Talk:Hair transplantation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Comment 1[edit]

Ok, I just edited the section to reflect new technology, maybe someone can check it for proper Wiki format, but all the info is correct....this page really lacks a lot of the new info on hair transplants...its WAY out of should contact David from to give it a better updated

David doesn't know anything about hair transplants. He is paid by the likes of Woods and Cole, so called 'HT surgeons', to advertise their damaging surgery on his site and to help ensure the truth about these con-artists does not become public. HT is one of the biggest scams of the 21st century losing people huge sums of money each year, and there is a massive effort on behalf of these surgeons to keep the public totally misinformed. Someone needs to put a stop to it. This article in Wikipedia is a classic example of how much effort is put into twisting and hiding the truth. Each time someone writes something truthful about HT here it is immediately removed, so now we have an article that explains nothing at all.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Yes agree with this. There is much bullying on these pages. Ohnoitsjamie and CliffC are two editors that banned me for bringing up the issue of the fox test and kept removing my comments. Clients are sold strip surgery FUT on the basis of the fox test/biopsy which is a way to select the easiest candidates. Otherwise the technically easier and more common FUT or strip surgery which cause pain, bleeding and a large scar is recommended if you fail the biopsy. The success of the biopsy is determined by the skill of the surgeon so you can fail the biopsy in one clinic and pass in another. This issue should be brought to the attention of prospective clients so that they can make an informed decision. (samjones) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samjonesnewcastle (talkcontribs) 16:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


Anyone have any figure on the approximate cost of such procedures? Obviously price quotes are not going to happen or anything (and would be inappropriate for encyclopedic entries), but would a typical person expect to pay x amount of dollars for x amount of surgery time? In other words... what would be a ROUNDABOUT figure for what a procedure would cost. Is it like 2000 or more like 10,000? I know it varies per procedure, and a person who is totally bald would cost more than a person who was just thinning... but a GENERAL idea of cost would be nice on this article.

In hair transplant surgery, there are different units by which costs are being given to patients. Good surgeons give an upfront complete cost to patients, while it is common to see per graft pricing, which the patient can't really make much sense of. In addition, the ability to do the same operation at an offshore location can also reduce costs. The typical hair transplant costs seem to range from $4000 to $15000 - depending on scale and location. (Shankar AVSB 15:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)).

Really? The article says it's only $1.50 a graft in India. Are you quoting US or European prices? Remember that Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia. It's important to avoid US-centric or Euro-centric viewpoints. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Cost Information added[edit]

I agree that this article needed some cost/pricing information. I have added such information as well as a link to an animation that enables people to estimate the number of grafts they may need and thus the cost.

Infoseeking 16:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Article Needs Updating for Neutrality[edit]

This article reads like an advertisement for hair transplantation. I'd advise an overhaul that adds neutrality, and relies more heavily on sourcing scientific papers and media articles, rather than repeating information from websites. Not that I feel one way or the other about the procedure, but this article is extremely lacking.

To elaborate, as posted elsewhere, I've noticed a trend in wikipedia's coverage of hair transplantation. They all seem overly eager to advocate Follicular Unit Transplantation, and read far too much like advertisements for those providing this service. It looks like many of them may have been written by a single individual promoting the procedure. While this one of the standard methods of transplantation, wikipedia's coverage should not be so narrow or biased as to direct individuals with glowing reviews rather than organized, cited information. Cleanup requested. -- 04:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe the older procedures are now obsolete. Have you ever SEEN plugs? In other articles about products, prior versions are dealt with under "History", and understandably the most current form occupies most of the rest of the article. Sfahey 16:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm interested in helping out with this article. Made some very small edits - for a little more clarity to the summary. But my goal was to get on the Watch list. I'm reading clinical sources that may help add to the authority to this page. MUnderwood 03:27, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Smells like an advertisement.[edit]

I don't have an opinion about hair transplants one way of the other, but this reads like an advertisement disguised as a wikipedia article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 07:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

I agree —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Celebrity list[edit]

Shouldn't there be sources for some of the allegations? I know some of the people there, like Richard Simmons and Dennis Miller, have acknowledged having the procedure, but have Ben Affleck, Christian Slater, et al admitted it? ChrisStansfield 09:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The word "allegations" suggests there's something wrong or bad about hair transplants. Saying that some guy has had a hair transplant is hardly defamatory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
It's also not "defamatory" to suggest that someone drives a certain model of car, has certain diseases, or is gay, but if it's not verified it doesn't belong in the article, period. (talk) 21:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Facial hair restoration[edit]

Can anyone confirm if facial hair restoration/transplant is possible? Portillo (talk) 08:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is possible, however, only some surgeons will perform facial hair transplants, however, the success rate is lower than that with the scalp, due to increased exposure to environmental factors-- (talk) 04:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC).

Arrested Development[edit]

Should it be stated that in Arrested Development when David Cross' character Tobias gets a hair transplant the hair rejects his body and he gets sick, eventually the hair was removed. Is there any cases of this happening in real life? (talk) 02:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The fox test/biopsy[edit]

Clients are excluded from receiving FUE hair transplants on the basis of the fox test. The success of the test is based on the skill of the surgeon. Therefore this is not a useful test. Research done in Sri Lanka has show that the fox test is unnecessary and that FUE can be performed with success in any client. I would like to include the following paragraph in this article without it being removed and my getting banned again from editing. Please comment and justify why this should not be included.

Follicular Unit Extraction (FUE) takes place in a single long session or multiple small sessions.[citation needed]It involves removal of follicular units using small punches. This minimises scarring, pain and post operative recovery associated with hair transplants. Many clinics exclude clients from FUE hair transplants based on fox biopsy results. The fox biopsy is a method of assessing the ease of extraction of intact follicular units but the outcome is dependent on the skill of the surgeon performing it. Recent research done in Sri Lanka has shown that with meticulous care it is possible to extract intact and viable grafts from any client regardless of fox biopsy results. However as the ease of extraction of follicular units varies between clients it may not be economically viable for many clinics to perform FUE due to the increased training, skill and time required.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Samjonesnewcastle (talkcontribs)

As you've already been told, you need a reliable source to add material. Commercial hair restoration sites do not qualify. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Basically what he said - find a scientific journal that backs up what you say and we can include it. SmartSE (talk) 16:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Hang on a minute...most of this article does not have citations. So why is it published? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samjonesnewcastle (talkcontribs) 17:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC) --Samjonesnewcastle (talk) 17:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Right then.. There is little research published on FUE hair transplants as many western clinics still prefer FUT. But found this which states "This study demonstrated that survival of the FOX grafts is equivalent to the survival of the common grafts created with dissection of the donor strip." FOX grafts is another term for FUE grafts. As I said the Fox test is in itself meaningless FUE in the right hands gives the same results in a randomised study as does FUT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samjonesnewcastle (talkcontribs) 17:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC) --Samjonesnewcastle (talk) 17:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

While commercial sites may not interest you please read this which goes some way to explain the fox test controversy. The research from Sri Lanka is more recent than the russian study above.--Samjonesnewcastle (talk) 17:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

As there has been no rebuttal so far I assume its ok to add the paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samjonesnewcastle (talkcontribs) 03:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry been busy. I've reverted your edit, because it is not backed up by the reference you cited - I should have been more clear when I first commented - but you need a reference to back up all of what you write, not just to confirm that the Fox test exists. You keep on talking about research in Sri Lanka - where is did you find it and why can't you cite that? SmartSE (talk) 11:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I can't find an online referance that you require to the research article. It was published by H Jayasinghe et al; in the Ceylon medical journal CMJ volume 55 issue 2 page 112-116 which is not currently online. I think this is a problem with much of the science research done in the so called third world in that it does not get given a equal voice in the western research journals. That having been said the research from Russia is published online and shows that FUE and FUT give equivalent results in randomised tests without the need for the fox biopsy (It does not mention the fox test per se so Im not sure what you refer to above). I suggest we re insert the paragraph with referance to the study in Russia until an online link you require is available to allow mention of the work in Sri Lanka. --Samjonesnewcastle (talk) 12:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The CMJ is online but the details you cite don't makes sense since volume 55 issue 2 only contains pages 37-79. I've checked issue 4 which contains pages 112-116 but there is no mention of the paper. Are you sure those details are correct? SmartSE (talk) 12:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

True. Can't see it there. Will need to check the Journal title and refrance in the hard copy. I have reinserted the paragraph excluding mention of Sri Lanka until I can check the referance in the hard copy. The Russia link is correct and available online. --Samjonesnewcastle (talk) 16:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted you again I'm afraid. The reference you cited pretty much only confirms that FUE exists, not for example that "Many clinics exclude clients from FUE hair transplants based on fox biopsy results" or "Research has shown that with meticulous care it is possible to extract intact and viable grafts from any client regardless of fox biopsy results" etc. You need a source which confirms these statements to include this information. SmartSE (talk) 16:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Question for Sam on the "Russia link" being "available online" I didn't see any link in the material you added - are you talking about the abstract mentioned above? That is a study on a single patient, also the translation from Russian seems a bit iffy, with a "109%" follicle survival rate on one side, although perhaps this is some oddity of measurement in the industry. As another comment, the link above seems to be simply a Google for the letter 'G', nothing about the Fox test. --CliffC (talk) 17:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I think its more than that underppinning the rest of this article. Perhaps the whole topic should go? Especially if only one side of the argument is given and also without any citations.--Samjonesnewcastle (talk) 18:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

As stated by you: As you've already been told, you need a reliable source to add material. Commercial hair restoration sites do not qualify. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Basically what he said - find a scientific journal that backs up what you say and we can include it. SmartSE (talk) 16:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Amended based on above stipulations.

Follicular Unit Extraction (FUE) takes place in a single long session or multiple small sessions. FUE is considered to be more time consuming, depending on the operator's skill, and there are restrictions on patient candidacy[3]. The advantages of this technique over the conventional strip harvest are that it does not leave a linear scar, and the procedure produces little or no postoperative pain and discomfort. There are some disadvantages such as increased surgical times and higher cost to the patient [4]. Clients are selected for FUE based on a fox test [5]. There is however some debate about the usefulness of this in screening clients for FUE. Ref # ^ Dermatol Surg. 2008 Dec;34(12):1683-8. Epub 2008 Oct 13.# ^ Facial Plast Surg. 2008 Nov;24(4):404-13. Epub 2008 Nov 25# ^ Dermatol Surg. 2002 Aug;28(8):720-8.--Samjonesnewcastle (talk) 19:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

We need a non-biased picture[edit]

The caption was "A man before and after a hair transplant".

The current picture (reproduced here), which I'm about to remove, is of a bald man with:

  • pale skin
  • eyes falling asleep
  • wearing a hospital gown
  • expressionless face
  • dark background highlighting the greyness of his hair and paleness of his skin

and then an "after" picture where he's

  • gotten a tan
  • eyes wide open and alert
  • wearing a casual shirt
  • very slight smile
  • the colour of his face and hair is emphasised by a light background.
  • the hair on the sides of his head is darker and less wispy
  • head tilted slightly more-flatteringly forward, showing less neck and more top-of-head.

That picture is how marketing companies present "comparisons". Hair transplantation doesn't give you a tan! Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral. Gronky (talk) 12:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Whoah hold your horses paranoid bob. The old gentleman in the picture wouldnt have suddenly been photographed a day later in the hospital with his new hair and new suntan and shirt. He would have been photographed in the second results picture around 9 to 12 months later when he had achieved his full result, its entirely normal he would be wearing a shirt instead of a hospital gown in his results photo 9-12 months later as he would no longer be about to go into hospital for surgery. And the season will also likely be different so he may have a suntan to reflect the weather. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
That explains the difference in skin tone but there is no reason for the other differences. You can take the before picture at the consultation. No need to wait until he is in the hospital and drugged up. I'm undecided, however, on whether or not the removal is warranted before we can find something better.--Taylornate (talk) 21:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
My thinking is, if this was an article about something easily-reversible, health-risk-free, and non-commercial (such as hairstyles or facial expressions), I'd vote for letting the picture stand until a better one is found, but for articles on elective surgery and pharmaceuticals I think we have be pretty strict with Wikipedia's neutrality rule. Gronky (talk) 04:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and a note about the explanation for the changes. They might all indeed be innocent and unintentional, but that doesn't change that they skew and spoil the comparison. The presence or absense of malice isn't important, neutrality is important. Gronky (talk) 16:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
We could crop it to show only the affected area, and that would eliminate a lot of the problems. You could even try to adjust the skin tone. Thoughts?--Taylornate (talk) 21:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Just the very top of the head?
Yeh, I didn't think of that. That should work. From kinda the mid-forehead upwards, that would also cut out the furrows/wrinkles on the forehead in the after picture.
The only issues remaining would be the skin colour, the background colour, and the colour of the hair on the sides of the head, but these are fairly minor issues, so any small best-effort attempt at correction would make the picture sufficiently neutral, in my opinion.
I previously considered, but discarded, the idea of suggesting that the scalp from one be copied onto the other so that the same face could be in both. And when I first saw your question, I thought of just triming what's around the face, but that wouldn't fix much.
Anyone (now or future readers) got image manipulation skills? Gronky (talk) 22:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

HOW EFFECTIVE HAIR TRANSPLANT IS? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2017[edit]

Seletced should be selected 2605:E000:9161:A500:2941:8510:1597:4187 (talk) 04:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

DoneIVORK Discuss 06:22, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2018[edit]

Adding one of the pioneer of hair transplants doctors to the History. Please see: he Cole Isolation Technique After reading about the successes Dr. Ray Woods, of Australia, had with Follicular Unit Extraction (FUE), Cole began creating his own technique for FUE in 2001. Originally known as the Follicular Isolation Technique (FIT), he gradually refined his method until it evolved into the Cole Isolation Technique (CIT). In addition to his proprietary technique, Cole developed a line of instrumentation to be used with CIT. The development of the Cole Isolation Technique meant that patients could undergo hair replacement surgery via a minimally invasive procedure that left no visible linear strip scar.[5]

Add additional information about the doctors who created new procedures and instruments to the page. IE: Dr Peter Cole. (talk) 15:59, 18 July 2018 (UTC) Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2010-01-21. Retrieved 2010-05-27.

[1][dead link]
"Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2009-02-25. Retrieved 2010-05-27.
"Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2011-07-11. Retrieved 2010-05-27.

See: (talk) 15:59, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Will not add. The article on Cole is already under review as an advertisement and I agree with that assessment. I see no notable/academic reason to include him. MartinezMD (talk) 19:58, 18 July 2018 (UTC)