Many Hair Transplant Questions answered by Dr Reyes

[GoldenMane]

https://www.facebook.com/Dr-De-Reys-313877225354666/

I found one of these questions quite interesting: Is it possible to move transplanted hairs to a different location at a later time? The answer is yes, that it's actually easier than non transplanted hairs.

I find this particularly reassuring because it means someone could tackle their hairline aggressively in younger years, and then as hair loss continues, you could potentially redistribute the hairs at a lower density over a wider area and got the buzz cut route!

For me, this eliminates one of my biggest concerns; that I may find myself with an isolate line of hair at the hairline while everything else falls out as it progresses. I'm now much less likely to rule out a more aggressive hairline transplant in the near future.

 

[teeth_of_lions]

There's some good stuff in there. Also having the option to transplant transplanted hairs is great, only downside to that is €€€€€ but it makes the option of aggressive hairline transplants more viable.

 

[Giiizmo]

There's some good stuff in there. Also having the option to transplant transplanted hairs is great, only downside to that is €€€€€ but it makes the option of aggressive hairline transplants more viable.

Another downside is that the survival rate of grafts isn't 100%. This means that you'll have less hair transplanted in the second area than you would have if you had transplanted the grafts there in the first place.

 

[GoldenMane]

The small % lost in retransplantation is worth the trade off of having better hair when younger. Also since it's supposedly easier to remove transplanted hairs,. this may mean that the survival rate is greater. Perhaps transplanted hairs are less likely to be destroyed while being extracted, or perhaps they spend less time between extraction and retransplantation. Either way, I find this to be particularly reassuring.

 

[arfy]

I believe the conventional wisdom is that every time you move hairs, some (at least) will not survive. Even with virgin transplants, you don't have a 100% survival rate. It's possible to move hairs more than once, but it's definitely not ideal.

For me, this eliminates one of my biggest concerns; that I may find myself with an isolate line of hair at the hairline while everything else falls out as it progresses. I'm now much less likely to rule out a more aggressive hairline transplant in the near future.

You'll have to do something about the resulting scars in the old frontal hairline, if you do this.

This approach doesn't really strike me as a sensible plan. (Transplant a low hairline, with the idea you can move it further back later).

 

[GoldenMane]

I have no intention of transplanting a low hairline, I'm probably going to keep it at 2.5 or at most 2. What I meant is you can lose some density at the front, not remove it entirely, spread the hair around.

There's always a trad eoff, but for me, being able to sort out my hairline now, and having the option to redistribute the hairs with losses (about 5% of grafts) is a worthwhile tradeoff. There's nothing perfect about this, but it's good to know I can redistribute most of my grafts if needs be.

 

[Swoop]

Indeed you can redistribute hair. However it will lead to scarring. After all you'll need to punch the grafts out again, just like in the donor area. A good surgeon plans around eventual miniaturization in the future. If you do happen to recede in the future a subsequent procedure can just fill that up again until your donor is depleted, no need to move around already transplanted grafts.

 

[Wolf Pack]

I agree with Swoop. Ideally you don't want to redistribute hairs that were previously transplanted - it's like a last resort. Surgery is bloody, scarring with additional risks. Bearing that in mind, a long term plan tailored for your hair loss (genetics and medication use) is best.

 

[GoldenMane]

Well that sounds all well and good, but as a young guy who wants good hair now, and who is destined for an NW6, there is always going to be a trad eoff, and minor surgery and minor scarring is worth the trade off of having better hair for the next 10 or so years.

 

[I.D WALKER]

Dr. Reyes is another stellar surgeon.
With his celebrated surgical prowess and aesthetic sensibilities, you should be looking your best soon after he's put the finishing touches on you.
Good choice.

 

[Swoop]

Well that sounds all well and good, but as a young guy who wants good hair now, and who is destined for an NW6, there is always going to be a trad eoff, and minor surgery and minor scarring is worth the trade off of having better hair for the next 10 or so years.

Oh was meaning redistribution of already transplanted grafts like Wolf Pack mentioned. You really want to avoid that. You are pretty damn safe to be honest. You don't need to use much grafts so you can spare your donor. Besides that you are on finasteride so...

I get you that you want hair now. I had the same goal. So I went for a hair transplant myself. Couldn't be happier, turned out top notch really. Good luck and keep us updated!

 

[arfy]

The small % lost in retransplantation is worth the trade off of having better hair when younger. Also since it's supposedly easier to remove transplanted hairs,. this may mean that the survival rate is greater. Perhaps transplanted hairs are less likely to be destroyed while being extracted, or perhaps they spend less time between extraction and retransplantation. Either way, I find this to be particularly reassuring.

I hate to belabor this part of the thread, since the discussion has moved on. But what makes you think the percentage of grafts lost after re-transplantation is small? The survival rate I'm thinking of is like 70% under ideal circumstances. I don't know why Dr De Reyes says moving grafts a second time is easier - perhaps the grafts are surrounded by scar tissue, making extraction a bit less of a guess where the borders are? But survival issues aren't only limited to extraction. Moving a graft (even a virgin graft) puts a lot of stress on these follicles. Grafts are sitting outside the body in a saline solution. They are man-handled with tools. Then stuffed into a new location, where they need to establish new blood supply, etc. All of those things are challenging to survival. Not a big deal? Remember that we are already way short on donor supply. When you add in inefficiency, that will really limit your results.

There's some good stuff in there. Also having the option to transplant transplanted hairs is great, only downside to that is €€€€€ but it makes the option of aggressive hairline transplants more viabl

Please understand this... Moving hairs more than once is one of the least desirable outcomes possible. That only happens when you get screwed up. Now you've become a "repair" patient, and you'll find that the expectations of success are much lower than it is for a virgin scalp. You do not want to become a repair patient. This is the lowest rung on the ladder, below "just normal hair loss".

One of the issues when discussing hair transplants online is that some guys (newbies usually) desperately want to believe that they've finally found a good solution to their hair loss, and so they only focus on the information which reinforces their hope that a transplant will solve everything. ("Confirmation bias" is what that's called). That's kind of what I'm seeing in the discussion of "oh well, I can just move my hairline again, no problem!" Moving grafted hair is actually a big problem which you seriously want to avoid in the first place. It's very easy to go lower in a follow-up! That happens routinely. You can always go lower. But if you ever have to go higher, it sucks.

I have no intention of transplanting a low hairline, I'm probably going to keep it at 2.5 or at most 2.

Um, a NW2 is typically considered a "low hairline" in hair restoration terms. NW2 is an adult hairline seen in guys who don't have any male pattern baldness whatsoever.