needed, the temporal peaks. 
It the doctor doesn't rebuild the "sides", you don't have support for the frontal hairline (to have a clear idea, look the Norwood scale. You will see that the tuft and the temporal peaks recede almost at the same time).
If the doctor doesn't rebuilds the sided and tries to lower the hl, the coupe effect is almost guaranteed.
The doctors usually don't rebuild the sides because they are the most difficult part of an HT: the hair on the sides are perpendicular to the floor and have an angle of about 5°.
So, ythe doctor and his assistant need to be very skilled to work on that.
To make things harder, the temporal peaks are made of small hair, that are very hard to extract and tom implant.
The fact that K rebuilds the sided (included the temporal peaks), shows how skilled he is.

c) miscroscope
I don't know if Df uses miscroscope but I see people criticizing K because he doesn't.
First of all, people make a lot of confusion between magnificent lens and microscope.
It is important to understand the difference because sometimes I read people (that do not have clear the difference) saying that Keser works on naked eye. Hell no!
The magnificent lens are usually x6 glasses (sometimes x4, others x8) while a microscope is an iHT nstrument to increase the imagine 20-40X.
Dr Keser and his team use magnificent lens. In the link you can see him in the op room using the glasses.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlAudYZBvM4
He doesn't use microscope.
From my prospective, microscope is a marketing tool. Do you need microscope to select the graft? Or the magnificent glasses are more than enough?
I suppose that who says that a microscope is "mandatory" or "necessary" to select grafts never saw a graft in his life.
For sure he doesn't know what he iw talking about.
A graft is 3-5 mm and about 0,5 large. that means that if you use magnificent glasses x 4, you see the graft 1,2/2 CM long and 2 mm large, so you can clearly see if it is a single, a double or a triple.
By the other way, the microscope has a big DISAVANTAGE: TIME!
selecting the grafts with miscroscope requires time.
Now, we know that after 3 minutes the surviving rate goes down (from 100% to 95% and so on as time goes).
Does it make sense spending time with a microscope (risking grafts death) while you can have a clear picture of the graft using magnificent glasses?
Everybody is free to choose the doc he trusts, but blaming K because he doesn't use miscroscope is BS.

My end result:
I think they are both great. 
DF has more an "artistic sense".
K is more skilled and anatomically perfect.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Senior Member
40 minutes ago, shiba1985 said:

Ask Keser. He will tell you. Just so you know, telogen by definition is hair that is fallen out or about to fall out. If it has fallen out there is nothing to see there. EVEN under 100x magnifcation that telogen hair will not be "visible" cause it is not there.

 

 

Thanks GOD!
Wonder why people don't understand a such simple concept. Sometimes a double in first line just happens, because, when you had HT, the hair was not there!
You can increase the image 1000X, it doesn't matter, the hair is not there.
As I wrote above, A graft is 3-5 mm and about 0,5 large. that means that if you use magnificent glasses x 4, you see the graft 1,2/2 CM long and 2 mm large, so you can clearly see if it is a single, a double or a triple.

These are my graft. Maybe  pics can help: you see exactly the same number of hair if you use the cellular or a 126 inch monitor!:

WhatsApp Image 2023-11-27 at 13.35.59.jpeg

WhatsApp Image 2023-11-27 at 13.35.59-2.jpeg

Edited by duchaine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Regular Member
1 hour ago, shiba1985 said:

Ask Keser. He will tell you. Just so you know, telogen by definition is hair that is fallen out or about to fall out. If it has fallen out there is nothing to see there. EVEN under 100x magnifcation that telogen hair will not be "visible" cause it is not there. It will only be realized 2 years later when it grows back in. what you are stating are the hairs that are about to fall out. 
Having a few percent of doubles in your hairline will not make or break your hair transplant result. having an hourly technician take a short cut will. (not saying every tech will do it just a possiblity). 

 

Heitman may have changed this recently. for the longest time he did everything himself. He is doing slightly bigger cases now so it is possible he has hired techs to sort the grafts now. 

Like i said i dont know anyone of these guys personally. but they are all quality.

 

I do not know freitas. he maybe quality too. I am just saying that the statement "keser does not use microscope dont go to him" is not a valid statement. 

You can watch this video to understand what i mean:

https://www.instagram.com/p/BmyRN1eHR7i/

These grafts can only be detected via microscopic examination and from a person that knows what he is doing. And i also pointed out that you also need microscopes to refine and dissect grafts.

I never told the OP not to go with keser but he asked opinions about these two doctors and i expressed my opinion, at the end after knowing all facts he makes his decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Regular Member
1 hour ago, shiba1985 said:

yes but what i am saying is most doctors can tell you an answer you will never be able to verify. 99% of the respected clinics if you tell them hey i want to talk to your technicians and verify their experience will show you the door. In theory what you are saying is good in reality it is unlikely you will be able to execute it. 

If the clinic denies something like this to you this is a red flag for me. I know clinics like Hattingen and Hasson and wong that dont hany any problem if you want to meet with their technisians and ask some questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Senior Member

I would easily choose Keser over Freitas. 
the hairline results of Keser I have looked looks really good and natural compare to some of the results of Freitas that is pluggy and straight. 

why would you choose Freitas for hairline?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Regular Member

It's hard to really deliver unbiased answers to this question. Both of them are excellent and you'd be in good hands either way. I have chosen de Freitas because I think that he delivers unmatched artistry in the way he creates hairlines. But, that is entirely subjective. These are fine margins and both are world class surgeons, there's no debate about that whatsoever.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Senior Member
5 hours ago, Ajamilo said:

I would easily choose Keser over Freitas. 
the hairline results of Keser I have looked looks really good and natural compare to some of the results of Freitas that is pluggy and straight. 

why would you choose Freitas for hairline?

This. Correct. the way de freitas does his hairline design sometimes it appears pluggy and see through. I dont know if its the rows that gives this appearance, the use of implanters or just patient characteristics

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Senior Member
9 hours ago, shiba1985 said:

This. Correct. the way de freitas does his hairline design sometimes it appears pluggy and see through. I dont know if its the rows that gives this appearance, the use of implanters or just patient characteristics

And also he produce those results while he and his techs are using a «microscope». That is weird. 

 the arguments against Keser not using a microscope are only valid if the results from his patients show pluggy and double grafts in the hairline as Freitas. The results I have seen here and in another spanish group have been fantastic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...