Dr. Reese and MHR In Minnesota Positive

[buttercup]

I'm new to this board and have seen Medical Hair Restoration getting absolutely bashed. Needless to say, 10 weeks post-op at MHR in Minnesota, the bashing got me a bit concerned.

 

So here's my MHR experience in Minnesota. Gene Gaspar is the consultant, Dr. Robert Reese is the surgeon.

 

I first visited Gene for a consultation in December, 2002. He was very professional and did not pressure me at all. Even Dr. Reese stopped in to take a look at my head. At that point they told me that it would be a good idea to go on Propecia, so I started it. And after a year Propecia made a big difference reducing the baldness in my crown. The bald spot is now much smaller and the density has improved greatly. When grown out a bit and combed normally, it is barely visible, if at all. So that was the first good thing.

 

In the fall of 2003 MHR did an open house at a local hotel. A few people showed up, including Gene, Bobby (both are featured in MHR's website photo gallry) and Dr. Jaffe. Also, a MHR client who was about 18 months post op was there for anyone who wanted to check out his procedure, which by the way looked very good considering the guy was very bald at a very young age. He's going to do a second transplant, which no doubt will make him look excellent.

 

In November, 2003 I got sick of looking bad (I was a Norwood 3-4) and went in to see Gene again. I also had been notified that MHR was running a special of $4 per graft, though Gene said that that price was pretty much in effect

all the time.

 

I went in and met with Gene, who has had two procedures by Dr. Reese, the last about 3 years ago. His hairline and overall result is outstanding, though he said the temple area restoration now available was not when he had his done. If mine looks half as good as Gene's in the end, I will be ecstatic. I also was able to meet a patient who was in for a checkup, and his results were good, too, given he was quite bald to begin with.

 

At no time was I pressured to do the procedure. Gene, and Dr. Reese, answered all my questions, multiple times. I might have even made a pain of myself being wishy washy about going through with it, but they never pressured me.

 

Gene had intially told me that I might want to have some transplants to the crown area to completely cover that, but Dr. Reese advised me to wait another 6-12 months because Propecia can take up to 18-24 months to completely work and it was senseless to have work done which Propecia might naturally take care of. And I believe he is dead on. My crown looks fine and did not need the transplants.

 

I had the procedure done in December. The only pain was for a couple minutes while the injections were given to numb my head. The only discomfort I had was sitting in that darn chair for five hours getting the procedure done. The chair is very uncomfortable after a long duration, but the procedure is painless.

 

My pain was nonexistent and the discomfort was minimal in the days after the procedure. After a few days the stitches came out and I was good to go. I experienced rally no swelling and only lingering tightness in the back of the head, which has since subsided. The scar on the donor area is undectable except when my hair got cut really short recently. There is no bump and I'm sure with a bit more time the scar will be completely undetectable.

 

Dr. Reese showed very legitimate enthusiasm with my procdure. Nobody is that good of an actor, and when they do I can tell they are acting. They actually were able to cultivate 2,200 grafts from my donor area, which he said was almost unheard of. He said I was very lucky to have a great donor strip which yielded so many hairs. I was only charged for 2000 ($8000) grafts because that's all I had been quoted.

 

I also spoke with Gene the next day and inquired about having a second procedure done in a year. Not only did he not pressure me to do so, but he advised me that it probably would not be necessary because my result would be great. He said that most patients are happy with the first procedure and do not opt for a second even when money is no issue. Of course the option to have a second always lies with me.

 

Right now I am 10 weeks post-up. A few stray hairs started growing immediately, but most, as usual, fell out and went dormant. I can now see tiny peach fuzz and can feel the hairs even if I can not see them with the naked eye. It's easy to be paranoid and think "these things will never grow", but I know better and I have to have faith. In another 6-8 weeks I should start seeing all grow. I hope so anyway.

 

The bottom line is this: I was treated with nothing but courtesy, respect and professionalism by Dr. Reese, Gene and everyone else at MHR in Minnesota. Maybe some other hair restoration practices are corrupt, but this one is not. And I am a very streetwise person who does not get easily fooled by con artists, etc.

 

For anyone who says MHR is only in it for the money, I ask this: (1) Why not charge me an extra $800 or whatever for the extra grafts?; (2) Why tell me that a second procedure would likely not even be necessary? If they were in it to make money, you'd think they'd be pushing a second procedure, or more; (3) Why do they only see 1-2 patients a day instead of the 4-6 that people claim the "mills" see every day?

 

I'm not a hair transplant expert, but my grafts looked just like those in any photos I've ever seen immediately after post-up. I doubt my head has been butchered and I'm hoping, and assuming that the results are going to be very good. I've seen Dr. Reese's work and it is excellent.

 

Also, if MHR is corrupt, why would a public figure like Wade Boggs agree to be a spokesperson for them? I met Wade during the summer at a game and he was happy to show me his results. Seems funny to me that a guy with his money, being a class act anyway, would choose to endorse a bad product. Not like he needs the money or the attention.

 

I've found these boards to be informative, but sometimes the facts get skewed by senseless rambling and bashing. I wish people would stick to the facts and the specifics instead of just saying someone "butchered" them and scaring the heck out of people who have no way to verify such information.

[buttercup]

I'm new to this board and have seen Medical Hair Restoration getting absolutely bashed. Needless to say, 10 weeks post-op at MHR in Minnesota, the bashing got me a bit concerned.

 

So here's my MHR experience in Minnesota. Gene Gaspar is the consultant, Dr. Robert Reese is the surgeon.

 

I first visited Gene for a consultation in December, 2002. He was very professional and did not pressure me at all. Even Dr. Reese stopped in to take a look at my head. At that point they told me that it would be a good idea to go on Propecia, so I started it. And after a year Propecia made a big difference reducing the baldness in my crown. The bald spot is now much smaller and the density has improved greatly. When grown out a bit and combed normally, it is barely visible, if at all. So that was the first good thing.

 

In the fall of 2003 MHR did an open house at a local hotel. A few people showed up, including Gene, Bobby (both are featured in MHR's website photo gallry) and Dr. Jaffe. Also, a MHR client who was about 18 months post op was there for anyone who wanted to check out his procedure, which by the way looked very good considering the guy was very bald at a very young age. He's going to do a second transplant, which no doubt will make him look excellent.

 

In November, 2003 I got sick of looking bad (I was a Norwood 3-4) and went in to see Gene again. I also had been notified that MHR was running a special of $4 per graft, though Gene said that that price was pretty much in effect

all the time.

 

I went in and met with Gene, who has had two procedures by Dr. Reese, the last about 3 years ago. His hairline and overall result is outstanding, though he said the temple area restoration now available was not when he had his done. If mine looks half as good as Gene's in the end, I will be ecstatic. I also was able to meet a patient who was in for a checkup, and his results were good, too, given he was quite bald to begin with.

 

At no time was I pressured to do the procedure. Gene, and Dr. Reese, answered all my questions, multiple times. I might have even made a pain of myself being wishy washy about going through with it, but they never pressured me.

 

Gene had intially told me that I might want to have some transplants to the crown area to completely cover that, but Dr. Reese advised me to wait another 6-12 months because Propecia can take up to 18-24 months to completely work and it was senseless to have work done which Propecia might naturally take care of. And I believe he is dead on. My crown looks fine and did not need the transplants.

 

I had the procedure done in December. The only pain was for a couple minutes while the injections were given to numb my head. The only discomfort I had was sitting in that darn chair for five hours getting the procedure done. The chair is very uncomfortable after a long duration, but the procedure is painless.

 

My pain was nonexistent and the discomfort was minimal in the days after the procedure. After a few days the stitches came out and I was good to go. I experienced rally no swelling and only lingering tightness in the back of the head, which has since subsided. The scar on the donor area is undectable except when my hair got cut really short recently. There is no bump and I'm sure with a bit more time the scar will be completely undetectable.

 

Dr. Reese showed very legitimate enthusiasm with my procdure. Nobody is that good of an actor, and when they do I can tell they are acting. They actually were able to cultivate 2,200 grafts from my donor area, which he said was almost unheard of. He said I was very lucky to have a great donor strip which yielded so many hairs. I was only charged for 2000 ($8000) grafts because that's all I had been quoted.

 

I also spoke with Gene the next day and inquired about having a second procedure done in a year. Not only did he not pressure me to do so, but he advised me that it probably would not be necessary because my result would be great. He said that most patients are happy with the first procedure and do not opt for a second even when money is no issue. Of course the option to have a second always lies with me.

 

Right now I am 10 weeks post-up. A few stray hairs started growing immediately, but most, as usual, fell out and went dormant. I can now see tiny peach fuzz and can feel the hairs even if I can not see them with the naked eye. It's easy to be paranoid and think "these things will never grow", but I know better and I have to have faith. In another 6-8 weeks I should start seeing all grow. I hope so anyway.

 

The bottom line is this: I was treated with nothing but courtesy, respect and professionalism by Dr. Reese, Gene and everyone else at MHR in Minnesota. Maybe some other hair restoration practices are corrupt, but this one is not. And I am a very streetwise person who does not get easily fooled by con artists, etc.

 

For anyone who says MHR is only in it for the money, I ask this: (1) Why not charge me an extra $800 or whatever for the extra grafts?; (2) Why tell me that a second procedure would likely not even be necessary? If they were in it to make money, you'd think they'd be pushing a second procedure, or more; (3) Why do they only see 1-2 patients a day instead of the 4-6 that people claim the "mills" see every day?

 

I'm not a hair transplant expert, but my grafts looked just like those in any photos I've ever seen immediately after post-up. I doubt my head has been butchered and I'm hoping, and assuming that the results are going to be very good. I've seen Dr. Reese's work and it is excellent.

 

Also, if MHR is corrupt, why would a public figure like Wade Boggs agree to be a spokesperson for them? I met Wade during the summer at a game and he was happy to show me his results. Seems funny to me that a guy with his money, being a class act anyway, would choose to endorse a bad product. Not like he needs the money or the attention.

 

I've found these boards to be informative, but sometimes the facts get skewed by senseless rambling and bashing. I wish people would stick to the facts and the specifics instead of just saying someone "butchered" them and scaring the heck out of people who have no way to verify such information.

[MeHairBeGrowin]

Amazing timing for your visit to this forum.

 

Check back in a year or two that's usually how long it takes to realize what a major mistake you made going to MHR or Bosley.

 

The first 6 months to a year, you want to believe you did the right thing, and usually delude yourself. And if it's bosley, they we probably keep you on perscription drugs for the first 6 months to help you believe.

 

Good luck.

 

I hear shiparo does good repair work.

 

[This message was edited by MeHairBeGrowin on February 14, 2004 at 09:42 AM.]

[Rugger]

ok..a couple comments....

 

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> They actually were able to cultivate 2,200 grafts from my donor area, which he said was almost unheard of.

 

unheard of by whom??..perhaps to you its unheard of, but i assure you that 2200 grafts is now child's play to many HT docs...or maybe you haven't done your homework..there are quite a few instances of single sessions over 5000 grafts...mine was 4600....

 

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Also, if MHR is corrupt, why would a public figure like Wade Boggs agree to be a spokesperson for them? I met Wade during the summer at a game and he was happy to show me his results. Seems funny to me that a guy with his money, being a class act anyway, would choose to endorse a bad product. Not like he needs the money or the attention.

 

why would Wade post for them?...hello!..the money !!...or dont you realize that celebrities get a tremendous amount of money for endorsing products??...and as far as a class act, I guess you dont recall your buddy Wade and his big public affair with a well known LA hooker...

 

also, you didnt state whether you had follecular units done, or mini/micro grafts...I'm not sure if MHR does follecular units stuff..but you can tell the difference...

 

bottom line though..is if you're happy with it, doesnt matter what anyone else thinks..then thats a good HT

[buttercup]

To correct my previous statement:

 

I received 2200 grafts, which was a very large amount for the area which was being covered. That's the point Dr. Reese made. I was not that bad off yet and had decent hair on top, but the sides had receded and the frontal hairline had receded about 1/2 inc. The frontal area was hammered with 2200 grafts, that's the point.

 

Oh crap. Sounds like I should book my flight to Vancouver right now for the repair work.

 

I've seen MHR bashed a lot, but I've only seen 1 or 2 things said about Reese or the Minnesota operation, and those were good. And I've seen the patients first hand and the work looked great.

 

I think there are a lot of people on these boards who are absolute perfectionists. If they can find one little thing wrong, they bitch about it. I've seen HT's that I thought looked very good, though other people said the recipient had been "butchered".

 

I guess beautiy, or a HT, really is in the eye of the beholder.

 

My question also is this: What constitutes being butchered? Is the hairline misaligned or something? The hairs don't grow? They are spaced too far apart? I don't understand what the definition of a bad HT is.

 

Check out Gene's before & after at:

 

http://www.medicalhairrestoration.com/education_beforeafter_02.html

 

Is that a bad transplant? Because it was done by Dr. Reese and that's exactly how it looks. In fact, it probably looks better in person than in the photo when it is parted at the side. I'm sure there are HT patients who have more density, but the fact is it looks good, though I suppose some people won't think so.

 

Another thing to remember: The majority of patients do not log on to this board and post their opinions. And it is great to see the recipients who do post photos, web sites, etc. It's very helpful.

 

I just wonder if people aren't being too picky about ripping doctors who they may not like or who think have a bad reputation.

 

Face it, you lost your hair. And the restoration may not make you look like John f. Kennedy Jr., but hopefully it will look good. That's the whole idea. To look good. When you are bald, people focus on your forehead. When you have hair, even if it isn't as thick or as perfect as you'd like, but looks good, they will focus on your eyes and face. That's the difference.

 

There seems to be a lot of happy people on this board, but at the same time there seems to be a lot of very angry people. I just wonder if some people aren't taking their anger out on the doctors rather than on more uncontrollable circumstances.

[buttercup]

Sure Wade Boggs does the endorsement for the money. But the point is professional athletes, celebrities, etc. get pitched endorsement opportunities all the time.

 

Granted, Wade underwent the procedures to restore his appearance. However, he could have gone to any doctor, all of whom would have coveted a celebrity to work on. That's the dream of any business, whether you are an independent doctor or a "mill". It's great advertising. The doctor who did Barry Williams' (Greg Brady) transplant has Barry on the web site. And Barry's looks very good.

 

So, from Wade's point of view: Why go to a doctor that sucks? Why align myself with a comany of ill repute?

 

He could have gone to any surgeon and he chose MHR. Sure, he got a free procedure and probably money on top of that, but there isn't a surgeon in the world who wouldn't have offered the same deal. In fact, many doctors ask their celebrity clients to let their work be shown, but the celebrities decline because they want to keep it a secret. Any doctor will tell you that it is huge boom for the hair restoration profession when a celebrity "comes out" about his procedure.

 

So if Wade is getting compensated regardless, why go to a crappy outfit? Would have been really dumb on his part if you ask me.

[Rugger]

buttercup...

 

you bring up some very valid points...i think the majority of the really great surgeons dont need celebrity advertising...lower overhead, great reputation, etc...MHR is a big shop, with big overhead, national advertising budgets...makes sense for them to use celebrity advertising..im sure they didnt charge Boggs for his hair transplant..and im sure they promised to fix his HT if it ended up looking bad...but the smaller surgical outfits that are booked out three or months in advance, and can raise their rates, and STILL people flock to them, dont need additional advertising..their results speak for themselves...

 

i guess the nice thing, is that with discussion boards like this, that the "consumer" becomes wiser, and his expectations higher..which is great as it forces out those who cant compete for the limited HT dollars we all have...hopefully, it allows these other surgeons to "raise their game" a little, and become more proficient and artistic....

 

again, if you like the job your surgeon did, thats all that really matters...

[buttercup]

Very valid points on your part, too. Though even private, independent clinics do advertise, though on a smaller scale. All businesses advertise.

 

I'm still looking for an answer, though:

 

What is the definition of "butchering"? Leaving a huge scar? Superplugs, reminiscent of 20 years ago?

[Rugger]

Well buttercup...I can't speak for everyone here, but there sure seem to be plenty of photos about huge scars, cobblestoning, bad hairlines, etc...call it butchering, or bad surgical skills, or someone just not skilled in the more modern aspects of follecular unit hair transplants and lateral slit philosophy, which seems to be the gold standard regardless of whether you harvest donor hair by strip methods, or FUE..

 

i guess one could assume they have gotten a "good" hair transplant from almost anyone, until they have some perspective on the kind of quality HT's that are available out there...i'm certain that the "doll hair" look of the 70's and 80's was just fine for many people who had no hair, and no other choices...but things are different today...and follecular unit should be the only hair transplant method being practiced, in my opinion...sadly, thats not the case though..

[Mr T]

buttercup,

 

Rather than try to respond to your entire list of questions, I'll just suggest you relax and wait for your hair to grow. There is nothing you can do now except wait. In 5-6-7 months, you'll have a much better feel for whether or not the HT meets your expectations... and as was stated above, that's something only you can decide.

 

MHR does not have a very good overall track record, but every doctor and every patient are different. Your results may be better than most. It is unfortunate that both pictures of Gene were not taken from the same angle. I can not tell if he was truly helped by his HT... but have to be honest and say I was not impressed by his results in the After shot.

 

Hang in there and let your HT produce its results. If you are happy, then you are good to go. If you are not, then we have lots of opinions to help you as you look at your options.

 

Best wishes,

 

Mr. T

 

Mr. T's web page

[arfy]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I first visited Gene for a consultation in December, 2002. He was very professional and did not pressure me at all. Even Dr. Reese stopped in to take a look at my head.

I'm not sure why you are surprised that a doctor would help do your medical examination? The doctor should have done the whole thing, in my opinion.

 

Any clinic that does not use microscopes may be wasting some of your precious donor resorurces. When microscopes are used to dissect the donor strip, graft yield increases by a reported 20 to 30 percent. As a patient, this is something you will not see or know that it is happening. It is a "hidden" mistake that clinics make. The only way you will know this graft wastage happened, is later on down the road when a doctor tells you that your donor supply has been used up, but you still need more grafts.

 

I recommend that you ask your clinic if they dissect your grafts with microscopes. If not, look for a clinic that does. My understanding is that none of the MHR branches use microscopes, even though their benefits are well-documented.

 

You might post some pics if you feel like it.

 

By the way, nobody criticizes MHR for kicks. We all wish that they were doing top-notch work, did not have questionable sales practices etc. I'm glad you had a good experience at MHR, nobody ever said it was impossible.

 

I don't think Wade Boggs' transplant looks very good. Ive seen worse, but I've also seen better.

[buttercup]

Originally posted by Mr T:

 

It is unfortunate that both pictures of Gene were not taken from the same angle. I can not tell if he was truly helped by his HT... but have to be honest and say I was not impressed by his results in the After shot."

 

If you aren't impressed with Gene's results, then you are definitely a perfectionist, which is okay. Everyone wants the best possible transplant. Gene tends to part his hair at the side now, not blow it back as the photo shows. And it looks awesome. I think he had somewhere in the neighborhood of 2500 total grafts over two sessions, the last of which was about 3 years ago. The guy looks great in person, that's all I can say. I told him straight up if mine looks half as good as his, I would be perfectly happy. But it is good to know that there are excellent options out there, too.

 

If I hadn't seen some MHR patients for myself at the MHR office, perhaps I'd be concerned. But the people I saw looked very good, too, given the fact that they were very bald to begin with.

 

I've scrutinized many of the photos shown here and compared them with my own from right after the procedure, and the graft distribution, etc. appears to be consistent with other people's. I also know that MHR did use a combination of micro, mini and single hair grafts on me.

 

My donor scar is very tiny and not visible at all at this point even with a short haircut. You could see the depth difference when the hair was cut very short with a #2 clipper about three weeks ago. The scar is very small, so so much for that theory about MHR. I also did not experience redness except for a few days post-op and I had no problem with shock loss. The hairline was drawn by Dr. Reese and followed, and it works very well with my face.

 

As for Boggs, he only had his second procedure this past summer or fall, so the photo shown likely does not reflect the second procedure, which obviously would not have grown in yet.

 

Perhaps MHR does have a bad track record. But I haven't seen anything negative on Dr. Reese personally. Does anyone have any negative stories about him? I'd love to hear it if someone does.

 

Also, perhaps someone can answer me this: Right now I am seeing some hairs sprouting, but most are still dormant, though I can feel the difference even if it is not visible in the mirror. Is it normal for the new follicles to be invislbe at this stage (9 weeks)? I assume so, but if anyone can offer an opinion, I'd love to hear it.

[arfy]

10 to 12 weeks dormant phase is typical, with some guys taking longer.

 

After that, hair begins growing at it's typical rate, about a half-inch per month.

 

Do yourself a favor and look into the importance of using microscopes, which I mentioned.

 

I don't have any specific information about Dr. Reese, but Minigrafts are considered outdated. There are some scientific papers that explain why all-FU grafts are superior in the "hair Transplant Articles" section (back on the home page) or read this which is a condensed explanation:

"Best_hair_transplant_procedure"

[EastCoast]

A good definition of being butchered is that the ht looks unnatural. Very few doctors have this skill.

[Shed Harris]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I received 2200 grafts, which was a very large amount for the area which was being covered. That's the point Dr. Reese made. I was not that bad off yet and had decent hair on top, but the sides had receded and the frontal hairline had receded about 1/2 inc. The frontal area was hammered with 2200 grafts, that's the point.

 

Did I miss it or are you unsure if any microscopes were used? You mention the primary area of focus was the front 1/2" or pretty much your hairline and a little more behind. Of those 2200 grafts, only a certain percentage are going to be single hair grafts, ideal for hairline aesthetics. Without using microscopes, I would believe that these precious grafts are put at risk of being damaged during separation, leaving quite possibly a larger number of 2, 3 and 4 hair units to work with. I'm just about dry heaving at the thought of "hammering" my hairline with multi-hair units.

 

Well it sounds to me like you were happy with your procedure though. I wouldn't spend so much time trying to defend your choice of clinics. I would let the results speak for itself. Look forward to seeing photos in the future. Best wishes.

 

Chaos, panic and disorder...my work here is done.