» » » All I can say is that if I had hair like that I would have just got
» » » proscar and waited,it wasn’t that bad at all.
» » Hi bba455,
» » Welcome to the forum; he has been on propecia for sometime now,
» » enough time if anything positive was going to happen it would have
» » and also tried minox but finds it irritates his scalp, even the foam
» » version. As coolguy said their is no miracle cure anyway so be under no
» » illusion that any med would have thickened his hair to the extent you
» » not see his scalp through the miniaturisation.
» » In respect of how bad he was, well beauty is in the eyes of the beholder
» » suppose. Going from a NW5 to his before pics maybe you would be happy,
» » maybe not, so it is really relative to your goals and aspirations; makes
» » a very personal journey for everyone.
» » Hi therapy,
» » Obviously placing within existing growth is always harder and the
» » of lower density possible or shockloss as you mention,whether shockloss
» » a concern in the case I would say not 8 months post op. I answered a
» » similar question in another thread regarding placement within existing
» » hair; he had a very high % of miniaturisation in the frontal area, the
» » before pictures possibly show it in a good light and better than
» » the basics were although the hair was present it gave him no thickness
» » appearance, and this is what he wanted to address. His hair line was
» » transparent and the entire frontal area see through. As you can see we
» » shaved the recipient before making the sites and placing the grafts,
» » was to be able to ensure we placed a strong density and also makes it
» » easier for the slits to be placed parallel with existing strong hair to
» » ensure healthy growth of both; if killing off some weak hair in process
» » the penalty well it was not doing much to make him feel good about
» » anyway, and as we can see has been replaced with a much more uniform
» » density and strong, defined hair line.
» So in other words, placement is done with the assumption that the
» miniaturized hairs will sooner or later be all gone and hence no efforts is
» made to work with or work around these tiny hairs?
There is little assumption when it comes to this type of HT, ie diffused miniaturisation. The hair as you said is “tiny” and in respect of cosmetics it does not fulfil the requirement, that being a thick head of hair. Miniaturised hair can sometimes have a high density still, in some cases more than the placement of the new grafted hair, purely the characteristics of these hairs are so weak they do not give thickness. If by your words “no efforts is made to work with or work around” you are trying to suggest no care is taken then that is incorrect. The issue here is the result the patient receives and the education the patient is given prior to his procedure. It is not practical to place between each individual “tiny” hair in this case certainly, the result would not stand as being solid and the improvements would have been minor. By definition miniaturised hair is on the way out, it is better to proceed with an area in one pass than have to go back into that said area a year or so later to refill the gaps left by lost weak hair. Not just the factor of surgically better to do in one pass because of no secondary trauma to the recipient site, no secondary entering of the donor, be it through FUE or FUT, and from the patients point of view he gets the result he wants now and then not later, less stress of going through another procedure, time, expense etc.
To recap, all effort is made to preserve hair and not “write it off” but this has to be made within the boundaries of achieving the desired result and the patient understanding what is necessary.