I have never heard 1 complaint from an FUE patient and complaints from strip are well documented.

Robertt,
There are also thousands of strip docs performing really bad work, mini/micros, bad closures, flaps, scalp reductions etc. All this in an unregulated industry. What do you expect?

FUE docs? Hmm, three that regularly perform the procedure and only one that can show results past six months post-op. Overall, I would bet that the very same docs that perform FUE now that still/used to perform strip have just as many happy strip patients.

Strip isn't your enemy. The lack of regulation is. It is the lack of regulation that is ultimately responsible for allowing the butchery that you speak of.

Peace,
Jotronic

Carpe Capillus!!
www.jotowen.com

__________________
I am employed by Hasson & Wong as a patient educator. My opinions are my own and might not be that of Dr. Hasson & Dr. Wong.

Hasson & Wong-The More You Look The Better We Look.

Dr. Hasson and Dr. Wong are members of the Coalition of Independent Hair Restoration Physicians

27young,
What makes you an expert? What doctor do you work for? What's with posting "pro FUE" and "best price on propecia"? I agree with NW: If you want an FUE, get one already.

arfy,
I'll agree FUE is probably less invasive than strip. Possibly less transection too. Or maybe not.

robertt,

FUE is too new to post accurate results. I'm sure you'll hear from dissatisfied patients soon enough.

NHI has recently introduced FUE transplants with certain restrictions: They cannot accomplish everything for every patient.

Perhaps someday (soon?) strip incisions will fall by the wayside like scalp reductions and plugs. I think most of the "top doctors" are open to new research and surgical methods. Minoxodyl and Propecia haven't put HT surgeons out of business. The top doctors have incorporated these drugs into their programs, as I'm sure they will explore FUE - if it proves to be an effective tool.

The arthroscopic knee analogy is not quite correct. The purpose of the arthroscope is to minimize collateral damage by not needlessly tearing muscle, skin, nerve fibers, etc. The cosmetic benefit of arthro was really not that much of a factor when first introduced. It allowed the patient to regain as much function as possible and to recover much quicker than open knee surgery. Cosmetically, the FUE method is much more of a factor. Functionally, it is not much different than fu. It doesn't effect range of motion of the neck, etc.. Though I would think healing time of the donor site would be faster with FUE, given the much smaller incisions. I think the jury is still out on whether FUE will result in more harvested follicles because FU method docs claim 95+% salvaging of follicles. Consequently, the bottom line is that FUE ain't going to leave you a big ugly scar. If I had dense donor hair I probably wouldn't give a heck about the scar because I'd be pretty confident that my HT is going to look good, given all the donor hair I'm using. But when your sparse like me in donor area my HT results may not be what I expected and therefore I may want to go back to shaving. The scar pretty much removes that option.
In addition, because of the paucity of hair per cm2 in my case, the FUE increases the possibilities because you're not limited to a strip. You can take a little here and a little there all over the remaining donor scalp. The Woods FUE method, if the price came down, looks alot more appealing for guys like me but the strip method for many of you should be just fine if you can't wait for what's down the line.