donor replenishing used more frequently in conjunction with hair transplants at some clinics

[waynakyo]

A long long time ago, I asked a simple question: Why can't we over-harvest the donor area, then fill in this less aesthetically crucial area with body hair while keeping a buzzed look in that area. It could be an undercut, it could be marines, I am no expert on cuts, but either look more healthy and attractive than a shiny crown and an unframed face.
My question was ignored.
Fast forward many years, some doctors at the cutting edge are starting to do that. Dr Mwamba and Dr ******** are doing that. Calling it fit farming or donor replenishing or other names.
There are some interesting posts on some people who just did such some operations with Mwamba and the results are very good.

These days the FUE punch leaves almost no scarring making this possible. Hair is also taken from areas most suitable for this, including neck hair. I think there will be more of that in the future.

This alone can add 50% donor area. No small amount. Perhaps not sufficient for NW6 with low original density but very good for someone with good density.

 

[Roeysdomi]

Simple answer , body hair is very diffrent than scalp hair , less thick , and prone to fall off easily after 1-2 years.

 

[waynakyo]

1. I had a half hour discussion with a top Doctor about it (who does not offer it/opposed to it), but he is not aware of your observation of it falling after 2 years.

2. Body hair is not less thick: beard is thicker than head.


So your answer is not that simple.

 

[coolio]

It's a practicality issue.

1. Body hair transplants don't work as well as people assume. Sorry, but they just don't. Any good honest transplant Doctor with body hair experience will confirm this. If you cram 100 body hair grafts in a dense pack, it will NOT provide the same coverage density as 100 scalp grafts. The hairs don't cycle the same way. Body hairs are already more dense than you realize in their original location, they just aren't spending as much of the time growing.

2. Trying to "replenish" means trying to get new hairs to grow in the scarred/wounded skin of an old graft. That's a great way to reduce the graft survival rate.

Weak coverage even in the original location + transplanted into wounded/scarred skin = terrible coverage for the grafts invested.

Again, I'm not saying there can never be a decent result from this approach. There are always exceptions to everything. But planning to be an exception is no way to embark on cosmetic surgery.

 

[waynakyo]

2. Trying to "replenish" means trying to get new hairs to grow in the scarred/wounded skin of an old graft. That's a great way to reduce the graft survival rate.

Indeed, this is your strongest argument. Now you can go and watch some real pics and videos and see how this is done all the time, since years ago.

 

[coolio]

Indeed, this is your strongest argument. Now you can go and watch some real pics and videos and see how this is done all the time, since years ago.

Scalp reductions were common for a long time, too. That is not evidence of a good treatment in the hair transplant business.


Swapping body hairs into FUE extraction wounds can "work" but you have to judge the overall results, like with any other transplant procedure.

You can pay a doctor to move chunks of skin around in creative ways, but that doesn't guarantee that the results are more cosmetically beneficial than some other approach. Some grafts fail to grow or produce fewer/weaker hairs. Some new grafts kill existing grafts that they are planted near. Etc. Many transplant docs claim to get 90+ percent survival rates but those are marketing claims.

 

[surfer9]

I would like to see someone have their donor area over-harvested and them to have scalp micropigmentation into the donor area.

I don't mean totally remove all hairs from donor area. I don't know what is the typical max % of donor a respectable surgeon would remove, but maybe if they left 30-40% of hairs and took the rest for transplantation, then SMP the depleted areas....

Maybe it can give a good result. Skin fade is fashionable at least for now.

I wouldn't mind doing something like this, but I haven't seen any examples. I am NW6, donor is poor, I have already had SMP, but I'd like to get some hair transplanted onto my NW6 bald head and maybe you could create a good buzzcut look if you get the correct mix of SMP and hair transplant throughout the head.

 

[coolio]

Maybe it can give a good result. Skin fade is fashionable at least for now.

That last part matters.

"Today's hairstyle will always look good" is right up there with "I won't care about my hair when I'm 30/40/etc." It's wishful thinking. Delusion.

Today's hairstyle might be embarrassing in the 2030s. It might prevent you from getting a corporate job. Etc.

 

[Roeysdomi]

That last part matters.

"Today's hairstyle will always look good" is right up there with "I won't care about my hair when I'm 30/40/etc." It's wishful thinking. Delusion.

Today's hairstyle might be embarrassing in the 2030s. It might prevent you from getting a corporate job. Etc.

You can always cut it short , short hair is timeless

 

[coolio]

. . . or you could just stick to a reasonable amount of transplanting, and avoid the whole mess . . .

It's a matter of cost/benefit. Getting that last 1000 grafts on top is not worth all the drawbacks of having the donor area looking too thin.

 

[lotnagiv]

That last part matters.

"Today's hairstyle will always look good" is right up there with "I won't care about my hair when I'm 30/40/etc." It's wishful thinking. Delusion.

Today's hairstyle might be embarrassing in the 2030s. It might prevent you from getting a corporate job. Etc.

show me which 'historical haircut' from previous century can prevent you currently from getting a corporate job?

 

[coolio]

show me which 'historical haircut' from previous century can prevent you currently from getting a corporate job?

The mullet was big just a few decades ago. Tom Cruise, George Clooney, Brad Pitt . . . they are all from that generation.

This mullet pic is more extreme than the corporate world liked but I'm making a point.

On the other hand, Tom Hardy's style in this pic was NOT accepted in the corporate world at that time. If you were going bald then you just had to rock the George Costanza. (That's why George Constanza had it in Seinfeld episodes 25 years ago - it was the standard thing at the time.)

If you go back farther through history & countries you find some strange stuff. I don't mean random individuals with strange looks. I mean the styles that were socially required. In ancient Japan they made themselves look balding on purpose.

Styles have changed before and they will change again.


Don't kid yourself. This one is not a generic timeless style. It's distinctive. That means it won't stay popular forever. Maybe only 5 more years, or maybe 15 more years, but definitely not forever. (And guess which way a style is liable to swing when it does change? Yeah - the opposite way!)

 

[surfer9]

That last part matters.

"Today's hairstyle will always look good" is right up there with "I won't care about my hair when I'm 30/40/etc." It's wishful thinking. Delusion.

Today's hairstyle might be embarrassing in the 2030s. It might prevent you from getting a corporate job. Etc.

A skin fade isn't even that odd of a haircut. It looks fine. And as another dude said, even if it was socially unacceptable in year 2035 then you can go for the skinhead look....

and the skinhead look and bald look is always looked down on. A skin fade will always be appreciated more than a NW6 or skinhead hairstyle.

 

[coolio]

A skin fade will always be appreciated more than a NW6 or skinhead hairstyle.

And the latest smartphone will never seem crappy & slow. This time it's gonna be different.

 

[surfer9]

And the latest smartphone will never seem crappy & slow. This time it's gonna be different.

Well go for the skinhead when the skin fade goes out of fashion. Simple.