https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3944668/#!po=14.7887

I have read the article. There is a great deal of speculation about the use of light therapy in certain areas, like graft growth after hair transplants. I know that grafts grow after a hair transplant when the surgery is done correctly and can’t be accelerated by using such a modality. The author speculated on the use of infra-red light, but there is no evidence available for this use either. Most of the studies on LLLT therapy are written by people who have something to profit by pushing this technology. Laser hats and other devices cost up to $3,000 retail. Almost half of the money goes to the doctor selling it, so do you think that a doctor can be impartial when bringing you this technology?  I don’t sell them because I refuse to make money from my patients without giving them value.

 

An FUE surgery of 5,000 grafts is most likely too many grafts for the donor area in 98% of the population. As a result, you have a problem with over-harvesting which produces a see-through donor area. The original density may have been too low to support the number of FUE grafts you had done.  You now have a depleted donor area, and since your hair appears short in the photo, this problem is made worse. If you let your hair grow out more, maybe it will cover this overharvested donor area. One reasonably good solution is Scalp Micropigmentation.

Whatever you do, do not do another FUE as your situation will become worse. FUE is often promoted as a scar-less surgery, but clearly, it is misleading as in your situation. You can either let your hair grow longer to cover it or get Scalp MicroPigmentation which will camouflage these bald areas exceptionally well.

See here: https://scalpmicropigmentation.com/scar-covering/

The appearance of thinning in the corners of a female hairline is common as age sets in. A hair transplant can easily address this as well as the high hairline and the ledge shown on the upper front of the forehead, which suggests a hairline that is higher than the normal female hairline position.

A 2017 gene study of 52,000 40-69 year old males tried to identify genes associated with balding, and they identified over 250 genetic markers common in bald men. They then tried to use it to predict MPB with some success. Total of 61% in the lowest risk group had hair loss, with 14% of it being severe. The highest risk had 58% with moderate to severe loss. https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1006594

Even after identifying this many genes its far from perfect. We can logically deduce it’s more likely that there is no MPB gene. Genetics increase susceptibility, but that applies to everything else. This also explains why most old men will exhibit recession, and why everyone recedes to different extents.

Interesting.  Thanks for the information.

This could be either shock loss in the donor area or over-harvesting the grafts from the donor area. You will know in about 6 months. If it is shock loss, it should reverse.

I know there is a better chance for reversal for men in early 20s, but what I meant to ask… Are men in their early 20s (more likely to have rapid hair loss) more likely to not respond well to finasteride than men in their late 20s or early 30s? As a doctor, have you ever encountered men (after the age of 25) who didn’t respond well to fin (couldn’t maintain) and still lost their hair due to generics winning the battle? If so, is it more uncommon for men after the age of 25?

Generally speaking, balding men in their 20s have more hair loss than balding men in their 30s. Men with advanced hair loss patterns have most of the hair loss occur before they are 25. If you are over 25 and don’t have an advanced pattern of balding, you are probably not one of the aggressive balding patients. Finasteride works well in men in their early 20s or late teens, still well in their late 20s, and then less well the older you get. Nonetheless, it still works.