*10%* yields happen in *every* clinic *1-5%* of the time.

This was posted on HLH by "AlviArmani" (aka Shane), in response to this man's results: http://www.hairlosshelp.com/websites/galleryview.cfm?id=dingo|gallery1.cfm

So, are yields as horrific as this common to the tune of 1-5% at each and every clinic? Even the lowest end of that spectrum -- 1% --, for a yield of such horrific proportions (10% in question) seems high to me. Again, using the 1% figure, this would mean that every ~5months or so each clinic (and one patient) would be afflicted with an atrocious yield/result. 5% would, of course, be equate to a significently higher frequency.

I am almost certain if the surgeon really knows what he is doing there would not be only a 10% yield of growth,For that to happen something like transection of grafts or improper planting of grafts or patient sickness etc. would have had to occur or its one of crappiest Dr's out there.

I agree with Shane on one thing: that not every clinic bats a 1000.

In my opinion however, it's a bold statement to say that 1-5% of the time, that EVERY clinic yields only a 10% growth yield. I'd like to see where he is getting his data to make such a broad claim.

And if this is true, does that mean there is a statistic for 20% yield? What about 30%? Does this statistic apply only to strip or for FUE ypp? Or is the statistic different? When all is said and done, the odds for a high growth yield hair transplant may not be so hot!

In my opinion, if someone is going to make a broad claim statistic, a call for data is necessary.

Seemingly however, this guys result with Dr. Armani is was almost 4 years ago and doesn't apply to today since they no longer do strip (at least not that we think).

I do however, feel bad for the patient but from my reading, it looks like he had better success with Hasson and Wong.

Just my two cents.

Falc

No, I would emphatically disagree with Shane's statement. Only lack of knowledge, skill and pure neglience can produce 10% growth/yield.

that's horrific- the poor guys results.
if ANY coalition had only 10% yield in only 1-5% of their patients, then wouldn't it be ALL over this forum?...
Have any of the Big Boys: H&W, Feller, Shapiro, EVER had a patient who only had 10% yield?
Jann,Jotronic, Falc, please advise as this would be a huge detterent for a ht to me. But, once again if this ever happened we would here about it on here and I have never found anything like this in the good hands of Dr. Hasson at least.


I wanna hear from you guys who work for the clinics yell: THIS WILL NEVER HAPPEN!!!!

The patient recently put forth some of his H&W pics and they look vgood and he got a very large # of grafts; fortunately, he seems to at last be very happy with his follicular state of affairs.

It is good to know my instincts were not way off when I read over Shane's post b/c the initial #s of what it meant were alarming; and his numbers seemed off given if they were remotely true for any number of Coalition Docs, e.g., it would be known. As has been mentioned here, linking them to an entire field of clinics is quite the claim, too, which it seems he will have to retract to some degree -- he now seems to be saying that the 1-5% relflects every clinic experiencing a case "like this", though there is a huge gap between a clinic providing a true touch-up, and ~10% growth. Nonetheless, anything resembling 10% is a horrific yield and is in a clase all by lonesome self.

I could prolly' live with 1 every 10,000; but 1/100, wow....

NG2GB,
No, it's NEVER happened.

notgoing2gobald,

No physician bats a 1000. But I agree with Janna that there has to be some serious negligence on the part of the physician/staff to only get 10% growth yield, especially if another physician was able to produce an excellent result on the same patient.

What happened in this patients case? Who knows specifically. But clearly the follicular unit grafts were damaged either in the slivering, handling, or placement process.

Falc

Falc, i just asked the patient exactly what happened. Have not received an answer yet. he did say that Armani clinic "had taken care" of him, whatever that means....

producing 10% yield is a FAR cry from not batting 1000.

HAVE ANY COALITION DOCS EVER HAD SUCH POOR YIELDS????????

As far as I know--Yes (possibly not 10%-but not good). However, they are no longer Coalition physicians.

Hey everyone--this is surgery. There is always a slight risk of things not being perfect. Does it suck? Ofcourse, but unfortunately there are things that are out of the control of the doctor. Seeing too many problems is when a red flag goes up.

Would I have still had a HT if I knew that 1% got a yield of 10% and 99% got a yield of 98%. YUP!! I would roll the dice that I wasn't the unfortunate sap.

When we use the word EVER?

I would say yes because there will always be an exception to the rule. Out of 10000 HT's all you need is to have one. Has a person ever died from eating a cheeseburger? YES

I think the smart approach to this question is the majority, A HT with a coalition doc has an extremely high percentage of success. You can never say 100% because nothing is guaranteed in life. No doubt 5% falure rate seems very high though

If ANY top notch doc EVER only got a 10% yield, then I would like to know what causes this.

I mean, I know its surgery, there are risks, cheeseburgers, blah, blah, blah but seriously 10%!?!?!?

For a 5K graft procedure that only yields 500 grafts. I just want to know PRECISELY WHAT CAUSES THIS!!?????? What would cause such a low yield apart from aggregious handling of the grafts or techniques????

Everyone says "some things are out of the hands of even the best of surgeons" thats fine but precisely what (apart from scarring from previous surgeries) could cause such a poor result????
I would love to hear a doc jump in on this one. No one has ever really answered this.

Some wouldn't, many would, be personally willing to accept a risk-ratio like NN mentioned; however, 1-5% is still an absurd number to cast when you take into account that once every ~5months there would be case with horrific yield from every top clinic -- it doesn't even have to be nearly as low as 10% yield and it would still raise equally large concerns.

There is the risk-ratio for epically bad yields, which is somewhat subjective, (what quantifies "epically bad"....it doesn't have to be 10% yield on the button, but even anything under 50% I would tend to classify as horrible *and not just a minor abberation from the norm*); then, if there really is such a numer (e.g. 1-5%) that afflicts all practices w/ regard to "epically bad" results; and finally, like NG2GB has mentioned, there is the question of what exactly can cause a yield to the tune of 10%-bad, in an esteemed clinic no doubt, which Janna touched upon.

I had 10/15% survival/growth rates from my fue session with that well known Greek clinic

What's so odd about this guy's case is that he then went to H&W and had tremendous results. He also claims to be on very good terms with Armani clinic and says he would even go back to them in the future. It's a very odd post/situation....

NG2GB,

As others have mentioned prior, the reason for poor yield is typically from mishandling of the grafts. This may happen in the slivering, storing, placement or whatever. Possibly the tech was on a bender for a couple of days with Thana? Maybe the solution accidentally got some of her contact solution or Jack Daniels in it? Who knows? At a reputable clinic this is likely to almost never ever happen.

The other scenario is that for whatever reason the body rejects the grafts. This is a strange phenomenon and again is likely to not happen. Could it? Possibly. Very, very, rare.

..."the body rejects the grafts"...

this is PRECISELY the phenomenon that I was worried about and considering. Is it true, that some individuals--no matter how good the doc is---will just REJECT the grafts?

is there any scientific evidence backing this? This issue has been briefly touched upon before on the forum but we never seem to get any empirical evidence or statistics apart from broad generalizations...


What would cause some individuals to simply "not take the grafts?"...

troubled...

NG2GB,

I'm going to limit what I post on this topic because the truth is I'm not an expert on the topic and have only read things about it a couple of times. I can only hazard a guess of such things as decreased vascularization for some reason or possibly infection. From what I understand, you might be as likely to be struck by lightning while in the chair getting your procedure.

We need to change your name to nervousnelly II

I like you...