Hey everyone:

I just watched a good video on the strip method by a top doc on this form. I have to say that I am 100% against it! How can anyone even remotly say that they are against or compare the new FUE to the strip? No wonder there is shock loss associated with the strip method: have you seen the amount of scalp they remove. With that much trama to the head, what do u expect when people say they had shock.

I'm tired of some doctors saying that they think there will be a two tear approach one day, first get as many grafts with the strip and than use the FUE to fill in as they become more bald.

I heard the same things about 10 years ago vs mini and FU. Come on docs. Get with the times: the FUE approach is here, learn it!

Yes, it takes more time to get the work done: but come on, if a patient has been bald for 10 years and docs offer the FUE at the same cost (yes this is possible once they perfect it) do you really think they would not mind going for three SCARLESS procedures instead on one, waiting maybe 6 more months to see results?

Dr. Jones, Woods and GUE (SPELLING?) are the only two TOP docs in the world: why? because they offer this new and BETTER approach. No one can argue against it, simple. But I have to say that they need to lower their costs.

So to anyone concidering a HT: The most advanced approach is the FUE.....in the next 5 years, it will HM......period.

Im walking into my HT doctor tomorrow and asking if he has learned the FUE approach. If not - he is not the man for me. How could he be? Not being able to offer the MOST advanced approach available today? Yes, strip doctors are not affering the most advanced approach!

The strip method works- in the hands of a top doc-but the FUE is better.(and yes, the mini graft aproach works also, if the hands of a good doctor- but it does not make it right!) Why would you not concider that: oh wait, I know why: doctors, ever the top ones are not offering the FUE and the cost. Did you hear that docs? Get with the times and help some people improve their lives with as LITTLE risk as possible.

Hey everyone:

I just watched a good video on the strip method by a top doc on this form. I have to say that I am 100% against it! How can anyone even remotly say that they are against or compare the new FUE to the strip? No wonder there is shock loss associated with the strip method: have you seen the amount of scalp they remove. With that much trama to the head, what do u expect when people say they had shock.

I'm tired of some doctors saying that they think there will be a two tear approach one day, first get as many grafts with the strip and than use the FUE to fill in as they become more bald.

I heard the same things about 10 years ago vs mini and FU. Come on docs. Get with the times: the FUE approach is here, learn it!

Yes, it takes more time to get the work done: but come on, if a patient has been bald for 10 years and docs offer the FUE at the same cost (yes this is possible once they perfect it) do you really think they would not mind going for three SCARLESS procedures instead on one, waiting maybe 6 more months to see results?

Dr. Jones, Woods and GUE (SPELLING?) are the only two TOP docs in the world: why? because they offer this new and BETTER approach. No one can argue against it, simple. But I have to say that they need to lower their costs.

So to anyone concidering a HT: The most advanced approach is the FUE.....in the next 5 years, it will HM......period.

Im walking into my HT doctor tomorrow and asking if he has learned the FUE approach. If not - he is not the man for me. How could he be? Not being able to offer the MOST advanced approach available today? Yes, strip doctors are not affering the most advanced approach!

The strip method works- in the hands of a top doc-but the FUE is better.(and yes, the mini graft aproach works also, if the hands of a good doctor- but it does not make it right!) Why would you not concider that: oh wait, I know why: doctors, ever the top ones are not offering the FUE and the cost. Did you hear that docs? Get with the times and help some people improve their lives with as LITTLE risk as possible.

Any idea what is the price of FUE procedure per FU?

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic''. Arthur C. Clarke

My count so far of the "top" doctors who offer the most advanced technique in HT's to date (the FUE): 3

2.6 months post op and grafts are just starting to grow in great. I'm very satisfied so far. Hope this keeps up! FUE is well worth the extra cost if you get strip surgery you are left with what is known as "the mark of the beast" along the back of your head.

"The mark of the beast"... So that's what you call what I've gone and spent ten grand on, huh?

Great! Send me the T-Shirt and the Flag while you're at it, and I'll go on a frickin' parade; "Behold! I am the Devil incarnate, RUN!!!"

You know, I can appreciate the aesthetics of restoring one's hairline without leaving a scar from strip surgery as well as anyone else can. It's not like we all got up in the morning and said, "Hmmm, I think I prefer the scar.", though.

The fact of the matter is, while FUE may be available already, and the technology behind it is improving by leaps and bounds (not a bad thing!), it's still a procedure that results in a substantially larger percentage of follicular transection than a skilled strip surgery will yield. You have to ask yourself what is more important to you, and factor-in whether or not you actually even CARE about having a scar that nobody is ever going to see or know about to begin with, anyway.

Like many others, I have no intention or desire to ever shave my head to the point where it would become visible. I am also more interested in the results of specific surgeons that have been proven, photographically, again and again and again and again. There are many other reasons as to why EITHER method can be seen as a more attractive choice above the other one, when looking at them AS THEY ARE TODAY. That doesn't mean I'm going to start bashing the one that is, arguably, probably on the way out, eventually.

Again though, if I know that my scar is never even going to be a factor for anyone in my life, including myself, then I have to ask, quite simply, what difference does it make?!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>...it's still a procedure that results in a substantially larger percentage of follicular transection than a skilled strip surgery will yield. [/quote]I don't believe that to be correct. What is that based on?

It seems to me that there is transection just from the strip excision itself. Especially where the top and bottom incision begin to join together (the ellipical shape) at the ends. The big scare that Woods or FIT or FUE causes massive transection is based on outdated conceptions of how the surgery is done.

The bottom line is that the non-strip method is far less invasive and far less traumatic. Strip methods throw perfectly viable scalp tissue in the garbage, because it doesn't contain a follicle. I compare it to arthoscopic knee surgery. You can certainly have a doctor slice along your entire knee, if you don't mind the longer healing times, the additional pain, and the linear scar. You probably save money by not doing it arthoscopically, and nobody will notice the scar on your knee, if you wear long pants.

(In case someone has never heard of arthoscopic knee surgery, here is my rough understanding): Arthoscopic surgeons insert tiny visualization devices and do surgery "internally" by inserting their instruments into a small incision... one inch or less at most. Older forms of knee surgery require opening up the knee, creating scars that are at least 6 inches long. Now they are talking about doing heart surgery in this less-invasive way as well. That would obviously be better than opening up the whole chest, as is required sometimes. LESS INVASIVE IS BETTER.

Come on guys: the better procedure is here and it works.....period......if you get the strip method - it's because you did not educate yourself. Strip is bad (but does work in the right hands) - this does not mead do it....I CAN't SAY THIS ENOUGH...FUE IS HERE, IT'S THE BEST PROCEDURE OUT THERE; DOCS NEED TO LEARN IT AND IF YOU WANT A HT - YOU NEED TO AVOAID THE STRIP....MAN----is not that hard people..

sorry if that sounded rude, no disrespect--i just get bothered when people promote something that is not as good as the FUE -- the strip...

"Your only a top Doctor when you offer the MOST advanced technique available" - THE REAL TOP DOCTORS TO DATE ON PATS LIST: 3 - PRO FUE!

Here is the best price you will find for Propecia: $44.99 for a year's worth.

http://www.dru-online.com/

I am not aware of anyone holding back any person from seeing any FUE Doc....what I am waiting for is some patients to report back on thier progress ??

If you are a believer and an advocate....do us all a favor and go in !!! then let us know.

What is the hold up??

NW

To me, the drawbacks are:

It takes more sessions to achieve the same number of grafts as one strip session usually will yield. For those of us not in close proximity to a quality doctor, this means more travel which results in greater expense and inconvenience.

It is also more expensive on a per graft basis as you noted. While that may not be a concern for some, it is a secondary factor in my decision.

Even if the cost came down, I want results. Given the scars I have elsewhere on my body, one more is not going to matter when it's hidden beneath what's left of my hair.

That's my two cents... I'm saving the rest for my HT in April.

Mr. T