» Hi forum viewers,
»
» The correct answer to this question is “B”. We used a variety of
» instruments on the donor area. This patient actually had a session of
» 1350 CIT grafts harvested along the entire donor area. Photos B, C, and D
» all depict the 7 month follow-up result of the patient’s donor area.
»
» In this case, the patient had a high degree of hair loss with below
» average donor density. The patient was told that the ideal donor area
» typically has 180 hairs per square centimeter and that the case was not
» ideal. This particular patient desired to have conservative coverage on
» the front with a thinner look on the crown and requested that we use body
» hair as another donor source.
»
» A donor area should be protected and harvested to yield the most ideal
» results on the recipient and donor areas as well.
»
» www.forhair.com
good job! great looking donor area. That’s what made the question so much more difficult. I am honestly Impressed with the photography at your clinic.
Very clean donor, I can totally live with that.
Pristine donor, as good as it gets. You said different instruments were used, what size are they?
» Pristine donor, as good as it gets. You said different instruments were
» used, what size are they?
Hi,
The instruments are very small and have different features to ensure consistent natural looking results. Your question about instrument size has raised another very good question. Does anyone see any differences in any of the post-op photos (photos: B,C, & D) when considering that this patient’s donor area was harvested with more than just one instrument? Keep in mind that this is the guessing game and that the instruments could be different sizes as well.
» » Pristine donor, as good as it gets. You said different instruments were
» » used, what size are they?
»
» Hi,
»
» The instruments are very small and have different features to ensure
» consistent natural looking results. Your question about instrument size
» has raised another very good question. Does anyone see any differences in
» any of the post-op photos (photos: B,C, & D) when considering that this
» patient’s donor area was harvested with more than just one instrument?
» Keep in mind that this is the guessing game and that the instruments could
» be different size
s as well.
I am sure that we would not be able to detect a difference even if there are differences in sizes.
i dont see any differences!
» » Pristine donor, as good as it gets. You said different instruments were
» » used, what size are they?
»
» Hi,
»
» The instruments are very small and have different features to ensure
» consistent natural looking results. Your question about instrument size
» has raised another very good question. Does anyone see any differences in
» any of the post-op photos (photos: B,C, & D) when considering that this
» patient’s donor area was harvested with more than just one instrument?
» Keep in mind that this is the guessing game and that the instruments could
» be different sizes as well.
How about a straight answer. What size are they?
» » » Pristine donor, as good as it gets. You said different instruments
» were
» » » used, what size are they?
» »
» » Hi,
» »
» » The instruments are very small and have different features to ensure
» » consistent natural looking results. Your question about instrument
» size
» » has raised another very good question. Does anyone see any differences
» in
» » any of the post-op photos (photos: B,C, & D) when considering that this
» » patient’s donor area was harvested with more than just one instrument?
» » Keep in mind that this is the guessing game and that the instruments
» could
» » be different sizes as well.
»
» How about a straight answer. What size are they?
Dr. Cole evaluated this patient’s parameters and used various sizes of instruments based on his evaluation of the donor area. This means that the instrumentation may constantly change even during the procedure. Dr. Cole safely removed the follicular units without causing damage to the surrounding units. A given patient’s donor area can show variations in the diameter of hairs and the distance between hairs within a follicular unit.
I’m afraid that the actual measurement of the devices is trade secret.
Picture A is difficult to evaluate against the rest because it is less magnified and has more colour in it.
The lighter the colour of the skin in the photograph the less likely it is that you can see the scarring so again, it is harder to evaluate. I am not saying that it was deliberate I am just saying that is the effect. I think you can definitely see the extraction sites but if their is no white scarring then it looks perfectly acceptable to me - Joe Blow is not going to ever notice it.
The most depressing thing for this guy is that at 1,350 grafts he looks tapped out 
» I’m afraid that the actual measurement of the devices is trade secret.
Prohair (Bart), on the other hand, constantly brags that their clinic uses 0.7 or 0.75 mm punch.
» » I’m afraid that the actual measurement of the devices is trade secret.
»
»
» Prohair (Bart), on the other hand, constantly brags that their clinic uses
» 0.7 or 0.75 mm punch.
That’s a factor but what about their results on both the donor and recipeint? I am just not extremely impressed, sorry.
» Picture A is difficult to evaluate against the rest because it is less
» magnified and has more colour in it.
»
» The lighter the colour of the skin in the photograph the less likely it is
» that you can see the scarring so again, it is harder to evaluate. I am not
» saying that it was deliberate I am just saying that is the effect. I think
» you can definitely see the extraction sites but if their is no white
» scarring then it looks perfectly acceptable to me - Joe Blow is not going
» to ever notice it.
»
» The most depressing thing for this guy is that at 1,350 grafts he looks
» tapped out 
Attached are the 7 month post-op photos taken with the same lighting and magnification. I have also attached the follow-up result after two months. You may now be able to make a more accurate assesment based on the photos.
Picture A (pre-op) with shaved result
Picture A (pre-op) with photos B,C, & D (Post-op) at same magnification
Yes, this is a better comparison and it does not look at all bad, the general public would never know in my opinion. Of course the hair is a little longer in the ‘after’ photo but that is fair enough, I am well aware how hard it set up these comparison photos.
I think this guy will be very happy with his donor - but would you agree this guy looks pretty much tapped out at 1,350 ?
I think the number of guys with his level of limited donor is heavily underestmated on these boards.
» » I’m afraid that the actual measurement of the devices is trade secret.
»
»
» Prohair (Bart), on the other hand, constantly brags that their clinic uses
» 0.7 or 0.75 mm punch.
Well, I dont brag about it, I just want to make clear what we stand for.
I can assure you that we only use 0,7 to 0,80 mm max never ever larger for the simple reason that we dont even have larger instruments in the house.
And why do I know all this ? Simple, I order the intruments.
» Yes, this is a better comparison and it does not look at all bad, the
» general public would never know in my opinion. Of course the hair is a
» little longer in the ‘after’ photo but that is fair enough, I am well aware
» how hard it set up these comparison photos.
»
» I think this guy will be very happy with his donor - but would you agree
» this guy looks pretty much tapped out at 1,350 ?
»
» I think the number of guys with his level of limited donor is heavily
» underestmated on these boards.
Yeah, this patient’s donor area is very close to it’s limit. I’m glad you know hard work when you see it.