Melvin- Admin

Here's an analogy of how I view this thread

A ford car salesman makes an announcement that ford is the best automobile, said car salesman states ford has the best gas mileage thus you will be able to travel more miles for less money. Said car salesman explains that Chevy vehicles have much higher gas mileage therefore you will travel half the distance with the exact amount of money, he gives specific reasons why this occurs engine displacement etc.

Chevy car salesman enters the announcement and explains that many of his Chevy vehicles are able to travel the same distance with comparable gas mileage.

Ford car salesman attacks Chevy car salesmans vehicles and dealership.

Spectators ask ford car salesman why Fords have a history of faulty paint that chip in the sun, spectators ask why there have been cases of fords denting heavily to the point of being totaled.

Ford salesman dismisses spectators as peanuts in a peanut gallery, ford salesman states these questions are a distraction to the gas mileage. Ford salesman goes on to state he himself owns a ford and loves it, spectators ask why some Chevy dealers provide proof that Chevys have in fact traveled comparable distances with comparable gas mileage and with no paint or denting issues, Ford car salesman dismisses claims stating ford would get better gas mileage and that the paint can be covered with a tarp.

Ford car salesman remains adamant that the gas mileage is the single most important aspect of a car, dents and paint issues don't matter cause they can be covered with tarps.

Spectators ask if a Chevy can travel reasonably close distances with around the same money and the paint and body doesn't dent wouldn't it be a better vehicle?

Ford car saleman gets angry states buy a Chevy see if I care it's your wallet not mine.

Dr. Bloxham I disagree with the last points you made, I believe you are referring to moth eaten FUE donor areas which are not the norm, as a matter of fact I don't believe that any FUE physician on this site has ever had a patient that had a moth eaten donor area, but you make it seem like it's quite normal which it's not, like Dr. Bhatti asked your partner to present actual cases of bad FUE scarring that aren't from a random Google image. The truth which is not as "sexy" is that the biggest differences between FUE and FUT done by reputable physicians is the linear scar and the yield. Granted there are some physicians on here who have had poor growth with FUE however there are also FUT physicians who have had patients scar expand and and stretch and patients have had less than desirable growth, so the truth which is not as sexy is that a

failed FUE= no growth

failed FUT= bad scar and low growth.

Again if you can present cases of recommended or we'll known physicians who have left patients with moth eaten donor area I will take back what I said.

It's very unfortunate for this individual, I'm tempted to think perhaps he went to one of these supposed "hair regeneration" clinics that basically intentionally transect the follicle in order for it to grow back. With that being said, these cases exist with FUT as well, like magnum pi said its not the procedure itself rather the physician and the clinic, I could post countless repair jobs where FUT patients go to FUE physicians for repair, but that doesn't necessarily hold any bearing on the procedure itself. I agree with Dr. Bloxham, FUE is best done in sessions, this ensures you get better growth and your donor area will be a lot better.

Hi HTsoon ive been really busy with work at mo as off on annual leave shortly have some pics will try update soon if not defo in next months update

 

thanks

Thanks man, I'm going to Dr. Doganay and I plan on getting 1,500 bears grafts and hopefully 1,000 scalp grafts, so pretty much what you got done, I'm interested to see what it looks like, can you show us your beard donor area as well?

5,000 grafts would make a big improvement, will you need more in the future probably, but don't you want hair in your 20's? If your hair starts to thin out in your 40's you'll be sad but it won't be as bad cause it's expected at that age know what I mean, SMP with no transplant is a terrible idea don't do it, if it's money your worried about go to Dr. Erdogan or Dr. Doganay, they're both reasonably priced, dr. Bhatti is doing grafts at under $2 usd. Shave your head and see how u like it, personally I tried it and I hated it, but it may suit you, currently your a Norwood 5 heading towards a 6 I know that may break your heart to read, but with 5,000 grafts you'll revert to a Norwood 2-3. Check out my pics bro I was even more bald than you at 28 years old. There's always hope man don't lose hope there's body hair worst comes to worst for the crown.

The balding gene comes from the mothers side is a MYTH, my uncles, great uncles, and grandpa have absolutely zero balding, but on my dads side my grandpa was a Norwood 4 when he died at 77. My dads a Norwood 2 at 58, I'm a Norwood 6 at 30, my great uncle on my dads side died Norwood 6. Hairloss can skip generations. I got screwed I have no living relatives that are bald:( oh well thank god for hair transplants.

50,000 views and over 1,000 replies. Another milestone.

 

I think at this point it is fair to say at best FUE is still controversial and FUT retains it's title as king of Hair transplantation

In your opinion

i dont regret sacrificing density for covering a larger area. heading to a NW 6 and only wanting to do fue, this is the trade off which im am totally ok with. im hoping i have at least another 3000-3500 scalp graft available plsu another 1500 beard. if so, i am confident i will achieve my end goal. i am anxious to see dr b in sept so he can tell me how many more scalp grafts he think i have left.

Me and you think the same, coverage over density, you have great donor density I'm jealous, I've done close to 4,000 grafts and I think I got maybe 1,000 left max, but I got probably 2,000 beard hair. Let your hair grow to two inches you'll see a huge difference.

Take a look at this video, look how thicker is hair looks in the beginning once he cuts his hair short u see the difference in density.

(Link removed by moderator - We no longer host any discussion that reference this doctor)

Stinger you really got to let your hair grow, unless Dr. Bisanga used 50fu per cm your density will always look thinner than the rest of your hair. Judging from your pics I'm assuming he utilized around 35-40 fu per cm, which is conservative but your results will look 100x better with longer hair trust me. U can keep the sides short that will make it look even better. Your results look great so far you've come a long way.

:eek: so right now Dr. Bhatti is offering grafts for $1.35?

Once they get educated that hair loss is progressive and donor supply is finite - then hell yes, I would hope they do have that mindset. I think the issue becomes that FUE only surgeons don't explecitly state that FUE results in less lifetime grafts than strip FUT. I certainly wasn't offered up this information at any of my consultations until I specifically asked. I think you are under-estimating the number of higher NW patients walking into procedures who can't quite get the coverage they hope for due to limited grafts. It also gets murky where it seems that with the exception of H&W and a few other strip masters, you could probably get a higher number of grafts moved in a one FUE mega-procedure (over 2 days) than with strip in a single session where laxity plays a role resulting in the need to wait a year to go again. But once again, this is short-sighted. I'm actually surprized the lifetime donor supply factor isn't brought up more in this debate. If its unlikely that lifetime grafts won't keep you covered, then why wouldn't you fight for every last graft? Like I said before, if getting a linier scar gets me an addition couple of of thousand grafts over my lifetime, and keep my head covered for an extra 5 to 10 years - then hell yeah!

 

I do respect your difference of opinion though

Mav,

Lifetime grafts do not change from FUT to FUE, because there is no universal donor zone, the safe donor area varies from individual to individual, a Norwood 7 guy thins everywhere on his head, a guy who will die Norwood 3 will not thin on the upper occipital region considered not safe. If an FUE surgeon reviews the patients family history, age, donor density, there is no reason why an FUE would have less grafts than an FUT. The only time this would occur is if the patient is extreme bald, in which case the same would be true with FUT. Universal donor zones are not universal.

They are not that unusual as H&W has quite a big portfolio of "Wow"results. But my point stands, has FUE ever produced results on par with that? That 20k graft case of Umar was not cosmetically on the same plane as these guys.

 

H&W have had patients from Spain and Italy, when they get to handle those hair types, the results are even more striking than what FUE practitioners do.

I disagree a complete restoration for guys Norwood 6/7 is not common FUT or FUE. Most guys don't possess the donor capacity. When comparing H&W results to let's say Dr. Lorenzo's YouTube channel, I still think Dr. Lorenzo has a better overall aesthetic result because there is no linear scar. In my opinion cosmetically a good FUT result will never be on the same plane as a good FUE result, because they don't have freedom of hairstyles, I personally don't like hairstyles that involve having your hair on the side longer than a two guard. That's just my opinion though, hairstyles like Joe, Dr. Feller might be suitable for some guys but it's not a style I would ever want.

Any updates?

HTsoon, when you refer to good cosmetic result are you talking about the length that the hair will grow or just the look/ feel of the individual hairs? I am considering using body hair as I feel that my donor area isn't great and also I buzz and will be buzzing my hair even after the HT so hopefully in this case the cosmetic look will be similar to existing scalp hairs. Another reason is I don't want to have a lot of visible scars on the back of my head as I'll have it buzzed.

It's not a good cosmetic result as a standalone, but body hair mixed with scalp hair gives a natural good cosmetic result, but if your going to just use body hair it's not gonna look good, your head will basically look like a hairy knee cap, the problem with using just body hair is that the follicular units per centimeter is no where near that of the hair on the scalp, so it will never look natural, if you buzz your head I recommend using all of your donor hair available then using body hair to add density, and if need be transplant some body hair to the donor area to camoflauge the scars.

Actually, to be fair, Lorenzo's work has been duplicated, by his colleagues Alejandro Chueco, Ximena Vila, Juan Couto, Erkan Demirsoy, Erdogan and others. Their work is great, however, a few things - their "showcase" results that are used as evidence for "FUE=FUT" typically employ patients with ideal donor hair characteristics. If you are a guy from the middle east, Mediterranean, or India with thick, dark, wavy hair, it could be a great fit. If you are a Northern European white dude with fine/average hair....you will not get those results! A lot of the Turkish clinics are doing patients from the Middle East, they have great hair types, so it works well for them.

 

None of them however have posted cases that match some of Hasson and Wong's best work, such as Bobman's result, or our recently banned friend Joe who used to represent them. Even Feriduni, a great FUE surgeon. Does he have an FUE result better than what Cueball35 got with FUT? (Also Feriduni)

Those guys you mentioned though are not the norm they are actually the exception, I think Dr. Umar (FUE) doctor had posted even more amazing results, but then again you're talking 20,000 grafts body and scalp.

I can't really see the donor scars, do you have any better pics, the growth seems poor though for sure.

Honestly I don't see the Norwood 6 or 7 pattern, most men who go Norwood 6 or 7 are diffuse thinners where you could visibly see the pattern, I'd say you're a Norwood 3V, I personally recommend trying lipogaine and nizoral shampoo, you can try finasteride but be very careful, at 25 your sexual health is 1000000000x more important than hair. Also combining the dermaroller with lipogaine has shown some good improvement. I'd wait maybe 3 years once you've stabilized your hairloss before getting a procedure. You still have a lot of hair this is the stage you want to fight hairloss, you can still retain most of your hair if you start right now.

Euro,

Take a look at this man. Did FUE give him the ability to "back out" of looking like he had a hair transplant ?

 

How would he cover that FUE donor extraction fibrosis ? The answer would be to grow his hair a bit longer. But that is the same exact remedy for concealing an FUT linear scar. The difference here is that the FUE recipient now has far more damage around the FUE scars because there are far more of them compared to FUT.

 

Choosing FUE as the "back out" procedure is simply not true because clearly this man cannot shave his head and pretend like nothing happened.

 

By the way, this is the NORM for FUE megasessions, not the exception.

This man with a "bad" FUE scar still looks 100x better than your average FUT scar, try again Dr. Feller

No I haven't told anyone besides my family and close friends, too many things people don't understand about hair restoration that I don't wanna answer like the shock loss, the wait time etc. people are under the impression you walk out of a HT with a full head of hair which is just not true. I've been lucky no one has noticed they just noticed my hair was a lot shorter, right now they're prob thinking I'm going balder, it'll be interesting to see what ppl say once the shock loss grows back and the transplant grows in, if ppl ask I'll prob just say it's rogaine.

Hey guys, I'm one month post op all of my transplanted hair has shed, my hair is short and looking like it did before my first transplant, this is a bit different from my first HT because my first HT was a constant improvement, now I'm looking at maybe 5-6 months looking like crap before the shock loss and transplant grow in. What do you guys do to mask this? Hairs to short for toppik at the moment, should I just shave it until my hair starts growing in? Hoping some of you seasoned vets could chime in. Can't wear hats at work cause it's a corporate job. I'm just staying focused on how it'll look once it's all grown in and the shock loss has subsided it's keeping me going but need to do something about this look lol.

Slight recession he's what 23-24 so yea he's at the age, I doubt he'll go bald though, isn't he Native American they have the best genes when it comes to MPB.

Is that the best you can add to the discussion

 

I saw your thread of your own FUE results. Very nice. Glad it worked out so well for you but what about the 3 or 4 guys on here who went to the same Doctor and ended up with miserable results? One guy seems very distraught.

 

Maybe you can tell us where it all went wrong for them? Just bad luck or could it be that FUE is less reliable

Ok I have to ask the miserable results is this your opinion? Because you said the same thing about my results even though I'm thrilled with my results. Results can be subjective, there are a lot of variables that need to be considered, current hairloss, hair characteristics, goals need to be realistic with either procedure, your not gonna be a Norwood 6 and expect to end up a Norwood 2 with one procedure. I really hope you're not just blasting other guys results for sake of argument.

Well they're not "three detrimental factors" that affect follicles but they are certainly " three detrimental factors" that affect the overall results and certainly would affect my self confidence. The first is the hair growing in different directions in the scar line? How is this prevented? Why does it occur? Second is the unpredictability of the scar widening, is there a way a patient can tell whether their scar will widen or stretch? and the third is the waste of valuable grafts to the scar region that could be used on the scalp, obviously though if there is a way to predict whether the scar will stretch there'd be no need to use grafts to the scar.

These three things have been the biggest reasons why I haven't chosen FUT I wear my hair short on the sides so the hair growing in different directions would be obvious with my hairstyle, the scar stretching is another thing i couldn't live with, and I wouldn't want to use my grafts in a scar, are you able to use body hair?

Bill,

The only way for FUE to improve is for new practical technologies to be invented. To date they haven't been.

 

I got the 75% number by simply looking at the results of FUE patients, both mine and others. Actually, I think the number is lower.

 

You are correct that we can't go into physicians offices and collect the data ourselves on growth yields. But we also can't look to patient results either because they are very variable in and of themselves. And, most importantly, we can't tell how many grafts were used to achieve a particular result.

 

The only way to evaluate where FUE stands with respect to FUT is to compare the procedures themselves. And that's pretty easy. Look at the Bhatti video and look at the Feller video. Look at the Lorenzo video, I've seen that bounced around too, and simply compare using common sense. The more in depth stuff is addressed rather deeply in my posts right here on this thread.

Wow you had some posters on here creating diagrams and graphs based off of a percentage you came up with based off of looks. You bring up a good point about comparing both procedures, but when I tried to bring up 3 detrimental factors in FUT it was swept aside as a mere distraction, I think in order to compare both procedures we need to review the good and bad from both procedures do you agree Dr. Feller?

Unfortunately I did not overcome the three detrimental forces of FUE. I diminished them a little through true and actual advances in instrumentation and technique, but not to the level of delivering an FUE graft that is as intact and uninjured as an FUT graft. If I had, I would only be doing FUE. But this is not the case.

 

The gold in your last post is that you are recognizing what I have been trying to say, and that is that if you are going to have an FUE procedure then you have to know, acknowledge, and consent to the reality that your grafts are going to be injured to a greater extent than that for FUT and will thus need more grafts transplanted to achieve the same cosmetic look.

 

The three detrimental forces of FUE have been identified and proven to exist, even if many FUE doctors refuse to admit it.

Torsion is evidenced by the immediate decapitation that occurs during the scoring process.

Traction is evidenced by the missing lower half of grafts that are removed, or lost parts of the lower half, or outright transection

Compression is evidenced by the crush injury that can be seen when the graft is removed from the scalp

 

All are in evidence and to try to minimize their significance is to go against 25 years of Hair Transplant gospel. Graft handling and preparation has always been at the heart of high yield hair transplantation. That doesn't go out the window because a few dozen practitioners decide it does.

 

In order for an FUE procedure with all it's involved injury to grafts to consistently produce results on par with FUT it must utilize more grafts during the procedure. The more the better. But this is only because so many are injured or killed in the process of extraction. Yes, you can point to a megasession recipient and say he looks great and thick. But he most likely needed more grafts to achieve that look because so many were injured in the extraction process. Specifically due to one or a combination of the three detrimental forces.

Well I put it in quotations for a reason it hasn't been proven. If it was proven I wouldn't use quotations. But nevertheless you bring up a point I'd like to have addressed, when you do scar repair and you do FUE do you take out more grafts than necessary? It would seem unnecessary with the amount of grafts needed. What you say makes some sense although again not proven in mega sessions, but how about small sessions of 1,000 or less grafts? For example the result you posted was impressive did you utilize more grafts than necessary?