Understanding Hair
Valued member
When planning a hair transplant, the size matters. There´s going to be leeway in the graft numbers depending on aspects such as hairline design and desired hair coverage. A clinic often gives a range, for instance, 10% +/- a stated number. Regardless, the goal is to block the reflection of light off the scalp, resulting in the look of fullness.
An alternate approach to using graft numbers is a classification of size as a “session.” For instance, a session can detail the area treated, the front, middle, and back/crown, or terming a session as small, medium, or large. Such an ambiguous way to approach a hair transplant allows the clinic to do whatever they wish without any measure of accountability. It makes it harder to argue the growth is low, with no reference to the numbers placed. It is impossible to compare to clinics that use a graft and hair count as the reference. This practice of “this is the cost and we´ll do whatever we have to” should sound alarms.
Defining the size of the procedure using graft numbers, is likely to be the optimum estimate, for example, it will take an “x” number of grafts. Just ensure the clinics are using natural groups of follicular units, not splitting the units, as this will only increase the grafts numbers, (not though hairs), and to the detriment of the result and your pocket. Using grafts to reference the size of the procedure has advantages. The obvious being there is a numerical figure to relate to. This allows a comparison against similar hair transplants. But there needs to be the consideration how the natural hair characteristics plays a significant role. For instance, good hair characteristics can dramatically increase the achievable hair coverage, potentially by as much as 30%.
When researching it´s common for the graft numbers to vary slightly between clinics. Something in the region of a 10-15 % +/- swing is not an uncommon variant. Outside this range should raise concerns. There is by averages, a technical and common-sense range for the variant in numbers. If quoted outside the range it needs justification, be it lower or higher.
Over quoting graft numbers, candidates sometimes like the idea of having the highest quoted numbers. As if this proves they could do no more or it´s simply better. Even though, there is no basis for this to be correct way to go. Pushing up the numbers by adding hair into areas of healthy hair can significantly increase the number of grafts. The usual justification for this is hair miniaturisation within the current hair coverage. This often leads to wasted grafts distributed in areas of the head that had little to no thinning, as well as hiding potentially low yield. Notwithstanding the excess hair removed and now lost from the donor area would treat further hair loss.
A clinic underquotes the graft numbers may do so to undercut the price, or due to the ability of the medical team to only do so much. Either way, compromising the result and a false economy as there´s the need of further work at more expense, time, and hassle.
Under quoting can lead to putting the candidate in a compromised position on the day of surgery. The clinic suggests, it would be prudent to increase the graft numbers. They can still conduct the original plan you paid for, however …. The dilemma on the day of surgery puts the patient in a difficult position. Whether to stay with the original quote, with the implied risk of a lesser result, or agree to pay for more. This is different from a clinic stating they can remove more and give better hair coverage than originally discuss. That is a choice. This is putting doubt, by suggesting the original plan needs to change to meet the discussed result is different.
When judging the variation in graft numbers (intact follicular units), confirming that the plans are similar is essential. For instance, they all intend to cover comparable surface areas, with the hairlines around the same height. When a clinic is overtly different in the estimation, whether well under or over, it´s reasonable to expect it to justify its planning. Ideally, with previous results, similar hair characteristics you can judge. Always get everything in writing.
An alternate approach to using graft numbers is a classification of size as a “session.” For instance, a session can detail the area treated, the front, middle, and back/crown, or terming a session as small, medium, or large. Such an ambiguous way to approach a hair transplant allows the clinic to do whatever they wish without any measure of accountability. It makes it harder to argue the growth is low, with no reference to the numbers placed. It is impossible to compare to clinics that use a graft and hair count as the reference. This practice of “this is the cost and we´ll do whatever we have to” should sound alarms.
When researching it´s common for the graft numbers to vary slightly between clinics. Something in the region of a 10-15 % +/- swing is not an uncommon variant. Outside this range should raise concerns. There is by averages, a technical and common-sense range for the variant in numbers. If quoted outside the range it needs justification, be it lower or higher.
Over quoting graft numbers, candidates sometimes like the idea of having the highest quoted numbers. As if this proves they could do no more or it´s simply better. Even though, there is no basis for this to be correct way to go. Pushing up the numbers by adding hair into areas of healthy hair can significantly increase the number of grafts. The usual justification for this is hair miniaturisation within the current hair coverage. This often leads to wasted grafts distributed in areas of the head that had little to no thinning, as well as hiding potentially low yield. Notwithstanding the excess hair removed and now lost from the donor area would treat further hair loss.
A clinic underquotes the graft numbers may do so to undercut the price, or due to the ability of the medical team to only do so much. Either way, compromising the result and a false economy as there´s the need of further work at more expense, time, and hassle.
Under quoting can lead to putting the candidate in a compromised position on the day of surgery. The clinic suggests, it would be prudent to increase the graft numbers. They can still conduct the original plan you paid for, however …. The dilemma on the day of surgery puts the patient in a difficult position. Whether to stay with the original quote, with the implied risk of a lesser result, or agree to pay for more. This is different from a clinic stating they can remove more and give better hair coverage than originally discuss. That is a choice. This is putting doubt, by suggesting the original plan needs to change to meet the discussed result is different.
When judging the variation in graft numbers (intact follicular units), confirming that the plans are similar is essential. For instance, they all intend to cover comparable surface areas, with the hairlines around the same height. When a clinic is overtly different in the estimation, whether well under or over, it´s reasonable to expect it to justify its planning. Ideally, with previous results, similar hair characteristics you can judge. Always get everything in writing.
