copy.png.f0c674e371511d24aeb4daf7aacf0582.png)
-
Posts
23,514 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
868
Content Type
Forums
Profiles
Store
Gallery
Articles
Blogs
Events
Downloads
Posts posted by Melvin- Admin
-
-
I'll tell you how:
I utilized a very meticulous FUE technique to reduce the three detrimental forces.
1. I scored with a manual punch and did small angle oscillations allowing the punch to work it's way down into the dermis at it's own rate. No forcing in the name of speed. And certainly no rotary drill. This reduced torsion and heat.
2. Then I grasped each partially freed target graft individually and carefully and applied gentle but constant traction. This allowed the graft to work itself free at its own pace rather than being ripped out violently in the name of speed.
3. To decrease the traction force I slid a small needle into the scored opening and poked at the base of the still attached graft. This perforated it and allowed the graft to pop free with less traction and therefore trauma. See the video below.
4. Since I could apply less traction I could also apply less compression to hold the graft while delivering the graft.
5. As I delivered the graft I made sure to stay in the same line of traction the entire way. I didn't just yank and rip them out in any old direction in the name of speed. Nor did I attempt to score a bunch of target grafts and then try to grab them together as a clump and tear them free together in the name of speed.
6. Each graft was taken from the field one by one as they were delivered. I say "delivered" because I liken this procedure to delivering a baby. In child birth the doctor doesn't just grab the head with forceps and rip the baby out with great force because he has another birth to attend.
This is the technique that I use to deliver FUE grafts. In many cases it works well and the growth is impressive, even in a "hostile" recipient environment like a scar as seen in the repair case above. But even with all this caution and care patients may still fail to grow as satisfactorily as the equivalent FUT procedure.
This is why I say no matter how good or bad a result from FUE appears to be, the result on the same patient using FUT must be better because there isn't as much trauma to the grafts.
In the case of the FUE repair case above he happened to grow well. But if he hadn't, the chances are more likely that the decrease in growth would have been due to the three detrimental forces of FUE. If you can't overcome these forces then you have to get around them. The only way to do that is take more grafts than you otherwise would need to for FUT. And to do that you'd have to speed up your FUE procedure. And the faster you speed up your FUE procedure, the greater the detrimental forces are amplified. THAT, in a not so nutshell, is why I oppose large FUE sessions.
I do not condone large FUE sessions I myself got my first FUE only 1,800 grafts split in 2 days. However, it appears from what you're stating that you were able to overcome the "three detrimental factors" based on skill, instrumentation, but at the end it looks like you said you took out more grafts than necessary to make up for lower yields. Not sure if you're generalizing here or speaking about your case specifically, it's interesting to read your response I don't doubt that's why you got a good yield, but it makes me think if you were able to overcome these factors than its not impossible for other physicians. Although it seems much more time consuming and tedious for a low amount of grafts, if this is true than I would say I'm in agreemeIMG_4425nt, I think for FUE to get the same amount of grafts as FUT you will need to do more surgeries, that is something you should know prior to electing the surgery, it's something that Dr. Diep told me in the beginning. But the single most important aspect of this post is that these factors, although not proven to exist, can be overcome.
-
On the flip side you have to wonder why the Atlanta doctor has not put the debate to rest.
All he has to do is get 20-30 patients post operatively, shave their heads close (he could offer a financial incentive) and then use a counter with a marker pen to count the number of hairs that grew, get the high definition pictures reviewed by industry colleagues and then publish the results. We could all bow down to the master of FUE.
...but sadly he knows the growth will never quite be on a par with FUT, and so do most of the top doctors operating worldwide.
To them it does not matter. They can screen their patients adequately to ensure a reasonable success rate, offer free touch ups if it goes wrong, or just put it down to a lack of x-factor.
As long as they get their $X a graft remuneration it doesn't really matter to them. The chances are they will have retired 20 years down the line when you come back needing another 3000 grafts from a decimated donor.
Studies conducted by one physician would never hold any bearing, it has to be studies conducted by a third party that has no financial incentive, he has a study that showed he grew 96 grafts out of 100 take it for what it's worth. That still doesn't answer the question as to how Dr. Feller was able to overcome the three detrimental factors on the result he posted in 2003, did he take out more grafts than necessary to make up for the lack of "growth" I'm very interested in knowing how he did it. As for as needing more grafts the same could be said about FUT there is no fail proof surgery doesn't exist MPB is progressive no matter if you're on finasteride with RU and minoxidil it still will progress and there is still a chance you'll need another surgery, so what if you're stripped out? You'll have to do FUE at the risk that the ugly scar will become visible but by that time the surgeon you went to will more than likely retired. The reason FUT doesn't die out is cause it's cheaper, and you can safely harvest mega sessions, with FUE you'll have to have more surgeries because it's only safe to do 2,500 grafts at a single time that's my opinion, but the overall aesthetic result of the surgery will always be superior.
Oh it goes far beyond inter-forum politics, online conduct and mere disagreements. I once shared the same sentiments.Hmm pm me I'm interested to know.
-
The part in bold highly dubious...
He's had plenty of disagreements with other physicians, and this board, but that doesn't mean he's not reputable, even Dr. Feller with all of the disagreements we've had id still say he's a highly reputable physician. He's an IAHRS physician which counts for something, just like being a recommended physician on here. I know how you feel about spencer etc. I don't agree same could be said about Bill.
-
I know the doctor you mean who operates out of the state of Georgia. My doctor knows him very well, has visited his research facility and co-written research papers with him. He even uses some of the FUE tools (PCID) that he devised. He told me all about it the last time I visited Chicago...
..and yet my doctor also told me that FUE is not the miracle procedure it is made out to be (on the forums) and that the forces Dr Feller describes can be a real problem for some candidates, just a Strip can be a poor choice for others.
But I am not his spokesman so you can treat that as hearsay, however, you can always email him directly.
Those videos don't really tell us anything different to what Dr Bhatti is presenting, i.e. a picture of a wide abnormal scar having to be filled in with FUE. It feels like a bit of a marketing video for the PCID.
The pictures about hair angles either side of the strip scar has been brought up many times before. It could be a problem for some people if they keep their hair very short. But at the end of the day there are literally thousands of FUT cases to be viewed online that rarely (if ever) reveal this to be problem. In fact, I cannot remember a single person come on here for 4 years to complain about it.
The point I'm trying to make is that concerns regarding FUT have been proven, the "three detrimental factors" have not been proven, but even if they have Dr. Feller himself just posted an FUE case he did back in 2003 that showed an absolute fantastic result, so obviously he was able to overcome the "threes detrimental factors" my question to him is how?
Yes you are correct the physician I'm talking about does practice out of Atlanta and he's a well known and a highly reputable physician as well, the points he's brought up although they may be rare they still exist and should be brought up to laymans as a rare possibility prior to opting for FUT. I think we can all agree that the strip scar widening is unpredictable and happens often, the solution of implanting hairs to the scar actually lowers the amount of hair transplanted to the top, another valid point made by the Dr out of Atlanta.
-
That sums it up rather well.
Distraction, evasion, scare tactics, and personal attacks.
I haven't attacked anybody personally which is more than I could say about Matt, but that's besides the point, I'm really interested to know how you overcame the "three detrimental factors" when performing FUE in the scar, it obviously worked from the result you presented, that was great work.
-
Well I think we can all agree on two things:
1. This patient's scar is very very unusual and not even close to representing normal everyday FUT scarring. It's pretty obvious he suffers from a genetic over flexibility of the skin. If he's the same guy I saw in another thread the large wide scars even in the recipient site confirm that.
2. He is a PRIME patient for FUE and is, to my mind, the sole reason FUE exists. That is, to have an alternative treatment for patients who cannot nor can no longer have, FUT surgery.
I suspect even his FUE scars will be more prominent than in the average patient.
Considering the size of that scar, though, why not implant into it? That's the perfect scar for it. Standard FUT scars don't transplant well due to the fibrosis and lack of vascularity. These scars tend to be thin, less dense, and loaded with vascularity-or at least able to grew new vessels far easier.
Here's a presentation I did of the worlds first FUE into scar I did back in 2003. Worked like a charm:
How can you tell if a patient will scar like this? This brings me to the second point made from the physician that could not be mentioned here, implanting hairs to the scar wastes valuable hairs that could've been transplanted to the top. Furthermore, wouldn't the " three detrimental factors" still exist when transplanting hairs to the scar? hair growth is even lower when transplanted in to a scar, so wouldn't you be wasting even more grafts than normal?
-
David,
Still no acknowledgement of Dr Feller- that he bears the burden of proof that the forces of physics are as detrimental as you claim. His melodramatics are entertaining but he has not addressed the lack of proof behind his many MANY words. Perhaps if he says it enough then it will become proof enough? Instead he attacks, attacks and then attacks some more. No one is right, everyone is wrong. Medicine at it's finest!
I don't wish him to do FUE- Just send validated contemporary pictures of the repair work he claims he does on many many FUE patients. He has one score FUE clinics around his Great Neck.
Best wishes.
I have to agree with this, prior to Dr. Fellers claims I had never hear of his "3 detrimental factors" when one physician responded to the claims stating these factors hold no bearing on results he attacks the physician and his work, to me that shows a lack of mutual respect between colleagues, he has spoken to members harshly, but I can understand that we are not physicians so our responses may seem elentary to him, but to speak to you the way he has is uncalled for, the video you posted, was that recent? id love to see the results.
What really gets me is that the three issues brought up from the physician that can not be mentioned on here got zero responses as if they do not exist, there was actual video evidence that showed the hair growing in different directions, but the three detrimental factors can not be supported with out evidence which has not been presented in any way.
-
These are bad scars, but the fact that even the best doctor can not predict that this kind of outcome is off the table I would sacrifice the possible 25% yield difference, go to a top FUE doctor, be conservative with the planning and not risk being scarred like this if I could get away with it NW-wise.
Dead on magnum, the videos I posted were from a dr who had performed thousands of strip surgeries, he said that scar could happen on the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th strip procedure, it was impossible to tell how someone would scar, thus he stated he'd have to waste grafts to the scar rather than the head. But this gets swept aside because hey who cares right at least you got hair on your head.
Dr. Feller I saw dr. Bhattis video, I for one do not advocate FUE mega sessions, but I saw FUE being performed fast. But I did not see the finished result, I will wait to make my judgement once I see the finished result.
Apparently any issues brought up about FUT is a mere "distraction"
Here's what it boils down to
failed FUE = no growth
Failed FUT= no growth and a hideous scar
-
HTsoon,
Why have you assigned yourself as Dr. Bhatti's guardian? Such a loud and nasty one, too. Do you not think he can speak for himself and that he NEEDS your help?
I think you need to lay back a bit. It's ok. Take a breath. This isn't a court room. Nothing is going to happen to your doctor. If you don't agree with what I"m writing you are more than welcome to laugh and walk away.
If Dr. Bhatti has valid concerns about strip method or anything else then he can start his own thread and you can go with him. If it gets as many views, responses and interest as this one then it may have merit. But the issues he brings are up are not valid, not of concern to anyone, never been a thread of interest on this site or any other in the past, and are only invented and used as mere distraction. And he knows this.
I haven't heard your opinion as to the content of Dr. Bhatti's video. Was it what you thought it would be? Any issues come to mind? or would you be content having that done to your precious donor area?
Here it is again in case you missed it:
I've never been a patient of Dr. Bhatti the physician who I was speaking about can not be mentioned on here, you have plenty of posters on here defend you when they feel something is not right, some posters have even personally attacked my results, do I care?? No this is a public forum, I have the right to voice my opinion, I think it's logical to answer concerns regarding strip surgery if you are comparing both procedures.
What I think and actually see going on, is concerns have been raised about FUE, however any concern raised about FUT is swept aside no answers, so how is this an equal debate? Bill had kept this thread open as a way to interact with physicians and hopefully hear the pros and cons on BOTH procedures not just one. So far it hasn't been that way at all, it's been allegations against one procedure without answering any valid concerns from the procedure you're advocating, as a patient this is concerning.
-
I gave Dr. Bhatti multiple chances to debate me on specific points of the FUE procedure and he refused to engage; choosing instead to answer my questions with three of his own that were unrelated and off topic to distract from not answering my questions directly.
Then he officially resigned the debate. Understandable since he was in an untenable position.
But quitting never looks good so he thought putting up a video of how he performs his FUE procedure would impress the public and somehow demonstrate that grafts are indeed not subjected to more damage during FUE.
But it backfired. He underestimated how much the lay public could see for themselves. What he really demonstrated was a procedure that is clearly not only more injurious than FUT, but far more injurious than even the standard FUE that I and other practitioners perform. And why is this so? Well for one obvious reason at least: SPEED.
What is going on in that video is not a debatable issue. It is prima facia proof of what I have been saying on this thread, and even this site, for 14 years about the FUE procedure in general. FUE grafts are twisted, squeezed, pulled and even yanked violently during the FUE procedure; whereas none of this trauma is visited on any FUT graft.
But he already posted his video to some hideous reviews and can't take it down. Notice not a single complimentary comment from anyone- including his vocal supporters, paid reps, or fellow FUE megasession colleagues. Dr. Vories ? Any comments?
So the best he could do now is to post as many before/after pictures as he can to get as far away from that video as he can. Sure, he can show a stack of before/after result-which are of course handpicked and try to imply the ends justify the means. But before/after photos don't show how many grafts are wasted due to the trauma of the procedure. And to deny the trauma would be to deny what can easily be seen in that video. And that's impossible. Even to the lay eye.
This is why I say that no matter how good or bad an FUE result looks, the equivalent FUT would have been better with less graft waste and less donor damage. And the reason for this is supported by his video itself. FUT grafts do not go through the gauntlet the FUE grafts in his video do.
Now, he can go into long long posts where he dissembles reality and sets up straw dummies to knock down and attack me personally to save face, but that video does all the talking.
You refuse to acknowledge Dr. Bhattis last comment hmm wonder why, did you see the video links I posted on page 77 before they were removed? A lot of valid points were brought up, unfortunately this site can not discuss this physician. The biggest point raised is the hair growing in unnatural direction where the scar is at, the unpredictability of the scar widening, the fact that when you have a distorted strip scar you have to waste Grafts on the scar that could've gone to the top of the head, this is a waste of grafts what are your thoughts, he also stated that many physicians like yourself preach FUT because they have not taken the time to master the skill. Basically, he feels FUE gives the best aesthetic result when performed correctly, there is no strip scar, no chance of the scar widening, and the yield he states is just as good, he stated he conducted a small study and found that out of 100 grafts 96 of them grew, this is by far better than the 75% mentioned. I'd like to hear your thoughts on this, from a physician who started off FUT he switched to only FUE.
-
:eek: wow that was quite a post, Dr. Bhatti, did you see the videos I posted on the previous page from a fellow FUE specialist I'd love to hear your thoughts on the issues brought up.
-
This are very interesting videos from a surgeon who's been in practice for over 20 years, he is on the opposite spectrum of the FUT vs FUE debate, I encourage everyone to watch both videos, they're very informative and although your own research is necessary, it gives you a completely different picture than what has been painted by doctors on this site. The last one raises a lot of good questions regarding multiple strip surgeries.
(Links removed - sorry, we no longer host any discussions that reference this surgeon)
-
Depends really, even if you thin out your donor area, you can transplant body hair to donor region to create some density. It's called donor recharging.
-
FUE 2014 how about making a poll on whether or not the members on this site have been satisfied with their FUE procedures, there's been a lot of talk from certain physicians who state the majority of guys here are unhappy with their results.
-
Make you look older YES but look sick I don't think so, the only time you look sick in my opinion, Is when you shave your head and face slick bald, makes you look like you have cancer, but thinning hair doesn't make you look unhealthy in my opinion just older which sucks
-
Another thing, creating graphs and diagrams based off of opinion is ludicrous, I have to say what's right is right, there is a physician who practiced FUE in Atlanta he has been in practice longer than Dr. Feller and he has the exact opposite to say about FUT, should I start creating graphs based off what he says without proving actual credible evidence?
-
Dr Feller's opinion is NOT worth zero. He has over 20 years experience in the business so it is worth far more than any anonymous internet poster.
If you feel so strongly about it then why not take up his offer that he made in another thread: "..PM me your name and telephone number and I will stage a 3 way telephone call with Dr Lorenzo and post the conversation on the forum"?
So far no one has been willing to take up that offer.
You talk about 'controlled study this, and peer reviewed study that' but at the same time you're willing to claim his yield is as high as FUT based on a dozen or so patient posted results!
First of all I made no claims in regards to yield, I said opinions are opinions and facts are facts, you can't state what Dr.Feller is claiming as a scientific fact with out providing actual studies. Now what I said was in order to compare yields from a top FUE surgeon to top FUT is to grab 10 results from each graft size category and compare them, now you have to choose similar Norwood scale and similar hair characteristics in order for this to work, but it would be a lot more credible than percentages made up of one physicians experience. I'd say the same thing if it were Dr. Bhatti giving these figures.
-
Translating those percentages into numbers (and assuming that Dr. Feller is correct), here is a comparison of the most likely results of various sized restorations if performed by the best of the best ht docs:
2,000 grafts FUT = 1,940 growing fu’s (60 wasted fu’s)
2,000 grafts FUE = 1,500 growing fu’s (500 wasted fu’s)
3,000 graft FUT transplant = 2,910 growing fu’s (90 wasted fu’s)
3,000 graft FUE transplant = 2,250 growing fu’s (750 wasted fu’s)
4,000 graft FUT transplant = 3,880 growing fu’s (120 wasted fu’s)
4,000 graft FUE transplant = 3,000 growing fu’s (1,000 wasted fu’s)
5,000 graft FUT transplant = 4,850 growing fu’s (150 wasted fu’s)
5,000 graft FUE transplant = 3,750 growing fu’s (1,250 wasted fu’s)
Assuming that the average transplanted follicular unit contains 2 hairs, multiply the wasted fu’s per procedure x 2 to arrive at the number of hairs squandered by procedure:
2,000 graft transplant = 120 wasted hairs FUT vs. 1,000 wasted hairs FUE
3,000 graft transplant = 180 wasted hairs FUT vs. 1,500 wasted hairs FUE
4,000 graft transplant = 240 wasted hairs FUT vs. 2,000 wasted hairs FUE
5,000 graft transplant = 300 wasted hairs FUT vs. 2,500 wasted hairs FUE
Please ask Dr.feller where he came up with those percentages, was it a controlled study? If so where was the study published? If it's just opinion your assumed percentages is worth absolutely zero. Take Dr. Lorenzo's results graft wise and compare it to Dr. Fellers, tell me that Dr. Lorenzo is only getting 75% compared to 90% of Dr. Feller, assumed percentages is absolutely useless, using actual results is the only way one can base a solid opinion other than a controlled study. So what we should do is gather results from both physicians utilizing 2,500 grafts, 3,500 grafts and 4,500 grafts, let's compare 10 results from each category, then we can see if there is an exceptional visible difference in yield.
-
Overly cautious, no.
I've seen enough FUE results to KNOW what's going on. Transmitting it to the public seems to be very difficult because it's hard to tell people what they simply don't want to hear.
You said Dr. Bhatti gets consistent results. What do you base that on?
What would you base the statement that FUE doctors in general get "consistent" results on? Look on this very chat site. Don't you see all the disappointed FUE patients? How about the ones who are worried or concerned? How about the ones who just disappear after a few posts?
The "ends justifies the means" argument is never valid because for the most part only the best "ends" are publicized. I see the unpublicized "ends" and it is mostly disappointing. And the reason for it is in that video Dr. Bhatti posted himself.
And how many grafts were sacrificed to create the "consistent" result you are referring to? You certainly can't tell from the result itself, or multiple results.
You've seen at least one or two other FUE doctors perform FUE in their own videos. Have they done it this way? Most of the clinics who went to the trouble to post their actual surgeries online posted careful and delicate technique. Individual attention to each and every follicle. But I don't think MOST FUE megasession clinics utilize such care. I think most are doing it as Dr. Bhatti showed in his video with attention primarily to SPEED SPEED SPEED! NUMBERS NUMBERS NUMBERS!!
Also, lileli, Dr. Bhatti spent every post claiming that his procedure incorporated advanced techniques and instrumentation to protect the grafts from what you think I am being overly cautious about. Did you see anything in his video to prove that claim? Don't you see a red flag here?
What are you talking about, most of the guys who got FUE are happy with the results, how many guys who got strip procedures are unhappy about the strip scar expanding and looking grotesque? Let's place a poll for everyone who's gotten an FUE procedure to click if they're happy or unhappy with the result.
Bill could you install the poll on this thread, let's stop the opinions and get the facts.
-
Dr. Bhatti, I gave you several chances to engage me in debate and you refused to do so. You quit. I'm a "stone" remember? So instead of trying to engage me to win points in a contest you started but refused to finish, why don't you spend at least some of your online time addressing the viewers and posters of this site? I am not the only person reading this thread as evidenced by the 1000 or more hits it is getting every DAY.
Several very vehement FUE only posters have changed their position since the start of this thread. Perhaps your views are beginning to soften as well.
Way to avoid the question Dr. Feller, instead of answering the question you've ever so cleverly tapped around it like a world class lawyer, in regards to the crown stretching you said Dr. Bhatti was disingenuous in his remarks, you said you've never had a patient who's crown stretched, you never answered whether or not this could happen. Very clever Dr. Feller, I'm seriously impressed with how crafty you are, I really mean it when I say you'd make a good lawyer, instead of answering the question outright like you've so vehemently have demanded Dr. Bhatti do, you've then again shifted focus on his presentation of the question i.e the diagram at an attempt to shift the readers focus away from your answer which wasn't an answer at all. I look forward to Dr. Bhatti engaging with you more. For those who've changed their opinions on FUE I seriously hope they do their own research before jumping to conclusions based on one doctors opinion.
-
Dear Dr Feller, One does not "quit" having a debate with a stone. One simply realizes the futility.
Thus far there have been great discussions and an immense amount of detail which is simply an opinion of one doctor. The forces of physics existing are not in question. A claim was made that these forces consistently create an atmosphere of failure for all FUE procedures from all FUE physicians in all FUE clinics compared to equal parameters applied to a Strip procedure. This claim is an opinion not a fact as the scientific method has not been followed, on a macro level much less a micro level. Therefore there is no debate because I cannot disprove something that has yet to be proven.
You have observed the consequences of these forces to such a degree that you have reversed your position on FUE (by your own admission earlier in this thread), of which I am not questioning which is the reason you obviously have a great passion about this subject. I however have not, nor have a long list of other FUE specialists. My point is not that these forces do not exist. My point is that for you these forces are detrimental but for me they are not. And I do not take offense, even when you resort to condensceding comments, calling me a "relative newbie". Sometimes it takes "newbies" to do things a bit differently than those that came before and through newbies we can learn how to handle things with a little more care. I believe Mike Tyson was a relative newbie when he won his first championship at the age of 20 so being a "newbie" is not necessarily a bad thing and in many cases can be an advantage. Best wishes.
Wow Dr. Bhatti what a fantastic response and spot on I might add, earlier in the thread I said that no studies have been conducted comparing the efficacy between FUT vs FUE, so the percentages that physicians give is based off of their own experience handling both procedures, but to state the claims Dr. Feller is stating as a scientific fact is absolutely wrong, because as you stated no studies have been conducted to approve or disprove those statements. The question is not do these three forces exist in FUE the question is have physician overcome these negative aspects and have they done so consistently. Also, Dr. Feller seems to be avoiding the concern regarding the crown expansion. It's become clear he is cherry picking the concerns he will address and ignoring the rest. He is quite crafty at alluding a question and throwing clinical jargon at an attempt to confuse laymans, im surprised he chose medical school over law school he'd make a fantastic lawyer.
-
I saw another vid he posted looks like his hairloss has progressed and he's continued to cut his hair short, some of the comments on the video even told him he shouldn't have cut his hair short he looked better before, when you're in the beginning stages of minitiaurization like him, you should keep your hair at a length that can conceal, you should get on hair loss medications, and you should use hair thickening products, the last and I mean LAST thing you should ever do is cut your hair short, once you do there is no going back, you will see how bad your hair loss really is and everyone will see it too, so forget about concealing it anymore. It really does upset me when clueless people give advice to young guys like that guy, the first thing they say is cut your hair short, basically they're saying show everyone how bald you've gotten.
-
Yea I agree about the sweet spot, just long enough to style and conceal, I think the guy in the video had a decent length that disguised his hairloss quite well, but then he must've been told by someone non balding more than likely to cut his hair short. As you an see when your hair is short you will look balder, even when you have a hair transplant, in order for the transplant to look good you have to grow it out, otherwise the illusion of density is lost and you'll see that you still look thin, even the best hair transplants are like this.
-
Bro try RU58841 it's topical, it's not supposed to give you systemstic side effects like fin, but even if it does the side effects stop once you stop, there's no permenant damage like fin. You definitely have to stabilize it, I went from Norwood 2 to Norwood 6 from 24 to 29. Don't want to scare you, but this is how bad things could get if you don't stop it in the beginning. Catching hair loss when the hairs are starting to miniaturize will allow it to reverse, but once it's too late there's little that could be done.
FUT is more popular than FUE
in Hair Transplant Reviews
Posted
Good thing for us and the hair restoration community, Dr. Feller had been kind enough to give us a blue print on how to overcome these now "4" issues, The doctor himself has overcome these issues, the issues concerning the strip procedure though have yet to be addressed. If Dr. Feller is not willing to address them on this thread. I'm willing to create a new thread if he'll participate.