hairweare

That is not a normal or expected occurrence following FUE. Please consult with your doctor right away.

Many docs and followers here believe that your yield would have been much greater along with better hair quality and preserved donor area had you chosen to go with the gold standard of having a 1.5 x20 cm chunk of flesh hacked out the back of your head and then closed with fishing line strength sutures. Do you have any regrets at this point with your decision to go with the alternative procedure?

If you are truly seeking advice then I suggest that you post some pictures and I am sure that many other experienced vets here will comment and be of some help to you. If you have already decided after your 10 yrs of research what is the point of your posts?

Hairjo, if you are sincere and for real welcome to the HT forum community. As a relative newbie, good advice would be to ask more questions if you are at the research phase and not try to post authoritative conclusions when you don't yet have the knowledge or experience to do so.

Hairjo, do you speak from experience or are you just a FUSS shill? The fact that you showed up at the same time of the mFUE[sic] video makes some of us very suspicious.

Has anyone been able to find a case that shows irreversible worse hair quality following an FUE? Is there a patent here on the forum who can illustrate that claim? Initial cycles of grafted hair often appears more wiry whether by FUSS or FUE but generally corrects after several months. Repeating this unsubstantiated claim over and over doesn't make it true and damages ones credibility.

Better questions to ask yourself are what are my hair characteristics? What is my donor density like? How large an area must be covered? What is the likelihood of advancing to a high NW and running out of donor? Do I have limited financial resources? After you tackle those question choosing a suitable surgeon will be less difficult.

Agreed, it is not difficult to measure the width and length of the punch. It is not credible that a doc wouldn't know what the size of the wound that he just created is yet can argue as to the best way to close it. Blake has also been asked how many 1500-2000 graft FUE cases he has performed by himself to know that it is not labor intensive. I have been the recipient of such work twice and both times the doc looked fairly spent for the effort. Personally, I am not sure that I would be able to perform such a tedious repetitive procedure on a daily basis and this comes from a guy who stood over a table wearing a lead apron and sweating in a surgical gown for 10 hours a day.

I have been consistently written the same in several previous posts. Rather than categorizing all FUE as one universal method critics would be more credible if they directed their arguments against the yet unresolved differences in FUE technique, i.e., motorized v. manual, robotic, limited sessions v. mega, tech extractors v. physician only, slits v. implanter pen etc. These are the true issues that should be under discussion not whether the 100 best FUT docs produce better results than the 100 best FUE ones. That is a straw man's argument as ultimately how a transplant will look has more to do with the individual patient characteristics either good or bad than the type of surgery. While FUSS may be improved by Dr. Lindseys and Feller's new procedure, FUE is not going to fade away. It too will be further improved and become more refined as time goes by. One has to give credit to docs like Vories who demonstrate flexibility and the integrity to change course when they believe another methodology is superior as well as to offer it at an affordable price point.

Gabel in Portland might be another consideration. You could probably fly there in the same time it would take to drive to SM unless you lived in W. LA.

Hyaluronidase has been around for a long time and is one of several agents and treatments utilized for Keloid scar reduction. I'm not so sure I understand how immediate and short term "skin relaxation"if possible would affect the occurrence of the later phases of wound healing and scar formation particularly for a wound under tension.

Your point is well taken, I'll grant that HT surgery will never be as scientifically studied as Interventional Cardiology and your points about Lorenzo's videos are spot on. They are effective because even to a lay person they appear to show detailed real results without hazy trick photography, deceptive lighting etc. In other words they come off as being authentic and believable. Personally, I am a sceptic by nature and was impressed enough to take a chance myself after viewing them. The Feller video on the other hand is primarily a negative bashing of FUE. "shot gun wounds to the back of the head" really? Blake has continue to spin the yarn that extensive subq scarring severely compromises subsequent procedures when in truth the skilled conservative docs stage purposely to increase rather than decrease yields.( see recent Maras presentation and numerous Lorenzo cases). At least we now know where Blake picked up this canard.

See my initial post on this matter. If this is a serious innovation then document it in a professional manner and present it at an international forum amongst your peers. Doing so at this juncture with a handful of meagerly documented cases on a lay HT forum can only be construed as marketing. Most of the audience here is sophisticated enough to know the difference as certainly you do as well.

These presentations always leave me a bit skeptical. Where is the graft breakdown, and why do the professionally produced videos always appear to blur as the camera zooms all too quickly over a thin or critical area of the HT? Also, again the video would be unwatchable without the mute button! Videos that are more clinical and less Hollywood would be greatly appreciated.

That is my point Joe, FUSS is a far more accurate term than FUT and FUE should mean just that, extraction of "a" follicular unit period. mFUSS again seems to me as a more professional and accurately descriptive term than mFUE.

I have to agree that at least 50% of HT patients will experience what the poster cites. There are multitude a reasons including, lack of financial resources, late progression to NW7, poor hair characteristics, DHT sensitive transplanted hair among others.

Actually nomenclature is extremely important in Medicine. Without precise descriptive terms of a anatomical structure or procedure communication and understanding between professionals would be impossible.

Yikes! I hope his fees are not commensurate with the rent. That is prime NYC real estate.

The video conjures up the image to me of Ron Propeil pitching his Veg-o-matic on late night TV but with out the professional production and editing. Not sure who the intended audience is but not a particularly effective message.

Interesting that H&W are now hedging their bets and offering robotic, manual and motorized FUE. I suspect they see the unmistakeable trend and don't want to be left behind. It remains to be seen if mFUE can be successfully marketed as an alternative but many will see it as mFUSS which is a more accurate description of what it really is.

Irish, I see that you had procedures with both Feller and Lorenzo which I assume were FUSS and FUE respectively. I am curious as to whether you noticed any significant difference in yield between the two and is the hair quality of your FUE grafts worse that what grew from the FUSS?

Let's not confuse case selected examples as scientific evidence. Anyone can show both good and bad results from either technique but other than providing photographic evidence of that result for a specific patient it proves nothing and really shouldn't be part of the debate. The fact is that FUE has evolved to be a viable alternative which over the years has demonstrated to be non-inferior and less invasive than FUSS. Stating that transaction rates are greater than 20-30%, yields are low, hair quality is inferior, or that scar tissue impedes later procedures has been refuted convincingly by the top FUE clinics. Anyone who continues to pound that drum will soon be a lonely voice left behind in the parade. I have no doubt that improvements and further refinements will be forthcoming but repeating something false over and over again doesn't make it true. mFUE {sic} may turn out to be an advancement but it is more likely in reference to the shortcomings of FUSS not FUE so I agree that the nomenclature as it stands is a misnomer.

As you noted this could work to your advantage in the crown area but I agree over time it will likely go away.

Blake, it does come off as somewhat presumptuous that you would be touting a new innovation when you have not shown any evidence that you have yet mastered the current state of the art technique to which you are criticizing.

Are the scars at 3 and 9 o'clock remnants of the strip scar or new from the so called mFUE? Either way a few hundred beard FUEs would have rendered the FUSS scar invisible and avoided a withdrawal from the precious scalp donor bank. I had a much worse linear scar treated with 301 beard grafts a year ago and it is now history, pifft.....gone forever!