FU density and survivability

[herbert]

Hello,

 

how does the actual percentage of transplanted FUs survivability vary with density?

I know that it is around 95-99% at 20-25 FUs/cm2; what about at dense packing (40-45 FUs/cm2), or even more?

Does the risk of transection increase significantly along with density?

 

(I've read some very helpful posts by Dr. Feller and Dr. Seager in the past, but I didn't catch any figure about this issue).

 

thanks for any help.

[herbert]

Hello,

 

how does the actual percentage of transplanted FUs survivability vary with density?

I know that it is around 95-99% at 20-25 FUs/cm2; what about at dense packing (40-45 FUs/cm2), or even more?

Does the risk of transection increase significantly along with density?

 

(I've read some very helpful posts by Dr. Feller and Dr. Seager in the past, but I didn't catch any figure about this issue).

 

thanks for any help.

[Smoothy]

Dense packing does have a slighlty lower survival risk, however, those surgeons experienced with dense packing have limited this risk with high powered microscopes and goggles during surgery. ANytime your getting around 50FU/cm or greater (yes I've seen,heard of up to 60-65FU cm) then your increasing your risk of transection as well as adaquate blood circulation/flow for survival. It's something to consider when looking at dense packing-- if this is your route, then go to a surgeon who has a lot of dense packing experience.

[herbert]

Smoothy, If I understood well, there should be any risk or lower survival rate when the density is smaller than 50 FU/cm2, right?

[HairBeThere]

herbert,

there is always survival risk with any HT.

When you get lower than 40 FU/cm2. Survival is greater do to less opportunity for cross transection. Also, lack of follicles fighting for blood supply.

 

In general these are not major concerns with an experianced physician, and a good diet to help.

[herbert]

thanks!

I can understand that experienced surgeons, with proper techniques (e.g. lateral slit) can prevent transection risks at high densities...

but what about blood supply?

If there's a risk for poor blood supply, how can the surgeon's ability help in any way?

h.

[HairBeThere]

that's were good diet comes into play. This should not be a hugely looked at concern, as most people do not have this problem.

[Ams99]

hey there, just read the post. was curious what a good "hair" diet would consist of? what should be avoided?

[HairBeThere]

a diet is in general, your overal health habits. Knowing most people do not have the ideal diet, quiting smoking helps, if you smoke, and not drinking a week or two prior helps also. Along with eating your square meals a day.

That's just a general..

 

You could also add vitamins and supplements to your diet as well.

Vitamin C, Fish oil and MSM are great starters to use for the month prior to your HT.

 

You obviosly do not need to stick to a strict regiment after words, but for your hair healing and growth rate, the above vitamins are sure to help ade in their growth.

[Big1]

that's were good diet comes into play. This should not be a hugely looked at concern, as most people do not have this problem.

 

 

I do not completely agree. Most people do indeed have this "problem". Hair needs the nutrients that the blood provides. Densely packed grafts receive less blood than grafts that aren't densely packed, thus they have less chances of survival.

 

Just because a doctor has the ability to make 70 "slits" in a cm/2 doesn't mean that he should. Surely the survival rate will not be as good (for 70) as it would be for half of this density (or around 40).

 

Why would any patient elect to pay for the destruction of his own hair? By requesting ultra-high densities a patient is also requesting to pay much more for a much lower survival rate. Doctors need to be more forthcoming. Patients need to be well informed.

 

I agree that diet and nutrients are important.

[HairBeThere]

Big1,

I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with. You just stated everything I said in my previous posts.

[herbert]

Well, I understand that there's always a risk... but I suppose it's sufficiently small up to a given density, and then it increases along with density.

What's the "safe limit"?

 

I've read around that most HT docs (even those against high density) agree that up to 40-45-50 FUs/cm2 the yield is still good. (provided that the surgeon knows how to pack).

After that, they start debating about the survivability issue...

In other words, 40-45 FUs/cm2 is not even more considered "dense-packing".

Some surgeons (e.g. Shapiro) simply prefer to achieve 40-45 in 2 passes for "strategic" reasons (e.g. fine tuning at 2nd pass, assess the hairloss progression, etc.), but they wouldn't have any problems in placing 30-40 in one step.

 

Another reason for the 2 pass is the size of the medical staff: packing at 40 instead of 20 would mean covering half the size. If the staff is able to handle 2000-2500 grafts sessions, they would limit the one-step coverage up to 60 cm2, which is not enough for a lot of patients.

Basically, this is the same reason against big megasessions.

 

Did I understand correctly?

[Big1]

What's the "safe limit"?

 

I do not know for certain. I believe that 50 grafts/cm2 is pretty aggressive and damn dense and not outrageously challenging for a competent surgeon.

 

 

"Some surgeons (e.g. Shapiro) simply prefer to achieve 40-45 in 2 passes for "strategic" reasons (e.g. fine tuning at 2nd pass, assess the hairloss progression, etc.), but they wouldn't have any problems in placing 30-40 in one step."

 

I don't know that this is true. The best doctor for me is the one who has a lot of experience, and not the doctor "who wouldn't have any problems". Any less than 30 grafts/cm2 is a waste of the patients time; he can solicit a doctor who is able to pack nearly twice that many grafts and ultimately save the patient a lot of time and grief.

 

 

"Another reason for the 2 pass is the size of the medical staff"

 

I agree but such is not a good enough reason. This is why one needs to find a doctor who can provide what the patient wants, and not merely what the doctor thinks the patient can benefit from.

 

 

"Did I understand correctly?"

 

You made some good points.

[Big1]

Big1,

I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with. You just stated everything I said in my previous posts.

 

I believe that everyone who suffers from MPB -- even the healthiest patients-- need to be concerned about an appropriate density (consistent with the limits of blood supply). In other words, blood supply is not contingent on proper diet. It is a concern for all patients.

[Robert_]

I think you were both kind of saying the same thing but were coming down different paths.

 

-Robert

[HairBeThere]

Ya, I may not have clarified my statement. Thanks for clearing it up Big1.