If a patient starts taking finasteride to stabilize alopecia, let's say a 20 year old, well... taking into account that according to what I have read, the hair loss aproximately begins to stabilize about 6 months after starting treatment (continued and effective), why does the world keep saying that no one should get a transplant before 25?
Isn't it more important (than the age) that the alopecia is being treated and is stable?
If you are 22 years old but you have been taking medication (finasteride) for 3 and a half years, for example, and your hairloss is stabilized, why do people keep saying that a transplant would not be appropriate? I do not understand, really
What people argue is that when youre 20 it is more likely for your alopecia to not be stabilized despite taking Finasteride, and also that, at 20 years of age we have little information about what pattern of alopecia the person will have in the future (it is not the same as if you are 45 years old).
However, medication precisely has the purpose of stabilizing the hair loss and if there is someone in their 20s who has been taking it long enough (a few years), why shouldn't it be stabilized?
The medication affects the body in the same way at 20 or at 30 because it is the same substance.
If you start earlier, you simply stop more hair loss and stabilize it before right? that's why doctors say that it is important to start taking medication as soon as possible, to stabilize the hairloss earlier and thus keep more native hair stable so that it does not continue to fall.
Regarding the pattern of alopecia, if you manage to stabilize your hairloss with medication from a young age, the pattern will be defined, because while you are medicated you will not advance further in theory ... Or that is what is said, at least.
So, if ever since you are young, you stabilize it with medication, I do not see the problem in transplanting young patients.
I don't know, I don't get it. You will not have hair at the front of your head and not at the back if you have been taking finasteride for a few years and therefore you have stabilized the hair loss?...
Isn't it more important (than the age) that the alopecia is being treated and is stable?
If you are 22 years old but you have been taking medication (finasteride) for 3 and a half years, for example, and your hairloss is stabilized, why do people keep saying that a transplant would not be appropriate? I do not understand, really
What people argue is that when youre 20 it is more likely for your alopecia to not be stabilized despite taking Finasteride, and also that, at 20 years of age we have little information about what pattern of alopecia the person will have in the future (it is not the same as if you are 45 years old).
However, medication precisely has the purpose of stabilizing the hair loss and if there is someone in their 20s who has been taking it long enough (a few years), why shouldn't it be stabilized?
The medication affects the body in the same way at 20 or at 30 because it is the same substance.
If you start earlier, you simply stop more hair loss and stabilize it before right? that's why doctors say that it is important to start taking medication as soon as possible, to stabilize the hairloss earlier and thus keep more native hair stable so that it does not continue to fall.
Regarding the pattern of alopecia, if you manage to stabilize your hairloss with medication from a young age, the pattern will be defined, because while you are medicated you will not advance further in theory ... Or that is what is said, at least.
So, if ever since you are young, you stabilize it with medication, I do not see the problem in transplanting young patients.
I don't know, I don't get it. You will not have hair at the front of your head and not at the back if you have been taking finasteride for a few years and therefore you have stabilized the hair loss?...