Revision Hair Transplant: Correcting a Result That Did Not Work

Medically reviewed by Dr Ahmet Dilber · Updated 18 August 2026

A revision hair transplant is the operation people come to when the first one did not do what they were told it would. The hairline sits too low and reads as a straight line across the forehead. The grafts point the wrong way. The donor area at the back is thinner than the rest of the head, or carries a scar that shows through short hair. Or the density simply never arrived.

This is a different operation from a first transplant, and it is harder. The scalp has been operated on before, so the blood supply in the recipient area is not what it was. The donor has already been drawn on, and what remains has to be measured rather than assumed. Every decision is made inside a smaller budget of hair.

Hair of Istanbul treats these as a defined service rather than as an ordinary transplant under a different name. In a revision hair transplant, grafts placed in the wrong position are removed with a punch and, where the follicle is intact, placed again where they belong in the same session — so the correction does not have to be paid for out of what is left of the donor. This page sets out what can be corrected, what cannot, and how the limits are measured before a plan is offered.

What a revision hair transplant is

A revision hair transplant — also called a hair transplant repair, a corrective hair transplant, or simply a second hair transplant — is an operation performed to correct the result of an earlier one. The words cover several different problems that happen to share a cause, and they are not treated the same way. Some are problems of position: the hairline is in the wrong place, or the grafts point in the wrong direction. Some are problems of quantity: not enough hair arrived. Some are problems of the donor area rather than the recipient area — a scar that shows, or a back of the head that is now visibly thinner than it should be.

The distinction matters because the operations are different. Moving a hairline that sits too low means taking grafts out. Adding density means putting grafts in. Repairing a donor scar means working in tissue with a reduced blood supply. A single revision hair transplant patient often needs two or three of these at once, and they cannot all be done in one day.

What every revision case shares is a constraint that a first transplant does not have: the hair has already been spent. Published guidance puts the lifetime yield of the safe donor area at roughly 4,000 to 6,500 grafts across multiple sessions. A patient who used 3,000 of those in a procedure that did not work is planning the correction from what is left, not from a full account.

Why a first hair transplant fails

Fisher’s review of unfavourable results divides the causes into two groups, and the division is useful because only one of them is about surgical skill. The first group is errors of judgement — decisions taken before the first incision. The second is errors of technique.

Of the judgement errors, the review names ignoring progressive hair loss as the most significant category. A hairline designed for a 24-year-old is a hairline designed for a head of hair that no longer exists at 34; the transplanted line stays where it was put while everything behind it recedes. Practice guidelines recommend waiting until at least 23 to 25 years of age, with surgery not advised below 21. StatPearls sets the threshold at after 25.

Technique errors are the ones patients can see. Historic plug grafts carried 20 to 40 hairs each and produced the row-of-corn appearance; a modern follicular unit carries one to three. Grafts set at the wrong angle catch the light differently from the hair around them. Poor graft handling lowers survival before anything is placed — published figures show survival falling from about 95% at two hours out of the body to 86% at six hours and 79% at twenty-four.

Naming the cause is not an academic exercise. A result that failed because the donor was misjudged will fail again if the same plan is repeated with better technique.

Every revision hair transplant therefore begins with a diagnosis of the first one. The correction that follows is different depending on which of these went wrong, and a plan that skips this step is a plan to repeat it.

Hairline revision: lines placed too low

The commonest reason people ask about a revision hair transplant is a hairline that was placed too far down the forehead. It is also the most correctable, and the most misunderstood, so it is worth being precise about where the line should have been.

Two published sources give a usable measurement for men. Shapiro and Shapiro place the midfrontal point 7 to 10 cm above the glabella — the smooth area between the brows. Fisher puts it at a minimum of 8 to 10 cm, and calls anything higher appropriate rather than excessive for a patient in their thirties or forties. Both are explicit that the error to avoid is placing the line too low.

One rule that circulates widely should be set aside for men. Leonardo’s Rule of Thirds, which divides the face into three equal parts and puts the hairline at the top of the upper third, is rejected by Shapiro and Shapiro as too aggressive for most patients. It remains valid for women, where normal forehead height — measured from glabella to trichion — is about one third of facial height. Where the problem is the opposite one and the hairline sits too high, the forehead reduction page covers it.

The published measurements also say where the boundary comes from. The frontalis muscle originates posteriorly from the galea aponeurotica, and that origin corresponds at the surface to the hairline itself. Grafts placed below the correct margin are therefore placed into forehead skin in front of that boundary — outside the range every measurement above describes. The correction is to take them out and rebuild the line where the measurements put it.

Removing misplaced grafts — and using them again

Grafts in the wrong place have to come out before a new line can be built, and there are two ways to do that: they can be destroyed, or they can be removed intact and used again. In a revision hair transplant at Hair of Istanbul the second is done wherever the follicle allows it.

The removal itself uses the same instrument as an extraction — the FUE technique, applied to the recipient area rather than the donor. Epstein reports 0.8 and 1.0 mm punches for grafts of one to four hairs, and 2 to 3.5 mm for the larger historic plugs. The wounds close by secondary intention, typically in under a week. Where a plug is excised whole, the tissue can be dissected into smaller follicular units and replanted.

Re-using the removed graft is the part that matters in a revision hair transplant, because it changes the arithmetic. A case report published in 2018 described exactly this — previously badly placed hairs recycled by follicular unit extraction to increase density at the crown — and concluded that re-transplantation was not only feasible but effective, and worth considering particularly where follicular reserve is scarce. That is a single case report, and it did not measure survival. No published figure exists for how well a recycled graft takes, and this page will not invent one.

What is measured is time out of the body: survival falls roughly one per cent per hour, and guidance is to place within two to four hours. A graft removed and replaced in the same session is never stored, which is the reason the two steps are not separated into two operations.

The alternative is to destroy the follicle in place rather than remove it. Laser hair removal depends on melanin absorbing light, needs at least four to six sessions four to six weeks apart, and StatPearls notes that it rarely provides a permanent solution — touch-up sessions are required. No published data was found on electrolysis for this particular indication. Either way, a follicle destroyed in place is a follicle a revision patient can no longer use, which is the reason it is not the first choice here.

• The follicle is removed whole with a 0.8–1.0 mm punch, not cut off at the surface
• Grafts that come out intact are placed again in the same session, without storage
• Damaged follicles are discarded rather than replanted
• Larger historic plugs are excised and dissected into single follicular units where possible
• Donor supply is used only for what the recycled grafts cannot cover

Plugs, cobblestoning and tufting

Plug grafts belong to an era of hair transplantation that ended decades ago, but the people who received them are still here, and some are now in their fifties. A plug carried 20 to 40 hairs in a single round graft; a modern follicular unit carries one to three. Placed in rows, plugs produced the appearance the literature calls corn rows, and the raised skin between them is cobblestoning. Correcting it is among the most visible things a revision hair transplant does.

The correction is mechanical rather than clever. Plugs are excised with a punch sized to the graft, the recovered follicles are separated into ones and twos, and the line is rebuilt with irregularity rather than repetition. A natural frontal hairline is not a line; it is a zone with sentinel hairs in front of it, and rebuilding that zone is what removes the manufactured look rather than adding density behind it.

Tufting — several follicles emerging from one point — is treated the same way. So is the ridge of tissue that sometimes remains where a row of plugs sat.

Angle and direction

Hair does not stand up out of the scalp. Published angles are specific: 15 to 20 degrees at the frontal hairline, 30 to 45 in the mid-scalp, 10 to 15 at the frontotemporal angle and 5 to 10 at the temporal hairline. A graft placed at 40 degrees in a hairline is not subtly wrong; it catches the light against every hair around it and it will not lie flat however it is combed.

Direction is a separate error from angle. Follicles in the temporal region run downwards; grafts placed there pointing forwards are the reason some corrected temples still look wrong after a second procedure that only added volume.

Angle cannot be adjusted in place. The graft is removed and set again, which is why correcting direction and correcting position are usually the same operation.

Angle correction is the least discussed part of a revision hair transplant and often the one that decides whether the result reads as natural. Density can be added later; direction cannot be adjusted without moving the graft.

Grafting into a scalp that has been operated on

Placing grafts into a scalp that has been operated on before is not the same as placing them into untouched skin, and the difference is blood supply. It is the single most important technical constraint in a revision hair transplant.

The clearest published numbers come from work on grafting into scarred and fibrotic tissue: 15 to 20 follicular units per square centimetre where perfusion is poor, 20 to 30 where it is good, and 25 to 35 in hairline zones. Two caveats belong with them. Those figures were published in the context of primary cicatricial alopecia, and no density has been measured specifically for a FUT strip scar or for scalp that has been transplanted before. And the hairline figure describes an unscarred hairline — it is not a target for a revision case. Against all of this, general guidance for untouched scalp puts the target at around 30.

The reason for restraint is not caution for its own sake. A published case report describes central area necrosis after a 1,850-graft procedure placed at 25 to 35 sites per square centimetre — in a patient with no previous transplant and no scarring. The central frontal region is supplied by end arteries and is a watershed area; high-density packing combined with adrenaline in the tumescent solution exceeded what the blood supply could carry. The authors recommend staying below 30 follicular units per square centimetre in higher-risk patients.

If that happened in healthy scalp, the same density in a bed that already carries scar tissue is not a reasonable plan. Survival data points the same way: published figures show survival falling as placement density rises, though the data is not linear and no single value from that table should be quoted alone.

What the previous surgery actually took

This is the section most revision patients have not been told about, and it is the reason an honest revision hair transplant plan sometimes disappoints before it helps.

A 2018 paper in the professional society’s journal set out a method for calculating what a previous extraction actually removed, by measuring the donor’s baseline density, its residual density and the surface area harvested. Applied to five patients, the method produced a figure that does not appear on any invoice: the gap between the number of follicles estimated to have been taken from the donor and the number actually transplanted into the patient ranged from 26% to 67%.

Read that carefully. It is a calculation from five patients, not a direct measurement, and it does not describe any individual case. What it does show is that the graft count on a first invoice may not represent how much of the donor was spent to produce it — follicular transection during extraction is a known and measured phenomenon, and it is not visible to the patient.

This is why a revision hair transplant begins with measurement of the donor rather than discussion of the recipient. The question is not what the patient would like covered; it is what is left to cover it with.

Donor and FUE scar repair

Donor damage is the second reason people ask about a revision hair transplant, and unlike a badly drawn hairline it is often the part the patient noticed first — because it is visible to everyone standing behind them. It is also the reason FUE scar repair is a request in its own right, separate from anything happening at the front.

Two kinds of donor scar arrive for repair. The strip scar left by FUT is a single horizontal line that widens if it was closed under tension. The pattern left by over-harvested FUE is not a line at all but a field of small round scars that reads as moth-eaten thinning under short hair.

The published options for a widened strip scar are scar revision, grafts into the scar, and scalp micropigmentation. Pathomvanich, writing on repairing widened donor scars, calls scar revision unpredictable and states a preference for placing grafts into the scar itself with FUE, while accepting that micropigmentation done properly also camouflages well. The society’s FUT guidelines list micropigmentation alongside surgical options and note that a patient relying on hair length to hide a strip scar must keep at least 2 to 3 cm for life.

Hair of Istanbul uses grafts and pigment together rather than choosing between them. The reason is perfusion: scar tissue carries a poorer blood supply than surrounding scalp, and the density that can safely be placed into it is lower than the density needed to break up a line optically. Pigment covers the difference. No published study has compared the combination against either method alone, so this is a clinical approach rather than a measured advantage, and it is described here as one.

There is objective evidence that grafting into scar does more than add hair. A 2023 study transplanted anagen follicles into mature scalp scars in three patients and measured the tissue at six months: vascular density rose from about 6% to roughly 10%, matching healthy scalp, and the proportion of thick collagen fibres fell from 52% to 35%. The first session improves the ground the second one works on.

An over-harvested donor

An over-harvested donor is the one problem a revision hair transplant cannot undo. Follicles that were taken are not coming back, and no technique returns them.

The published thresholds are specific. Yagyu puts visible thinning at the point where more than half the original terminal hair has been removed, and recommends that residual cosmetic density stay above 40 follicular units per square centimetre. Keene, Rassman and Harris describe residual density of 20 to 30 as see-through and thin, and to be avoided — particularly where the remaining groupings are one- and two-hair units.

What can be done is narrower than what patients hope. Pigment reduces the contrast between remaining hair and scalp. Grafts can be placed into the thinnest patches from elsewhere, though that means spending donor to repair donor. Keeping the hair longer works, and the guidelines say so plainly. The honest position is that an over-harvested donor is managed rather than repaired, and a clinic that promises otherwise is describing something that has not been shown to happen.

How much donor is left

By the time a revision hair transplant is planned, the useful question has narrowed to one number: how many grafts the donor can still give without looking harvested.

The arithmetic is blunt. Lifetime yield from the safe donor area is put at 4,000 to 6,500 grafts across multiple sessions, over a surface of roughly 189 to 203 cm². A patient who used 3,000 to 4,000 in a first procedure may have anywhere from almost nothing to about 2,500 left, depending on where their own ceiling sat. Which of those it is cannot be guessed from the invoice; it is measured by trichoscopy.

It is also why recycled grafts matter more here than they would in a first operation. Every graft that comes out of a badly placed hairline and goes back into a correct one is a graft that does not have to be taken from a donor that is already partly spent.

One published finding is worth knowing before comparing what different clinics say about second extractions. A study comparing transection rates in revision extraction after strip, FUE and punch grafting found rates of 3.22, 3.33 and 3.54 per hundred grafts respectively, and reported no statistically significant relationship between the type of previous surgery and the outcome — while acknowledging that the study was under-powered. A trend was observed after previous FUE. That is as strong as the evidence gets in either direction.

When a revision can be assessed

There is no single published figure for how long to wait before a revision hair transplant. What the literature gives instead is a set of thresholds for when the previous result can be judged at all.

What the literature does establish is when the previous result can be judged. Transplanted hair sheds and regrows over three to six months. Final photographic documentation is placed at roughly six to twelve months after surgery. Patients are told that impressive results are generally seen at eight to twelve months. Before that window closes, a result that looks like a failure may simply be incomplete.

A separate threshold applies to the tissue rather than the outcome. Work on grafting into scarred scalp recommends a second surgery nine to twelve months after the first in order to optimise follicular unit survival, and a test graft session assessed after six months where the recipient bed is doubtful.

Hair of Istanbul works to eight to twelve months for a revision hair transplant, depending on the case. Correcting a donor scar or removing clearly misplaced grafts does not require waiting for growth that will not change the decision; judging whether density is inadequate does.

Who is a candidate for a revision hair transplant?

Candidacy for a revision hair transplant is decided by two things: whether the donor can still supply what the correction needs, and whether the underlying loss has stopped moving. Neither is a matter of how unhappy the patient is with the first result, and both are measured rather than discussed.

Usually correctable

• A hairline placed below the published range, with donor density still in the safe band
• Grafts at the wrong angle or direction in a defined area
• Visible plugs, tufting or cobblestoning from historic grafting
• A widened strip scar, or a moth-eaten field from over-harvested extraction
• Density that is thin but even, on a scalp where the underlying loss is no longer moving quickly
• A previous result assessed at 12 months rather than at four

Where a revision is not the answer

• Residual donor density already at or below 40 follicular units per square centimetre
• Diffuse unpatterned loss involving the donor area itself — a contraindication to transplantation, not a reason for a second attempt
• More than 15% miniaturisation, or loss that is still moving quickly; this is stabilised first
• An active scarring alopecia; published guidance requires two years free of disease
• Less than eight months since the previous procedure, where the result has not matured
• An expectation of the density the patient had at twenty, from a donor that can no longer supply it

When the first diagnosis was wrong

Some first transplants did not fail technically. They failed because the operation should not have been offered, and the assessment before a second one has to say so.

Diffuse unpatterned alopecia — miniaturisation running across the temporal, parietal and occipital scalp with no stable zone to harvest from — is listed as a contraindication to transplantation. Where it was missed the first time, the transplanted hair carries the same tendency to miniaturise, and the donor that supplied it was already thinning when it was harvested. A revision in that setting spends what remains and buys another disappointment.

Guidance also holds that patients with more than 15% miniaturisation or rapid ongoing loss should be stabilised before surgery, and that a patient with less than 50% loss should try medical treatment first. Active cicatricial alopecias are contraindicated outright, with two disease-free years required before grafting is considered.

This is the part of the consultation that occasionally ends without an operation being offered. It is also the reason the donor area is examined under magnification before any photograph of the recipient area is discussed.

A revision hair transplant cannot correct a diagnosis. Where the first operation failed because the patient was not a surgical candidate, the second one fails the same way, and the consultation has to end with that rather than with a date.

How the plan is built

A revision hair transplant plan is built backwards from what the donor can supply, and the measurements come before the drawing. In a first operation the plan starts with the face; here it starts with the back of the head.

• Trichoscopy of the donor: baseline density, residual density, miniaturisation percentage and the calibre of remaining shafts
• Calculation of what the previous surgery removed, from residual density and harvested surface area
• Assessment of the existing hairline against the published position — distance from glabella, symmetry of the frontotemporal angles, angle of the placed grafts
• Mapping of which grafts can be recovered intact and re-used, and which have to be discarded
• Examination of the recipient bed for scarring and, where perfusion is doubtful, a test graft assessed at six months
• A staged sequence with the sessions and intervals set out before the first one begins

The day of the procedure

A revision hair transplant runs for six to eight hours in one day under local anaesthesia, at the clinic in Istanbul. Blood tests are taken beforehand and reviewed by the medical team, and the corrected hairline is drawn and agreed with the patient against the measurements before anything is removed.

Removal comes first. Misplaced grafts are taken with a punch sized to the graft, kept moist, and sorted into those that can be replaced and those that cannot. New recipient sites are then created at the published angles for the zone, and the recovered grafts are placed first, before any fresh extraction. Donor supply is used only for what the recovered grafts cannot cover.

Where a donor scar is being treated in the same session, grafts go into the scar at the lower density that scarred tissue tolerates. Pigment, if it is part of the plan, is a separate appointment once the grafted hair has grown.

For patients travelling to Turkey the operation is preceded by an in-person assessment and followed by an examination before departure, and the aftercare routine and the first wash are demonstrated in person rather than handed over as a leaflet.

Why one session is usually not enough

Most revision hair transplant cases are not finished in one day, and saying so at the start is part of the plan rather than an admission afterwards.

Three separate constraints push in the same direction. The recipient bed carries scar tissue, so the density that can safely be placed in one pass is lower. The donor is partly spent, so the graft budget for any single session is smaller. And published guidance on grafting into scarred scalp recommends leaving nine to twelve months between sessions specifically to optimise survival.

There is also a reason to think the second session works on better ground. The 2023 tissue study, carried out in three patients, found that transplanting follicles into mature scar raised vascular density to healthy-scalp levels and reduced thick collagen within six months. Whether that translates into better survival in a second session has not been measured; the staged plan is built on density limits and donor budget, not on that study.

What this means in practice is that a correction planned as two sessions nine to twelve months apart is not a clinic hedging. It is the interval published guidance recommends for grafting into scarred scalp.

Risks specific to a revision

Every hair transplant carries the risks of any minor surgery. A revision hair transplant adds a few of its own, and they are set out here rather than left to the consent form — a patient having a second operation has already been surprised once.

The most serious is perfusion. The published case of central necrosis that this page cites occurred in a 57-year-old man with a smoking history of more than twenty years, in scalp that had never been operated on, at 25 to 35 recipient sites per square centimetre. Two of those three factors — smoking and high-density placement — are modifiable. A recipient bed that already carries scar tissue starts with less margin than that patient had, which is why density is kept lower and why smoking is asked about before a plan is made rather than after.

Where a patient is taking medication that affects clotting, nothing is stopped on their own initiative — the prescribing doctor and the Hair of Istanbul medical team plan it together.

• Reduced perfusion in a scarred recipient bed; density is kept below 30 follicular units per square centimetre and lower still where the scar is dense
• Temporary shedding of surrounding hairs after placement among existing grafts — shock loss; no published figure exists for how often it affects previously transplanted hair
• Infection and folliculitis, as after any transplant
• Open extraction sites on the forehead where grafts have been removed; they close by secondary intention, typically within a week, and are not covered during that time
• Hypopigmentation or visible marks at removal sites in some skin types
• Temporary numbness in the donor area
• A history of keloid or hypertrophic scarring, poor wound healing or a tight scalp; these are listed as contraindications in the professional guidelines and are checked beforehand
• Smoking, which was present in the published necrosis case and is asked about at assessment

Recovery timeline

The timeline after a revision hair transplant follows the same biology as any transplant. What differs is that a revision patient has seen it before, and often mistrusts it — the shedding phase at weeks three to eight looks, to someone whose first procedure failed, exactly like it failing again. It is not. Results are photographed at matched distance and lighting on the before and after page.

Aftercare

Aftercare following a revision hair transplant is the same protocol as any hair transplant at Hair of Istanbul, and the after care page sets it out day by day. The first wash is performed at the clinic before departure and demonstrated in person; after that the follow-up continues from home, with photographs reviewed by the medical team at the scheduled intervals.

One point applies specifically to revision cases. Where grafts have been removed as well as placed, there are open extraction sites in the recipient area rather than only in the donor — on the forehead, where they are visible. They close by secondary intention, typically in under a week, and they are not covered during that time.

What a revision hair transplant cannot fix

This section exists because the alternative is a page that promises everything, read by people who were already promised everything once. These are the limits of a revision hair transplant, stated before the operation rather than after it.

• Follicles removed in a previous over-harvest do not come back; an over-harvested donor is managed, not repaired
• Density in a scarred recipient bed is limited by blood supply, not by willingness to place more grafts
• No published figure exists for how well a recycled graft survives, so none is quoted here
• No published satisfaction rate exists for revision hair transplant — a systematic review found that only 3 of 30 studies used patient-reported outcome measures at all
• Where the underlying loss is still progressing, a correction fixes the past and not the future. A ten-year follow-up of 70 patients found density falling by about 4 to 6% over five years, with high long-term satisfaction seen mainly in patients who stayed on medical treatment
• A hairline can be raised, but the grafts removed from it are spent whether or not they survive replanting

Price

A revision hair transplant in Turkey is priced at €5,000 at Hair of Istanbul — the top step of the graft packages rather than a separate tariff. It sits there because the work is different: grafts are removed as well as placed, the recipient bed is scarred, and the session is longer for the same graft count. The pricing page sets out the full list.

The price covers the pre-operative assessment and blood tests, the procedure under local anaesthesia, the aftercare set, the first wash at the clinic and the follow-up schedule. Where the plan is staged, each session is quoted separately and the sequence is set out before the first one. Patients travelling to Istanbul should plan three days in the city: assessment and surgery, the first wash, and an examination before departure.

What a particular case needs is settled by examination — in person or from photographs, with trichoscopy of the donor area. Ask for an assessment and both the plan and the graft number follow from what it finds. In a revision case more than any other, a number offered before the donor has been measured is not a quotation.

Frequently asked questions

Sources

The figures on this page come from peer-reviewed sources and professional society publications. Where a number relevant to revision hair transplant does not exist in the literature, this page says so instead of supplying one.

1. Fisher J. Revision of the unfavorable result in hair transplantation. Semin Plast Surg 2005;19(2):167–178. Revision of the Unfavorable Result in Hair Transplantation — Seminars in Plastic Surgery, 2005
2. Epstein JS. Different options in revision surgical hair restoration. Hair Transplant Forum International 2010;20(3):73–80. Different Options in Revision Surgical Hair Restoration — Hair Transplant Forum International, 2010
3. Mohebipour A et al. Recycling of previously transplanted hair: a novel indication for follicular unit extraction. Open Access Maced J Med Sci 2018;6(6):1095–1097. Recycling of Previously Transplanted Hair: A Novel Indication for Follicular Unit Extraction — Open Access Macedonian Journal of Medical Sciences, 2018
4. Shapiro R, Shapiro P. Hairline design and frontal hairline restoration. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am 2013;21:351–362. Hairline Design and Frontal Hairline Restoration — Facial Plastic Surgery Clinics of North America, 2013
5. Pessino K, Patel J, Patel BC. Anatomy, head and neck: frontalis muscle. StatPearls, NIH Bookshelf. Anatomy, Head and Neck: Frontalis Muscle — StatPearls, 2023
6. Goldin J, Zito PM, Raggio BS. Hair transplantation. StatPearls, NIH Bookshelf. Hair Transplantation — StatPearls, 2025
7. Keene SA, Rassman WR, Harris JA. Determining safe excision limits in FUE. Hair Transplant Forum International 2018;28(1):1–11. Determining Safe Excision Limits in FUE: Factors That Affect, and a Simple Way to Maintain, Aesthetic Donor Density — Hair Transplant Forum International, 2018
8. Yagyu K. How to avoid overharvesting during repeat follicular unit excision sessions. Hair Transplant Forum International 2018;28(4):142–144. How to Avoid Overharvesting During Repeat Follicular Unit Excision Sessions — Hair Transplant Forum International, 2018
9. Dua K, Dua A. Comparing follicular transection rate in revision FUE cases. Hair Transplant Forum International 2020;30(1):7–9. Comparing Follicular Transection Rate in Revision FUE Cases — Hair Transplant Forum International, 2020
10. Pathomvanich D. Repairing widened FUT donor scars. Hair Transplant Forum International 2020;30(4):127–129. Repairing Widened FUT Donor Scars — Hair Transplant Forum International, 2020
11. Singh S, Muthuvel K. Role of hair transplantation in scarring alopecia — to do or not to do. Indian J Plast Surg 2021;54(4):501–506. Role of Hair Transplantation in Scarring Alopecia — To Do or Not to Do — Indian Journal of Plastic Surgery, 2021
12. Plotczyk M et al. Anagen hair follicles transplanted into mature human scars remodel fibrotic tissue. npj Regen Med 2023;8:1. Anagen hair follicles transplanted into mature human scars remodel fibrotic tissue — npj Regenerative Medicine, 2023
13. Parsley WM, Perez-Meza D. Review of factors affecting the growth and survival of follicular grafts. J Cutan Aesthet Surg 2010;3(2):69–75. Review of Factors Affecting the Growth and Survival of Follicular Grafts — Journal of Cutaneous and Aesthetic Surgery, 2010
14. Barusco MN, Jazayeri K. A case report of central area necrosis following a hair transplant procedure. Hair Transplant Forum International 2014;24(2):58–59. A Case Report of Central Area Necrosis Following a Hair Transplant Procedure — Hair Transplant Forum International, 2014
15. Epstein JS, Kuka Epstein G. Surgical hairline advancement: patient candidacy and best techniques. Hair Transplant Forum International 2018;28(5):184–187. Surgical Hairline Advancement: Patient Candidacy and Best Techniques — Hair Transplant Forum International, 2018
16. Epstein J, Alexander A. Lowering the female hairline: two options in treatment. Hair Transplant Forum International 2013;23(1):12–15. Lowering the Female Hairline: Two Options in Treatment — Hair Transplant Forum International, 2013
17. Mysore V et al. Hair transplant practice guidelines. J Cutan Aesthet Surg 2021;14(3):265–284. Hair Transplant Practice Guidelines — Journal of Cutaneous and Aesthetic Surgery, 2021
18. Cooley JE et al. Clinical practice guidelines for follicular unit transplantation (FUT). Hair Transplant Forum International 2024;34(6):197–204. Clinical Practice Guidelines for Follicular Unit Transplantation (FUT) — Hair Transplant Forum International, 2024
19. Rosati P et al. A systematic review of outcomes and patient satisfaction following surgical and non-surgical treatments for hair loss. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2019;43(6):1523–1535. A Systematic Review of Outcomes and Patient Satisfaction Following Surgical and Non-surgical Treatments for Hair Loss — Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, 2019
20. Vaidya T, Hohman MH, Kumar D D. Laser hair removal. StatPearls, NIH Bookshelf. Laser Hair Removal — StatPearls, 2023
21. Pathomvanich D, Mella CA. A ten-year retrospective analysis on the long-term survival of hair transplants. Hair Transplant Forum International 2023;33(5):157–165. A Ten-Year Retrospective Analysis on the Long-Term Survival of Hair Transplants — Hair Transplant Forum International, 2023

Related pages

A revision case usually touches more than one of these.