Hi, All
Just thinking about any future procedure I may need and was wondering if its possible to get a shorter donor scar, having it stop in the back and not going as far as the sides. The reason I ask is that the hair on the back of my head is much more dense and can hide the scar much better then my sides can.

That is an excellent point and is a valid strategy. It is much easier to hide the scar in the back. The problem is that you would have to go with smaller sessions.

Creepingback,

Good question indeed but there are pros and cons to each approach.

If you have aggressive hair loss that would require, for argument's sake, 4500 grafts, you could have three sessions of 1500 in order to keep the donor scar as short as possible. This plan would have several downfalls. It would take roughly three years to get to the point where all the hair has sprouted to maturity. You would also have more scarring in the donor area so while the donor scar may be shorter it may wider. It also may cost significantly more. I know of a few clinics at least that have a sliding scale fee plan where you are charged one fee up to a set number of grafts then a lesser fee for additional grafts over that first set number. The more you come back the more you spend above and beyond what you could have spent (less) had all of it been done in one session. Then there is the additional recovery issues with each procedure as well.


The upside is being in the OR fewer times, faster time to final results, less recovery, less cost, and less scarring.
Having all of your work done in one session, where possible, makes more sense however if your donor hair on the sides is significantly less dense than the hair in the back then you may not be able to have this area touched to begin with. This will be up to you and your doctor obviously but hopefully I've helped out with some of the issues with smaller, multiple sessions.

You've gotten some great responses.

To me, it's pretty simple. Yes, you can get a shorter scar but you won't get as many grafts and if you plan on more surgeries to keep the scar short it'll be more expensive for you.

Thanks for your responses. I kinda knew it would be less grafts however the extra cost didn't come to mind, that's a consideration. If I need to go in again Ill need to think about that..If you have seen my pics you can see why it's a concern.
Thanks again!

No one has mentioned that the longer and wider the strip taken, the higher the risk of scar stretching.

There is a minimal risk when doing smaller sessions, however, the downside of this is more cost and longer down time to achieve final results.

There is a fine line to be walked here.

Make sure you can achieve your goals in a timely manner, but at the same time, take it down a notch to be a bit safer.

For example, if you go to a clinic and they say, let's take a 30cm strip that is 2.5cm wide to get 6000+ grafts.

Sounds great, sounds exciting right?

However, what about backing down a bit to 1.75 wide and 30cm long for 4000+ grafts?

I understand the want for more hair at one time, but I think a bit of conservatism in these matters is OK, no problem whatsoever.

I just believe there are very few cases of "one and done" so instead of doing 6000 grafts at one time, and then 2000 to finish the session off, lets back it down to 2-- 4000 graft sessions, etc...

Just my point of view, and I understand the costs involved, but I think sessions of 3-4 thousand are great and if a guy is going to have 2 sessions, being a bit more careful should not concern anyone.

Take Care,
J

Bspot,

"No one has mentioned that the longer and wider the strip taken, the higher the risk of scar stretching."

Actually the length of the scar has no relation to stretch back. Stretch back occurs when the donor strip is too wide relative to what the patient's donor area can handle.

"There is a fine line to be walked here."

I get it...fine line

"However, what about backing down a bit to 1.75 wide and 30cm long for 4000+ grafts?

I understand the want for more hair at one time, but I think a bit of conservatism in these matters is OK, no problem whatsoever."

4000 is conservative? I think conservative would be more along the lines of a 1.25 x 20 donor strip yielding roughly 2000 grafts (using 80 per cm2 as an assumption for the donor density). I don't know of a lot of clinics performing 4000 grafts so the 2 x 2000 would be more common.

Here guys.... I think Joe is always WRONG!!!!!!!

I also think he is a poor speller.

He also never buys his own cigarettes and bums them off everyone else.

Happy Now?

Page 42 to be exact

Making the strip long and narrow rather than short and wide should take tension off the wound, giving the best chance of a great closure and faint scar.

Creeping Back,

I would agree with Jotronic that keeping the strip *very* short can be problematic, particularly if this commits you to multiple surgeries.

I would ask you to keep in mind that most top physicians in the field will carefully examine the hair in the area they are surgically excising. If you have notably poor density or poor hair quality on each side above the ear, I suspect your physician would shorten the strip slightly for a couple reasons. 1) It is inefficient to surgerically remove thinly haired scalp. 2) As you expressed, there may be a problem with the concealablity of the scar in that area.

Although I have never examined your scalp, I suspect that the strip dimesions could be altered *slighty* to avoid creating an issue while still removing a reasonable number of grafts.

That is all good info, but let's keep in mind the second part of his concern - it is easier to hide the scar in the back. It's much more difficult on the sides. People are concerned about these things.

Also the longer scar. The higher the probability of nerve, neuro-venous and vascular damage/ complications.
B- spot don't cave in. Befriending is part of the game.
You are /have been stroked my man.Sad to see it..

Aq, I don't get "stroked" ok?

I also don't stroke others, here or anywhere else.

Joe and I talked on the phone, hashed out where we stood on my post in response to his post, and moved on.

That is all.

Feel free to continue to disagree with Joe, as I am sure he and I will in future.

Take Care,
J

Gorpy,

Honest question. Why?

I guess he doesn't have to answer that Joironic.
I don't think your cute.
B- you don't stroke. That is why I am miffed by your backdown.
Now Joironic is making intentional typos ?
So when are you picking up the ZR1 for grandma.

Aquarius,

Thanks for pointing that out. Honest mistake. Fixed now.

We are talking recent post op strip scar coverage here. 6 months post op, you will generally have no problem covering the scar and it will be virtually undetectable (assuming you go to a quality doc).

As in CreepingBack's case, most of us tend to have hair that is both more dense and coarser in the back of our heads. It is therefore easier to cover a strip scar with it. On the sides of our head, we have somewhat less dense hair so the chances of the scar showing through are greater. Add to that the fact that on many people the hair on the sides of the head tends to stand out a little more (as opposed to laying down flat) and you have a somewhat more difficult time. Add a cowlick or donar area shockloss caused by the strip and it exacerbates the problem.

One last factor is that the scar tends to go upward as you go around the sides of the head. This places it at the transition point between the top of the head and the curvature downward. At this point the hair sticks out in a more horizontal direction, increasing the see-through effect. In the back of the head, the scar is at its lowest point and the hair back there is virtually laying flat vertically.

WoW! that was quick. Must have doen some magic over the phone.

quote:

Originally posted by the B spot:
Editing my post to say that I am not feeling well today and I reread my post and I did not like how I responded to Joe's post.

Had a great conversation with him today and we are on the same page here.

Take Care,
J

LOL B...

yeah, Joe is always WRONG...isn't he? That bastard

Falc

I am suddenly wondering why are we so paranoid about the donor scar? I mean, I have seen people walking around with scars on other parts of their bodies like arms and legs where there are (usually) no hair to cover, some of them pretty long and hideous, like a burn scar, yet they don't seem that concerned about exposing the scar to the public.

Take myself for example, I had several surgeries on my fingers and wrists to remove various ganglia, and the scars are very visible with no hair to cover at all. But I am not a bit concerned about other people seeing them. Yet when it comes to the donor scar from my HT, I absolutely don't want it to show. Is it because our mind works differently based on the location of the scar? Any thoughts?