So the general script over the years, has been that if there are 6/7 loss patterns in your family tree, or if you are a young patient (under 30) good and ethical hair transplant surgeons will look to restore hairlines, and overall density pretty conservatively.
Are we approaching the generation now where, despite these factors mentioned above, it could well be deemed mildly ethical for a surgeon to take into consideration the projected future for hair loss developments, and go ahead to restore younger patients or 6/7 destined patients with a thicker thatch, and a lower hairline?
Is a male aged between 18-30 having a hair transplant to restore a dense NW1 in 2017, at the same historic risk of an 18-30 yr old male in 2007?
My intrigue stems after seeing the recent popularisation of younger celebrity patients in particular having very low and dense hairline procedures performed . . the results look great, and I'm presuming (albeit possibly wrong of me) that they have been to some pretty top of the range clinics, so are these guys ahead of the game?
Are we approaching the generation now where, despite these factors mentioned above, it could well be deemed mildly ethical for a surgeon to take into consideration the projected future for hair loss developments, and go ahead to restore younger patients or 6/7 destined patients with a thicker thatch, and a lower hairline?
Is a male aged between 18-30 having a hair transplant to restore a dense NW1 in 2017, at the same historic risk of an 18-30 yr old male in 2007?
My intrigue stems after seeing the recent popularisation of younger celebrity patients in particular having very low and dense hairline procedures performed . . the results look great, and I'm presuming (albeit possibly wrong of me) that they have been to some pretty top of the range clinics, so are these guys ahead of the game?
