One HT, then another. Good idea?

[BeforeSunset]

Some surgeons advocate a conservative approach, saying it's better to transplant too little than too much. Not sure why, or exactly what they mean by that. But say I was to restore my hairline. Do 1500 grafts, but it really might (might) look better with a slightly lower hairline, say 2000 grafts. Would it then be any disadvantages to doing a 1500 graft HT first, and then, if I decide it doesn't quite look the part, go for an extra 500 grafts?

 

[Prohairclinic]

The reason why most ethical drs are conservative is they know in advance that virtually nobody has enough transplants to treat progressive hair loss.
Drs therefore need to rely on patients wanting to battle their hair loss using topical or oral medication. Since drs do not have actual control over wether or not the patients are following their advice, they usually tend to go for a conservative design, thus saving more hairs for possible future treatments.

 

[BeforeSunset]

All right. Thanks for the reply. Much appreciated.

Let's say there's little chance of further hair loss, what would you then recommend? Doing everything in one procedure, or first filling the temples and then considering lowering the hairline 5 mm? Ain't more than 5 mm that's «needed». I have attached a simple picture below.

My concerns with option A (one-to-two smaller procedures)

• Say I wanted to fill the temples (procedure one) and also lowering (procedure two) afterwards, it might look more unnatural than if everything was done in one bigger procedure.

My concerns with option B (one bigger procedure)

• The very front of the hairline (MFP) is what everyone sees. If this is lowered and looks slightly unnatural, then it's a huge loss. Conversely if everything was done in two procedures we'd first see whether the temple graft density looks high (preferably as high as the original hairline) and also whether the grafts look utterly natural, and thereafter make a choice whether to lower the whole hairline afterwards.
• I might be I'd regret lowering 5 mm, so it might be safer to see whether I'm satisfied with only doing the temples.

My hairline is such that I would scarcely need to fill in the temporal hairline to make it look natural. Maybe a little in the upper part of it but that's it.

Can you be sure I won't lose more hair? You never know, but I've got normal density now and my hair line has been more or less stable for 10+ years, I've done a genetic test on the most common genes I'm not predisposed to losing according to them, and on my paternal side there's no hair loss. Father, uncle or grandparents. The improvement of looks would be like 80 % doing just the temples (option A), and the remaining 20 % looks improvement would be lowering as well (option B).

 

[BeforeSunset]

Kinda poorly drawn that picture I chose, as my hair is slightly different. In option A my hairline would look like a ordinary masculine hairline (hints of a widows peak), since my hair loss is such that the temple points are not receding, and the lower part of the temporal line is intact. So it would be filling temples and upper temporal line.

 

[mania]

I would say that very useful discussion and information being share ...

 

[BeforeSunset]

The reason why most ethical drs are conservative is they know in advance that virtually nobody has enough transplants to treat progressive hair loss.
Drs therefore need to rely on patients wanting to battle their hair loss using topical or oral medication. Since drs do not have actual control over wether or not the patients are following their advice, they usually tend to go for a conservative design, thus saving more hairs for possible future treatments.

You here bro?