Dr. Paul Rose indicated that shock loss can be limited with loupe magnification. Could someone explain what this is.

I think what Dr. Rose meant is that if the physician uses strong magnification (loop)the amount of physical damage to the hair shafts or follicles is much less likely to happen. However, the more original hair that is present before surgery the greater the chance of having post operative shock loss. Every patient responds differently to the procedure with varying degrees of shock loss. The majority of hairs lost due to shock will regrow either before or at the same time as the new grafts. Those hairs that do not return were probably genetically programmed to fall out in the very near future anyway.

why is Dr Rose using loupes (x2 magnification), I thought microscopes (upto x30 magnification) was the way to go for all FU?

Doesn't he work with shapiro?

The loupes are used when creating the recipient sites and placing the grafts there. This supposedly helps the doctor avoid damaging healthy follicles in the recipient area.

Clinics who use loupes (instead of microscopes) when dissecting grafts should be avoided. However, that is a different step in the process.

I believe that there is some misunderstanding regarding my statement about loupe magnification and shock loss.

My point was that I think it is important to use loupe magnification to create the recipient sites. Using such magnification allows the surgeon to more easily create sites between existing hair.It is very difficult to see the space between existing hair without the aid of loupes.

I am not suggesting that the loupes be used for creating the grafts.

Hope this clears up any confusion