A hair transplant surgeon has been dismissed for allegedly botching a transplant so horribly that his patient’s hair grew back at right angles.
Dr. Ruiz Alconero was treating patients without a license at KSL Hair Ltd (KSL) in Glasgow, whose prior clients include former Celtic stars Leigh Griffiths and Anthony Stokes.
The doctor was accused of delegating much of the surgery to his assistants, performing treatments without allowing patients to reconsider their decision, and failing to check on them afterwards.
As part of many charges of misbehavior leveled against the Spanish-qualified physician by four patients, one of them reported that his hair regrew at a 90-degree angle following his transplant.
The tribunal was unable to determine from the photographs if the hair had grown back at the purported angle and if Dr. Alconero was responsible.
However, the board determined that his “dishonest” behavior was “fundamentally incompatible” with ongoing registration, and he was expelled from the profession.
A panel convicted Dr. Ruiz Alconero guilty of grave misconduct and dishonesty.
Former Celtic players Leigh Griffiths and Anthony Stokes were among his prior clients at KSL Hair Ltd (KSL) in Glasgow.
The Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) committee was informed that Dr. Alconero graduated from the Universidad de Alcala Facultad de Medicina in Madrid in 1998.
He relocated to the United Kingdom and obtained a position as a hair transplant surgeon at KSL Hair Ltd (KSL) in Glasgow.
The panel heard that Dr. Alconero did not have General Medical Council (GMC) registration or a license to practice at the time of the incidents.
The tribunal was informed that Dr. Alconero performed a hair transplant on Patient A in August of 2016.
However, before he agreed, the physician did not offer a pre-operative consultation or the obligatory “cooling off period” to “go away, reflect, and consider the risks and advantages, costs, and post-operative period.”
Instead, he immediately had the procedure, despite the fact that an expert advised the panel that “it is unacceptable to do invasive cosmetic hair transplant surgery without preoperative counseling.”
Patient A informed the court that he saw “gaps” in his hairline after his hair transplant.
He remarked, ‘I decided to give the grafts six months to see whether they would take, but as time passed I discovered I was not receiving the promised effects.
I had hair erupting at right angles and bald spots along my hairline.
According to testimony presented to the tribunal, hair regrowth at such an angle would be a “intolerable” issue.
The panel was, however, “unable to determine” from the images if the hair was growing as claimed and whether it was a direct outcome of Dr. Alconero’s surgery.
Dr. Alconero was not present in person at the hearing. However, the panel was informed that he blamed KSL for ‘the process that he was required to follow’ while accepting responsibility for his acts.
The tribunal heard that in November 2016, prior to treating Patient B, Dr. Alconero failed to follow proper protocols once again.
Patient B informed the panel, “After signing the proper paperwork, I waited in the waiting room for approximately 20 minutes until Dr. Ruiz Alconero in scrubs emerged.”
Dr. Ruiz Alconero introduced himself and informed me that he would be doing the operation.
“Dr. Ruiz Alconero drew a line on my forehead with a marker pen and then asked me where I wanted the implants.
I had believed that Dr. Ruiz Alconero would have been told prior on what I desired, as it was pretty evident that I desired hair implants in the places where I was growing bald.
Patient B further reported that Dr. Alconero “kept leaving the room” when harvesting hair follicles and disappeared entirely while a technician inserted additional hair transplants.
He stated, “When Dr. Ruiz Alconero began the extraction, I could hear the extraction equipment passing over my head.” Dr. Ruiz Alconero administered further injections to numb the area, as I was in considerable agony from a burning feeling.
“The extraction lasted around three hours, and Dr. Ruiz Alconero kept leaving the room and having someone else take over before returning.”
The tribunal heard that the technician then performed the implants unattended, which it deemed to be another instance of inadequate clinical care.
She, not the doctor, then advised Patient B on how to protect his new hairline, constituting yet another violation of protocol.
Patient B stated, “Once the grafts had been placed, [the technician] briefed me on my aftercare, primarily that I should not use a power shower on my head for risk of dislodging the implants.”
I was presented with a blow-up cushion, two absorbent pads, and baby shampoo by Johnson’s.
Patient C visited KSL for a hair transplant in November 2016, and the panel determined that Dr. Alconero did not “adequately describe the technique.”
Again, the tribunal determined that Dr. Alconero did not provide a pre-operative consultation and did not oversee the implantation of hair follicles.
After Patient C complained about their hairline, Dr. Alconero ‘punched a few holes in my forehead’ while standing and instructed his helper to ‘put hair grafts there.’
Patient D, the fourth patient, stated that technicians, not Dr. Alconero, administered anesthesia, removed grafts, extracted hair follicles, and created incisions on his head during his November 2016 treatment.
The tribunal stated that this was entirely unacceptable.
Dr. Alconero was not present in person at the hearing. The panel was informed, however, that he blamed KSL for ‘the process he had to follow’ but took responsibility for his acts.
In a submission, he stated, “Of course, HT (hair transplants) and medicine in general are not a precise science, and I cannot be held liable for aftercare and controls that I did not perform.”
The panel’s head, Linda Lee, stated, “The tribunal determined that Dr. Ruiz Alconero’s actions placed patients at danger of damage.”
The tribunal also determined that Dr. Ruiz Alconero’s actions brought the medical profession into discredit and that he violated the profession’s essential tenets.
“Having determined that Dr. Ruiz Alconero’s conduct was fundamentally incompatible with continued registration, the tribunal determined that erasure was the only appropriate and proportionate sanction to protect the public interest, highlight the gravity of the misconduct, and preserve public confidence in the profession.”
We believed that the consequence of erasure would send a message to the profession that Dr. Ruiz Alconero’s conduct was entirely unacceptable and far below the standards of conduct and behavior required of a licensed physician.
The Glasgow location of KSL Hair has closed.