Dr. Munib Ahmad - availability and cost these days?

[CautiousResearcher]

1 hour ago, Berba11 said:

Need to be careful in not comparing apples with oranges here.

Dr Munib's hairlines are actually more conservative (a good thing!) typically, with a focus on density and naturalness rather than being aggressive. He doesn't unnecessarily lower hairlines or throw in loads of grafts to do temple points (again, good!) where it's not strictly necessary. The key point I'm trying to make here is that it's just very good planning and sound practice - it's not wizardry.

Pittella & Zarev on the other hand are doing loads and loads of NW6 & 7 patients (whereas Dr Munib is not, to my knowledge). This means by default they're dealing with bigger areas of baldness and therefore larger graft numbers.

The reality is that, other than Zarev and Pittella for NW7 patients, you could really throw a dart at a picture board with all of the great clinics & surgeons you have on your list and you'll very likely get an excellent result. What makes all of these options great is the extent of their involvement and oversight of the surgery, the amount of importance they place on the planning stage and the skill and experience of their supporting team.

Given you seem to have a decent enough budget to pick from the cream of the crop, I think one thing that you want to establish is what I mentioned above: how much of the surgeon are you getting at all levels of the process (consultation, planning, design, surgery, oversight of delegated parts of surgery, post-op care and direct line to the surgeon)?

@Berba11, this is really, really helpful.  

Regarding budget, I'm not independently wealthy, so cost is a factor... I just don't want it to be the overriding factor.  While I might be able to pay for some of the most expensive surgeons, my bank account would definitely feel it.  It would mean some financial sacrifices in other areas.  But, if the difference in result was really significant, I think I'd be willing to make the sacrifice.

You mention that other than Zarev and Pittella for NW7 patients, I could really throw a dart at a picture board with all the other surgeons on my list and likely get an excellent result.  That's really encouraging.  Are you saying that generally, or for my specific case (see the link below to my other post with details of my situation/loss).

And that's good advice about establishing how much of the surgeon I'd be getting at all levels of the process.  Definitely want to make sure that's clear and that I'm comparing apples to apples (of level of physician involvement) as I research surgeons and what they advise/offer.

Thanks again for the really helpful insight!

P.S. For context on my specific situation/hair loss, here's another post...

 

[Berba11]

38 minutes ago, CautiousResearcher said:

Are you saying that generally, or for my specific case

Both, really.

The thinning from the bottom of your donor area may better lend itself to FUT rather than FUE depending on whether that retrograde advances (which is probably dependent on whether you're using a DHT blocker or not).

[4chanhrn]

13 minutes ago, CautiousResearcher said:

@Berba11, this is really, really helpful.  

Regarding budget, I'm not independently wealthy, so cost is a factor... I just don't want it to be the overriding factor.  While I might be able to pay for some of the most expensive surgeons, my bank account would definitely feel it.  It would mean some financial sacrifices in other areas.  But, if the difference in result was really significant, I think I'd be willing to make the sacrifice.

You mention that other than Zarev and Pittella for NW7 patients, I could really throw a dart at a picture board with all the other surgeons on my list and likely get an excellent result.  That's really encouraging.  Are you saying that generally, or for my specific case (see the link below to my other post with details of my situation/loss).

And that's good advice about establishing how much of the surgeon I'd be getting at all levels of the process.  Definitely want to make sure that's clear and that I'm comparing apples to apples (of level of physician involvement) as I research surgeons and what they advise/offer.

Thanks again for the really helpful insight!

P.S. For context on my specific situation/hair loss, here's another post...

All these surgeons are top 5 in the world, but each have different pros/cons.

Zarev is best in the world at planning, donor management and growth. That's how he produces those insane NW6/7 results. But his angulations, hairlines aren't perfect. But I would go with him if I have the money and can wait.

Pittella has very good donor management, growth. But he implants in rows, creating see through effect. I think he lacks bit in artistry and refinement. Check his work on hairlines/temple points. But makes up for it in numbers. 

Ahmad I think is great, but not as proven with high norwoods. There's a reason why he's one of few clinics posting high res closeups from different angles. But his prices are insane.

If you can goto Brazil consider Thiago Leal as well. He has work posted on Instagram.

If you want to do FUT like @Berba11 suggested, Hattingen, Absolute are good options. Dr. Ted's work looks really good from post op pics, but I don't like the rows and we're yet to see full patient journeys.

 

[CautiousResearcher]

2 hours ago, Berba11 said:

Both, really.

The thinning from the bottom of your donor area may better lend itself to FUT rather than FUE depending on whether that retrograde advances (which is probably dependent on whether you're using a DHT blocker or not).

Yep, I'm just wrestling with if I'm ok with the FUT scar.  Had a haircut recently and was reminded how I like my hair fairly short in the back.  (the photos I uploaded to HRN are when it had been a while since a haircut).

Thanks for the insight @Berba11

[Berba11]

6 minutes ago, CautiousResearcher said:

Yep, I'm just wrestling with if I'm ok with the FUT scar.  Had a haircut recently and was reminded how I like my hair fairly short in the back.  (the photos I uploaded to HRN are when it had been a while since a haircut).

Thanks for the insight @Berba11

You will have the option of putting grafts into the scar at some point down the line (beard hair, for instance). If I could rewind the clock 4 years I'd do FUT myself.

[CautiousResearcher]

2 hours ago, 4chanhrn said:

All these surgeons are top 5 in the world, but each have different pros/cons.

Zarev is best in the world at planning, donor management and growth. That's how he produces those insane NW6/7 results. But his angulations, hairlines aren't perfect. But I would go with him if I have the money and can wait.

Pittella has very good donor management, growth. But he implants in rows, creating see through effect. I think he lacks bit in artistry and refinement. Check his work on hairlines/temple points. But makes up for it in numbers. 

Ahmad I think is great, but not as proven with high norwoods. There's a reason why he's one of few clinics posting high res closeups from different angles. But his prices are insane.

If you can goto Brazil consider Thiago Leal as well. He has work posted on Instagram.

If you want to do FUT like @Berba11 suggested, Hattingen, Absolute are good options. Dr. Ted's work looks really good from post op pics, but I don't like the rows and we're yet to see full patient journeys.

 

Thanks for the detailed breakdown on each surgeon.  Getting in with either Zarev or Ahmad is a challenge (even just for the consultation, much less the surgery), and they are both expensive (9 euros per graft for Zarev, and though several people have chimed in here, still haven't heard official pricing from Ahmad).  Not saying these two surgeons aren't worth those prices!  Just that the cost would be high, and I'd have to weigh that (but I am certainly interested).  Would love to consider them along with Pittella, Hattingen, Absolute, Miln, and others.

Not familiar with Leal, but I'll have to check him out.

Thanks for the insight mate!

[CautiousResearcher]

1 minute ago, Berba11 said:

You will have the option of putting grafts into the scar at some point down the line (beard hair, for instance). If I could rewind the clock 4 years I'd do FUT myself.

Interesting insight from your own personal experience.  What's your reasoning for choosing FUT if you could go back in time?

[Berba11]

47 minutes ago, CautiousResearcher said:

Interesting insight from your own personal experience.  What's your reasoning for choosing FUT if you could go back in time?

Probably the best method to maximise the donor in the safest way possible and having seen so many excellent and hard to find scars (plus the ability to put grafts into them), the biggest downside of FUT isn’t much a downside at all really. 

[Miller1980]

He is way too overpriced (without reason) and i wouldnt suggest him to anyone even if he was very rich....you can find more experienced top surgeons in europe (spain, Portugal)  at much lower prices imo...

Edited Tuesday at 11:15 PM by Miller1980

[CautiousResearcher]

17 minutes ago, Miller1980 said:

He is way too overpriced (without reason) and i wouldnt suggest him to anyone even if he was very rich....you can find more experienced top surgeons in europe (spain, Portugal)  at much lower prices imo...

Tell me more

[A_4_Archan]

If you're comfortable keeping the length of your hair at the back long enough to cover the FUT scar, then FUT is a viable option for you. Than you can use SMP later on to camouflage the scar, or you could even fill the scar area with body hair to improve its appearance.

For FUT Hattingen Clinic is an excellent choice, offering great value for their services. You can confidently choose them for your procedure.

As you mentioned in some of your posts, both Dr. Ahmad and Dr. Zarev are out of your budget. While they are undoubtedly among the best in the field and shouldn't be compared with other doctors, if you can afford their services, they would be the top choice. However, if they are beyond your financial reach, it's best not to compare them with others or dwell on the idea and move on to other options.

If you prefer to go with FUE and have a budget of around 5 euros per graft, Dr. Couto is likely your best bet. Other surgeons you could consider within this price range include Dr. Pittela, Dr. Pinto, and Dr. Ferreira. They all offer quality services at a fairly affordable cost.

I hope this helps you. Good Luck Brother.

Edited Wednesday at 06:18 AM by A_4_Archan

[CautiousResearcher]

6 minutes ago, A_4_Archan said:

If you're comfortable keeping the length of your hair at the back long enough to cover the FUT scar, then FUT is a viable option for you. Than you can use SMP later on to camouflage the scar, or you could even fill the scar area with body hair to improve its appearance.

For FUT Hattingen Clinic is an excellent choice, offering great value for their services. You can confidently choose them for your procedure.

As you mentioned in some of your posts, both Dr. Ahmad and Dr. Zarev are out of your budget. While they are undoubtedly among the best in the field and shouldn't be compared with other doctors, if you can afford their services, they would be the top choice. However, if they are beyond your financial reach, it's best not to compare them with others or dwell on the idea and move on to other options.

If you prefer to go with FUE and have a budget of around 5 euros per graft, Dr. Couto is likely your best bet. Other surgeons you could consider within this price range include Dr. Pittela, Dr. Pinto, and Dr. Ferreira. They all offer quality services at a fairly affordable cost.

I hope this helps you. Good Luck Brother.

Man, great insight from you, as always, @A_4_Archan.

I’m looking forward to my virtual consult with Dr Murasanu (Hattingen) this week. 
 

just to clarify, though Dr Zarev and Dr Ahmed are both some of the highest priced surgeons (and deservedly so), I could afford their prices— I would just feel it financially (I’m not in a position where I would drop that kind of money lightly… but I do tend to spend my money on things that are quality and that last).  I actually just got replies from both FueGenix and Zarev’s office and am in conversations with them now about the possibility of scheduling a consultation. But your advice is sound: if I decide that I’m unwilling to spend that much, best to just move on.  But I’m not there yet— still seriously considering them. 
 

And thanks for the suggestion of Drs Cuoto, Pinto, and Ferreira— I need to look further into these three. 
 

im already in conversations with Pittella's office and am on a waiting list for a consult.

thanks for all the insight and advice man!  Keep it coming— I’m eager to hear and to learn!

 

[MC117]

On 7/2/2024 at 7:33 PM, Berba11 said:

Need to be careful in not comparing apples with oranges here.

Dr Munib's hairlines are actually more conservative (a good thing!) typically, with a focus on density and naturalness rather than being aggressive. He doesn't unnecessarily lower hairlines or throw in loads of grafts to do temple points (again, good!) where it's not strictly necessary. The key point I'm trying to make here is that it's just very good planning and sound practice - it's not wizardry.

Pittella & Zarev on the other hand are doing loads and loads of NW6 & 7 patients (whereas Dr Munib is not, to my knowledge). This means by default they're dealing with bigger areas of baldness and therefore larger graft numbers.

The reality is that, other than Zarev and Pittella for NW7 patients, you could really throw a dart at a picture board with all of the great clinics & surgeons you have on your list and you'll very likely get an excellent result. What makes all of these options great is the extent of their involvement and oversight of the surgery, the amount of importance they place on the planning stage and the skill and experience of their supporting team.

Given you seem to have a decent enough budget to pick from the cream of the crop, I think one thing that you want to establish is what I mentioned above: how much of the surgeon are you getting at all levels of the process (consultation, planning, design, surgery, oversight of delegated parts of surgery, post-op care and direct line to the surgeon)?

Berba is 100% right there. Apples to oranges comparisons are ridiculous. 

If you can go with Zarev, he is the best in the world period. No weak points, maybe his waiting list but it's a good sign too 😅 !

If saving time and money is essential for you at this stage of your life, then Hattingen would be my choice for a second spot. 

[CautiousResearcher]

1 hour ago, MC117 said:

Berba is 100% right there. Apples to oranges comparisons are ridiculous. 

If you can go with Zarev, he is the best in the world period. No weak points, maybe his waiting list but it's a good sign too 😅 !

If saving time and money is essential for you at this stage of your life, then Hattingen would be my choice for a second spot. 

Thanks, @MC117!  Zarev is definitely up there.  I just had another member message me privately after reading this thread, and he said Ahmad is the best in the world.  What say you?

Obviously both are top surgeons, so may be like the all the GOAT arguments in sports.

But love to hear your opinion of Zarev vs Ahmad.

[Berba11]

4 hours ago, CautiousResearcher said:

and he said Ahmad is the best in the world.

I’m not a fan of these statements and think they’re impossible to fully qualify. 
 

Dr Munib is great but I bet if you did a Pepsi Challenge-style ABX picture study and put his hairlines next to say, Dr Feriduni’s hairlines, most people would have a hard time saying which is which. 

That’s not to diminish Dr Munib is any way at all, it’s only to say that he’s just one of several great surgeons and there’s barely any significant difference between the top guys (again, with the exception of dealing with NW7 cases). 

[CautiousResearcher]

25 minutes ago, Berba11 said:

I’m not a fan of these statements and think they’re impossible to fully qualify. 
 

Dr Munib is great but I bet if you did a Pepsi Challenge-style ABX picture study and put his hairlines next to say, Dr Feriduni’s hairlines, most people would have a hard time saying which is which. 

That’s not to diminish Dr Munib is any way at all, it’s only to say that he’s just one of several great surgeons and there’s barely any significant difference between the top guys (again, with the exception of dealing with NW7 cases). 

Thanks for this insight @Berba11.  This is exactly why I’m eager to get all the feedback I can on this forum, and to research each surgeons work/results, and to schedule both virtual and in-person consultations with as many as is reasonable.
 

I have a virtual consultation with Miln tomorrow and Miresanu tomorrow (and I am working to schedule an in-person with him in August).  I’m in conversation with Ahmad to potentially schedule a virtual consultation soon and potentially an on-person consult on late August.  I just secured an early September in-person consultation with Bisanga. I’m on a waiting list for Pittella as well, and I am waiting to hear back from De Freitas. I’m eager to see what my impression is of each one after the consultations. 
 

@Berba11, what do you think of Dr Ahmad’s ability to achieve such striking visual impact with so few grafts?  To me, that is his biggest selling point.  
 

PS - can’t remember if you’ve seen this other thread or not, but it provides more context:

 

[Berba11]

3 minutes ago, CautiousResearcher said:

@Berba11, what do you think of Dr Ahmad’s ability to achieve such striking visual impact with so few grafts?  To me, that is his biggest selling point

I think I commented on this before, but to me it’s really just a case of being conservative with the hairlines (note that he doesn’t bring them down and uses the existing forelock as a template) and therefore not actually needing to use as many grafts. It’s just a very sound and secure approach which I like a lot. 
 

I don’t actually buy in to the idea he’s doing some kind of magic trick to achieve more with less;  he’s just being conservative and packing densely from a conservative starting point. It’s what all surgeons should be doing really. Also, I note that his most striking results tend to be when there’s a decent amount of  native hair to build around, which will obviously give the appearance of things being denser than they would be if the recipient area was totally bald to begin with. He can obviously handle implanting in and around native hair to a very high level. 

His use of irregularities and soft single hairs is excellent and brings that naturalness you’d want at the hairline. But again, that’s what all the best guys do, though each differ slightly in their artistry and preference for more or less macro & micro irregularities.

 

[CautiousResearcher]

6 hours ago, Berba11 said:

I think I commented on this before, but to me it’s really just a case of being conservative with the hairlines (note that he doesn’t bring them down and uses the existing forelock as a template) and therefore not actually needing to use as many grafts. It’s just a very sound and secure approach which I like a lot. 
 

I don’t actually buy in to the idea he’s doing some kind of magic trick to achieve more with less;  he’s just being conservative and packing densely from a conservative starting point. It’s what all surgeons should be doing really. Also, I note that his most striking results tend to be when there’s a decent amount of  native hair to build around, which will obviously give the appearance of things being denser than they would be if the recipient area was totally bald to begin with. He can obviously handle implanting in and around native hair to a very high level. 

His use of irregularities and soft single hairs is excellent and brings that naturalness you’d want at the hairline. But again, that’s what all the best guys do, though each differ slightly in their artistry and preference for more or less macro & micro irregularities.

 

Thanks, @Berba11!  Good insight— and helpful as I think things through.  I appreciate it!

[MC117]

18 hours ago, CautiousResearcher said:

Thanks, @MC117!  Zarev is definitely up there.  I just had another member message me privately after reading this thread, and he said Ahmad is the best in the world.  What say you?

Obviously both are top surgeons, so may be like the all the GOAT arguments in sports.

But love to hear your opinion of Zarev vs Ahmad.

I have been looking at HTs for a decade as I started receding early but my loss is the slowest in the world. I've seen doctors getting at the top and falling of my own ranking because of the money call (patients/day, technicians etc.). The first few cases of Koray erdogan, for example and to illustrate my point, were amazing in 2010-2.

The thing is every time I found a top surgeon the results were great but there was always something missing or you heard of some botches. To be considered the best in the world, which is indeed a hard status to gain imo (it took me 10+ years to find that) you need to be polyvalent and great in every single dimension that constitute a HT. 

Donor management, transparency in displaying results, proportion of follicle regrowth, hair texture/look, angulation, hairline realism, honesty with what is plausible or not, innovation, thorough hair analysis, scars management, density, price, big norwood recovery and coverage, follow up, blood supply management etc.

Imo, the only one that scores an A everywhere is doctor Zarev (probably forgot some categories from the top of my head). Now, after the exception, there are still good doctors to consider and I won't remake a list my dear comrades around here already told you some names and there is a lot of bis repetita, so it's easy to gather. But still there will be something missing with them, like with the top docs from 10 years ago. That's my sincere opinion. 

[CautiousResearcher]

7 hours ago, MC117 said:

I have been looking at HTs for a decade as I started receding early but my loss is the slowest in the world. I've seen doctors getting at the top and falling of my own ranking because of the money call (patients/day, technicians etc.). The first few cases of Koray erdogan, for example and to illustrate my point, were amazing in 2010-2.

The thing is every time I found a top surgeon the results were great but there was always something missing or you heard of some botches. To be considered the best in the world, which is indeed a hard status to gain imo (it took me 10+ years to find that) you need to be polyvalent and great in every single dimension that constitute a HT. 

Donor management, transparency in displaying results, proportion of follicle regrowth, hair texture/look, angulation, hairline realism, honesty with what is plausible or not, innovation, thorough hair analysis, scars management, density, price, big norwood recovery and coverage, follow up, blood supply management etc.

Imo, the only one that scores an A everywhere is doctor Zarev (probably forgot some categories from the top of my head). Now, after the exception, there are still good doctors to consider and I won't remake a list my dear comrades around here already told you some names and there is a lot of bis repetita, so it's easy to gather. But still there will be something missing with them, like with the top docs from 10 years ago. That's my sincere opinion. 

Thanks for sharing your perspective!