What is the best result one can get from an HT as measured on the Norwood scale? That is, how many NW scale numbers can be advanced using a conservative FUE of head hair only? If HM could only reach a similar result, which would you rather have?
» What is the best result one can get from an HT as measured on the Norwood
» scale? That is, how many NW scale numbers can be advanced using a
» conservative FUE of head hair only? If HM could only reach a similar
» result, which would you rather have?
This must be the most stupid question I’ve ever seen on here.
FUE is now
HM is ?
HM will rule if and when or at least a combination of both.
» What is the best result one can get from an HT as measured on the Norwood
» scale? That is, how many NW scale numbers can be advanced using a
» conservative FUE of head hair only?
If you are talking teenage density, the answer is zero. If you are talking the tricky illusionist stuff we see so much of, that depends on many variables such as the patient’s hair characteristics and the surgeon’s skills. Also there are far too many trade-offs to be able to answer accurately. For instance, when you dense-pack the hairline, you take away from the crown. I would guess that with dense-packing the entire area, you could restore a NW3 vertex perhaps somewhat advancing toward a NW4 to a NW2. For example 50cm of baldness packed at 100 grafts/cm is 5000 grafts + transection waste out of your donor. When you start getting beyond that level of baldness, you have to start playing with the trade-offs. To get a better idea, measure how many square cm you need to replace and then figure out how dense you want your restoration compared to how much donor you have.
If you want a teenage hairline, forget about it until HM or some other method that trumps HT is proven to work on your head.
But take that with a grain of salt, because I don’t know much about HT.
» If HM could only reach a similar
» result, which would you rather have?
HM, because it is way less invasive and a much simpler procedure. The future is in increasingly less invasive procedures that provide increasingly better results. FUE represents a positive advancement in hair restoration technology, but it is still a fairly barbaric procedure compared to HM. What FUE has going for it is that it is currently available and is a lot less invasive/damaging than strip. Yet, it still leads to a fair amount of donor scarring in many cases as well as density loss in the donor area.
We already know the limitations of HT: 01) donor supply and 02) cost. It’s virtually impossible to turn a completely bald NW6/7 man into one with an aesthetically acceptable head of hair at a reasonable price. Consider a NW3 seeking thicker NW3/ NW2.5 results would require ~1200 grafts. That’s $9,600 at $8/graft; You can imagine what a NW4,5,6,7 would require. Add the cost of an annual drug regime, and you see how the limitations of HT suddenly multiply.
We don’t know much about HM, so we’re basing your question on the assumption HM will work consistently at a cost advantage. Having said that, those two assumptions make HM the theoretical winner. We hear people bouncing the $2,000 to $3,000 pricepoint for HM treatments, so even a NW7 could take 3 HM treatments, 100-200 FUE grafts for hairline repair, AND walk away with better results at a lower cost than the NW3 mentioned above. That NW3 could have his entire scalp treated (even the non balding sections), and walk away with: similar results to HT at a much lower cost and a break from the dependence on an annual drug regime. Again, this is all theoretical, we’ll have a better idea within the following year.
.
double-post. sorry
» » What is the best result one can get from an HT as measured on the
» Norwood
» » scale? That is, how many NW scale numbers can be advanced using a
» » conservative FUE of head hair only? If HM could only reach a similar
» » result, which would you rather have?
»
» This must be the most stupid question I’ve ever seen on here.
»
» FUE is now
»
» HM is ?
»
» HM will rule if and when or at least a combination of both.
Its a hypothetical question designed to discuss the necessary accomplishments needed to effectively market HM. Other people had intelligent answers to the question - why don’t you?
» » What is the best result one can get from an HT as measured on the
» Norwood
» » scale? That is, how many NW scale numbers can be advanced using a
» » conservative FUE of head hair only?
»
» If you are talking teenage density, the answer is zero. If you are talking
» the tricky illusionist stuff we see so much of, that depends on many
» variables such as the patient’s hair characteristics and the surgeon’s
» skills. Also there are far too many trade-offs to be able to answer
» accurately. For instance, when you dense-pack the hairline, you take away
» from the crown. I would guess that with dense-packing the entire area, you
» could restore a NW3 vertex perhaps somewhat advancing toward a NW4 to a
» NW2. For example 50cm of baldness packed at 100 grafts/cm is 5000 grafts +
» transection waste out of your donor. When you start getting beyond that
» level of baldness, you have to start playing with the trade-offs. To get a
» better idea, measure how many square cm you need to replace and then figure
» out how dense you want your restoration compared to how much donor you
» have.
»
» If you want a teenage hairline, forget about it until HM or some other
» method that trumps HT is proven to work on your head.
»
» But take that with a grain of salt, because I don’t know much about HT.
»
» » If HM could only reach a similar
» » result, which would you rather have?
»
» HM, because it is way less invasive and a much simpler procedure. The
» future is in increasingly less invasive procedures that provide
» increasingly better results. FUE represents a positive advancement in hair
» restoration technology, but it is still a fairly barbaric procedure
» compared to HM. What FUE has going for it is that it is currently
» available and is a lot less invasive/damaging than strip. Yet, it still
» leads to a fair amount of donor scarring in many cases as well as density
» loss in the donor area.
Great answer!
» » » What is the best result one can get from an HT as measured on the
» » Norwood
» » » scale? That is, how many NW scale numbers can be advanced using a
» » » conservative FUE of head hair only? If HM could only reach a similar
» » » result, which would you rather have?
» »
» » This must be the most stupid question I’ve ever seen on here.
» »
» » FUE is now
» »
» » HM is ?
» »
» » HM will rule if and when or at least a combination of both.
»
» Its a hypothetical question designed to discuss the necessary
» accomplishments needed to effectively market HM. Other people had
» intelligent answers to the question - why don’t you?
hypothetical,yes thats all it is at this point.
If HM is as good as Intercytex hope,explain it to be on their website.Then theres no contest.HM will win hands down,but at the moment,nobody knows,its all a big nothing.Wait and see then try the question again.Hopefully at that point you won’t be bothered and HM as given you a full head of hair,so you can get on with your life and enjoy it!
This is wishful thinking,but it would be nice!
The problem with trying to get clear answers about FUE is that it’s basically all a judgement call.
When is a given part of someone’s donor area “over-harvested?” What is an acceptable amount of extra cushioning against future donor-thinning concerns as the patient ages? What is a “cosmetically acceptable” result in either the donor or the recipient areas? Where does the “safe zone” for the donor areas end?
Nothing is quantifiable. It’s all someone’s opinion.
And when that “someone” is a HT doctor, and he stands to financially benefit from telling men that they can use 10,000-15,000 grafts before their donor area is exhausted . . . Armani.
There are very, very few cases of more than 4000-5000 FUE grafts out there. At least not done & grown out anyway. (The excuse about “our more recent patients just need more time to grow out” is crap. Certain clinics have been hiding behind that excuse for several years now.)
We can argue this issue all day.
All I can say for sure is this: There is a widespread feeling that FUE simply cannot pull the same amount of lifetime donor grafts that strip & FUE together can do.