Melvin- Admin

Sorry HTsoon, but that is not just a mere disclaimer, it's a statement in fact that the very company who produced the numbers has not verified its accuracy, so even THEY don't stand by their own presentation.

 

The information I've presented was made very clear in Dr. Bhatti's own video. There's one difference That's about asa factual as you get. And when he edited his video and slipped it into his old post to cover it up he was giving his admission, another fact.

 

Honestly HTsoon, why are you so contrarian and resistant to what's being put right before your eyes? You have no problem with a doctor on this site doing what Dr. Bhatti clearly did? But you keep attacking me for some conspiratorial marketing scheme that Dr. Bhatti invented.

Does that really seem right to you?

 

In the end this thread is for you and other patients and people who would not know better if not for the information contained herein. Don't you get that?

 

This site is, or at least was, all about transparency. Now it seems more about cheering for your favorite team and vilifying FUT doctors.

Dr. Feller, I'm contrarian because I don't like smear campaigns, I'd be saying the same things if this thread was vilifying FUT, since I started commenting on your thread my position has always been patient decision, much like physicians who perform both procedures regularly like Dr. Diep, I was actually the first one to state that these threads should be taken with a grain of salt because you as a physician have monetary incentives, just like any other physician on here, that's why I encourage patients to do research for themselves, but you've been so adamant that the yields are terrible in comparison, but no physician that I've ever consulted has ever warned me of this, so is it that every physician is being dishonest? the things I've been told is that more surgeries will have to be performed for FUE and in sessions I've never been told FUE is scarless only that the scars are small and spread out. So see it's hard for me to believe the yield is so terrible especially since this announcement has been made within two weeks of your new procedure.

We've already dealt with this ISHRS statistical nonsense. Even THEY don't stand by it. Here's the disclaimer that came with the report (again):

 

Prepared by Relevant Research, Inc. Chicago, IL, USA

Notice: This Practice Census is published by the International Society of Hair Restoration Surgery (ISHRS) and is a compilation of information provided solely by participating physicians. The information published in this survey was developed from actual historical information and does not include any projected information. Neither Relevant Research, Inc. nor ISHRS has verified the accuracy, completeness or suitability of any information provided here, and ISHRS does not recommend, encourage, or endorse any particular use of the information reported in this survey. ISHRS makes no warranty, guarantee or representation whatsoever and assumes no liability or responsibility in connection with the use or misuse of this survey.

 

And as for the mFUE marketing conspiracy I would post my response but Bigfoot stole it.

How is that disclaimer any different from the information you have presented Dr. Feller? Basically all of the information you have provided has been solely you and your partners, Hair Restoration Network hasn't verified the accuracy of the information you have presented as FACT, as a matter of fact I'm glad you posted this disclaimer, because the same disclaimer should be used for this thread I believe that HRN feels the same way about the information you are presenting.

As for mFUE conspiracy, how is it a conspiracy that both threads were created less than two weeks from each other both of which were by you. It doesn't take a scholar to put two and two together, but I guess that was just a coincidence;)

You know whats funny, is that when Dr. Bhatti exposed Dr. Feller's obvious marketing ploy to market his procedure mFUE he stated that it was a mere distraction, he also tried to change the subject many times, now that posters are actually posting statistical evidence that shows FUE is in fact becoming more popular than FUT, he goes back to Dr. Bhatti's video, who's the one distracting now? Isn't the title of this thread "FUT is more popular than FUE" so I really want to know what are your thoughts on the chart presented by ISHRS Dr. Feller.

That's some equivalence you're making there David. Seth had not only already been accused of being a paid rep long before I started posting, but had been investigated for it as well. My suspicions and accusation were not without merit. Even thereafter Bill had to warn him again to stop engaging in obvious rep behavior.

 

I think that's a little different than what happened here with Dr. Bhatti and is way more than just a "misunderstanding".

You still can't admit that you were wrong inferring that Seth was a rep? I do recall Bill warning you as well Dr. Feller, as I recall he had to warn you a few times because you kept ignoring his posts, but let's get to the issue at hand. I wonder why physicians that perfor

both procedures have less bias views.

Here is a quote from Marcio Cristostomo M.D "FUE and FUT are both very good options for hair restoration.

There are many discussions and opinions about what is best: FUT or FUE.

My personal opinion is that there is no need for this "competition", both are very safe, well stablished ways to restore hair. In fact, they are only different ways of getting hair from the scalp: FUT through an excision of a strip to produce the follicular units (FUs) and FUE extracting FUs one by one with micro punches of less than 1mm.

Both techniques leaves scar(s) in the donor area: FUT with a long linear scar (that in patients with good elasticity, properly operated with closure under no tension can be very fine and discrete in most cases); and FUE leavinf no linear scar, but hundreds (or thousands) of punctiforme scars that are usually very discrete allowing patients to have a very short haircut.

Patients with a linear strip scar or with FUe scars (some FUE scars can be noticeable, if the punch used has a diameter higher than 1mm or if multiple sessions are done) can camouflage their scar(s) with scalp micropigmentation, if needed, orientated by their surgeon.

Inittially Strip surgery preduced more grafts in one session than FUE, but nowadays, very experienced surgeons can produce megasessions of more than 3,000 grafts with both methods.

In some countries FUE corresponds to maybe more than 80-90% of the procedures. In my country, Brazil, for example, FUT still is the dominant technique.

FUT has been the gold standard for decades and FUE is rising in the last decade and is an actual tendency, even during medical congresses. But we should not say that one is the latest technique, or more advanced, because both can produce good results and the result doensn't depent only of the extraction method, but in reality a lot of other factors are involved as: proper indication, age and family history observed, good anterior hairline design, refined technique during implantation time, among others.

For all this reasons, in my opinion there is no better technique. Instead of it, there is a better indication for each individual patients. And in some cases of more advanced degrees, secondary cases with limitations in the donor area or poor donor suply, both techniques can be used combined to achive more grafts and offer better results. For this reson, they are not techniques in competition, but instead, complementary to each other.

So, I think a specialist can choose one technique to perform and to defend, but the ideal is to have all opitons available to offer individualized surgical plan for each case.

These are some of my thoughts and I hope it can be useful information."

Scandinavian, Dr. Doganay does beard to scalp transplants, hes quite cheap as well, Dr. Umar though I think is the best out there for bodyhair, I don't think anyone is getting consistent results like him, but he's probably double the cost, generally his grafts are $7-8 for bodyhair, I dont know how much that translates in Euros.

Why some hair transplants are successful and some are not has never been an easy question to answer. Perhaps if every clinic recorded every procedure and made those videos publicly available we could narrow down the number of subpar cases (strip or FUE) that could legitimately be attributed to the enigmatic "x-factor". Of course, that's not going to happen so there is always going to be some degree of speculation.

 

Much has been made of the video Dr. Bhatti shared demonstrating his technique. It's been called "rushed", "brutal", etc.

 

Recently, Dr. Feller posed a question about how one might feel if they were the patient depicted in the video and received a poor result. It will be months before anyone knows what this patient's results will be but I would like to pose the opposite question. What conclusions might we draw from this example if the patient has a desirable result?

 

If the patient gets a great result can we then conclude that this protocol, regardless of how it may appear, works consistently to produce quality results for Dr. Bhatti and his team?

 

Or, will it be attributed to a reverse x-factor..."this particular patient clearly has superhuman physiology that allowed his follicular unit grafts to survive the detrimental effects of the brutal forces applied to them and produce an appealing result but..."

 

As I've said before in another post, we may very well never know this patient's results.. He chose not to identify himself and, even if Dr. Bhatti obtains photo documentation that shows a good result, there will be those that will claim it's a different guy....etc., etc.

 

I've never been a strip detractor. I'm happy with the procure. I've never been an FUE fanboy either. I consider myself to be pragmatic and cautious and I have had good experiences with both.

 

I had subpar growth with my first strip. I was a slow grower and had kinky/wiry hair for a time with both my strips. It all turned out well in the end and I was very satisfied with the results. But, with my FUE growth came more quickly and the hair is straight and soft just like my existing hair. Still have 6 months left before I can judge the final results.

 

I don't claim that my experience with either of these procedures is representative of a "normal" case and I won't go into the details of each of my procedures because I've done that and anyone interested can view my hair restoration website but, what I have seen, read, heard and personally experienced has shown me that we cannot generalize about the quality of results with either procedure. We need to look at those results (good or bad) in context.

 

I do believe that top FUE clinics, many of whom are recommended by our community, have narrowed the gap in yield between strip and FUE consistently enough as to make it a viable alternative for many patients.

Very astute observation David, and great question, what if this patient achieves a fantastic result, I believe Bill posed the same question that if a physician is able to get a good result in half the time wouldn't that add to the procedure. I'd also like to piggy back on what you said about the kinky and wiry hair, according to Dr. Feller's partner this only occurs in FUE, however you stated that you got this from 2 strip surgeries, which is interesting, but im glad it sorted itself out for you. I completely agree with your views as well. I also believe that the yield between top FUE surgeons is comparable to FUT surgeons and that the difference in yield is insignificant cosmetically.

HTsoon and Seth,

 

The patient requested an FUT procedure. He did so, and I support his logic, for two reasons:

 

1) The size of the procedure.

 

The patient underwent a procedure of somewhere around 1,800 grafts. An FUE procedure of this size would have subjected the grafts to excessive damage during removal and significantly increased out of body time (which is even more damning for grafts with less supportive tissue -- IE FUE grafts). This is why most advocate "breaking up" large FUE sessions into a series of smaller sessions. This patient came from another country for the procedure and didn't want to break it up over multiple days.

 

2) Where the grafts were being placed.

 

I almost never recommend placing FUE grafts into the hairline. Why? It's the most visible region of the scalp, and I must be 100% confident of the growth and appearance of grafts in this region. FUE grafts are subject to lesser yields and have a greater tendency to grow "wiry" or "kinky," and I can't have patchy or unnatural growth in the front of the scalp.

Really Dr. Bloxham, I understand what you say about the growth, I wouldn't want you to perform FUE on a hairline as you just started hair restoration and the learning curve is high for FUE, so that I completely understand, but the wiry and kinky portion is just flat out false, this occurs sometimes in patients regardless of FUE or FUT and it generally sorts itself out. I'm glad this patient had a successful hair transplant never the less and I'm sure you are going to get even better at hair transplanst blake.

Take a look at this video, a gentlemen who had FUE to his hairline by Dr. Nader in Mexico, this isn't even a clinic result, its just a normal guy doing vlogs on his on account.

LMAO i literally lol'd

i find it looks much better at number 8, i guess htsoon is right

I hope this has convinced you to let your hair grow out once you have your full result, unfortunately, density can not be matched in most cases, so keeping your hair short makes you look bald, even the crown looks better when your grow your hair out, as I said toppik could be used to blend it better.

Yeh guys i love it to be honest - HTsoon your PM was what encouraged me to go do it, im very thankful for that -

 

I am going to write up a story on this as i think this has changed my life

Im glad you're happy and glad I could help;)

Holy cow guys. It's even more clear than ever how FUE is crushing in and literally overtaking FUT like a goddamn beast. I'll give FUT less than 5 years before becoming a small niche, and eventually it will die out almost completely. That is my opinion. But the statistics say all. Be your own judge and look at the following graph;

 

 

Source: ISHRS: Hair Transplantation More Popular Than Ever | Bernstein Medical

 

Procedure

While Follicular Unit Transplant (FUT) procedures accounted for over half of all hair transplants, Follicular Unit Extraction (FUE) is gaining rapidly, with a 51% increase over the 2012 results (from 32.2% in 2012 to 48.5% in 2014). See the chart:

 

 

 

Look especially at the last years how FUE took off and how much troubles it had in the beginning. The biggest increase was between 2012 and 2014 and FUE gained 16.3% territory.

 

But yeah this data coupled with the indicative online movement of all big (inter)national forums don't say anything I guess right guys ?

But FUE hasn't improved since its began back in 2002, but but the yield is poor, but but my mFUE technique is better. Guys don't pay attention to this evidence it's a mere distraction guys don't pay attention to it annnnnnd end sarcasm.

 

You're the one posting nasty comments not me!...as an aside, I see yesterday on another thread a patient of your doc has just been offered free grafts to fix his poor results. I bet he is feeling angry

Matt no one has been as nasty on this thread as you, you resorted to personal attacks and several times have mentioned other members and spoken harshly on their results (including myself) just to get your point across, it's been in poor taste and uncalled for in my opinion.

Not to mention every physician has had a patient with poor growth even your beloved Dr. Feller has said this, so I don't see how pointing out another members poor results is going to do anything for your argument, does it make you feel better about yourself?

A lot of physicians name their particular technique using FUE, for example Dr. Diep calls his technique DFC (Diep FUE curve). They're not necessarily gimmicks just names to distinguish their personal technique.

Here are the pros and cons presented by Dr. Diep a recommended physician on this site, please note Dr. Diep performs both techniques regularly in his practice.

The advantages of strip harvesting method are:

1.Less expensive

2.Mega session, transplanting up to 5,000 grafts per session

3.Used to treat moderate to severe hair loss

The disadvantages of strip harvesting method are:

1.More invasive

2.Numbness at the surgical donor site

3.Fine linear scar on the back of the head

4.More painful during recovery period

5.More bleeding

6.More chances of infection

The FUE hair transplant advantages are:

1.NO VISIBLE LINEAR SCAR after recovery

2.Less invasive

3.Minimal bleeding at donor site

4.No nerve numbness

5.Less painful during recovery period

6.Used to treat mild to moderate hair loss

The FUE hair transplant disadvantages are:

1.More expensive

2.More time consuming

3.More demanding on the skill and time of the surgeon

4.Approximately 2500 grafts can be transplanted per session

5.Rare cyst formation which normally resolve by itself

I think it's important to note nowhere does this physician state the yield is lower with FUE. Also it's important to note this physician is not bias towards either procedure because he performs both regularly.

http://www.mhtaclinic.com/fue-procedures/fue-vs-strip-harvesting/

I have but the longest I've grown my hair after my procedure is a number eight (1"). I think it worked better in the mid scalp rather than the crown. Do you have any images you can share of how you fade your hair "up high in to the bald spot"? I broke last night and cut my hair back to a number two.

 

I've attached some photos to show my hair at a number eight and a number two. You'll see that at a number eight, my crown is more visable and in the side profile, my hair just flattens in the crown. However, with a number two, the crown is less visable and I think it is a crisper hair cut.

You look balder with a number 2 if I'm being brutally honest, everything looks worse, your whole head looks thinner compared to a number 8 where it just looks like your crown is slightly thinning. It's your choice but I think everyone would agree that your hair looks a lot fuller at a number 8 even your crown looks balder at a number 2.

Great post. Good on ya. Glad you have restored that confidence!

 

Waking up next to girl after a one-night stand with Toppik on the pillow would be a dream for me.

 

It's usually empty Whiskey bottles, torn sheets and fang marks....

? lmao

You are not a layman?

I may not be a physician but I have done enough research to consider myself well versed in hair restoration. I also believe I have done more research then the average patient. But this is typical from you, it's another word game played on specifics, just like you did when you called Seth a representative of an FUE clinic, you knew very well what would be assumed without mentioning the clinics name or stating he was paid.

HTsoon,

 

You just nailed it. If FUT is performed more often, then doesn't that then default the procedure to "most popular"? I would say most patients would prefer to get an FUE procedure due to lack of a scar, but elect to go with FUT for a variety of reasons, some of which you mentioned above. In fact, the moving more grafts in one sitting is a pretty darn important factor. I would think the majority of patients would prefer to get the procedure in as few passes as possible, hence the popularity of the mega-session. I would have rather had mine all done the 1st pass, rather than two procedures 1 year apart. My stupidity for not going with the likes of H&W. In fact getting the procedure done in less passes would be the preferred choice.

 

So back to your statement, who is more popular, the girl who everyone would prefer to bang because she is hot but don't, or the girl who all the guys actually choose to bang because she is the better lay?

I'd like to answer your question the girl who everyone wants to bang is more popular.

here's another analogy, who's more popular the hot girl that guys want to bang but they can't, because she's high maintenance and they can't afford to take her out.

Or the girl who everyone bangs cause she puts out easy and all you have to do is buy her a happy meal.Popularity is defined by popular choice not necessity.

I think anybody would rather get their procedure done in one sitting, unfortunately for high Norwood guys like myself that's usually not the case even in strip procedures, so personally I thought what would I rather do have 3 less invasive FUE procedures that are the least noticeable to the general public i.e coworkers, or two FUT procedures that would carry the risk of bad scarring and would require more time off work and would be more obvious to the general public. These are my personal reasons for my specific situation, I've said it before in this thread but I'll say it again, if you're a lower Norwood guy who wears his hair long your better off getting FUT because you'll be able to get a full restoration in one sitting.

However, if you're a high Norwood guy who will require several procedures you're better off doing FUE in small sessions, this will achieve a better overall aesthetic result in my opinion. Not to mention less time off of work with less detectability.

Now you're a layman? In every other post you are a surgical expert ! But I'll help you out:

 

Just look at my video and compare it to Dr. Bhatti's video. Mine is regular FUE and his is speed FUE. Don't want to go by my FUE technique, fine, there are several other videos of FUE doctors doing extractions out there. Compare to those. Hint: Dr. Bhatti's is the "speed FUE" and he's proud of it.

Dr. Feller there you go with the word play, we were speaking hypothetically, you stated if a patient had a poor results and saw Dr. Bhattis video that it would be grounds for a class action suit here in the states. I never said I couldn't tell the difference nor did I say I was a layman, I was speaking about your average patient who's never seen a procedure performed. . With that being said the key word was poor result, I will withhold my judgement until I see the final result.

Tav, did you do any body hair? I've considered Dr. Umar, because he's 45 min from my house not lucky enough to live in redondo lol. But the thing that's kept from going is the price.

My only area of concern is my left temple that wasn't filled in. I'm not sure that I will go back. It's a far trip from Canada and the flight is expensive. Also I'm not keen to have another procedure now. It's painful and getting enough time of work to have the procedure and come back with it not being noticeable isn't easy. That being said the clinic is being generous and giving me time to decide so I will have to think about it

Do you mind posting some pictures of those of us considering this clinic?

Taking a donor strip would not be grounds for a class action lawsuit because while frightening to the lay observer it treats the grafts as delicately as can be treated. That's why it became the mainstream in less than five years of its introduction and is still the mainstream today. It produces the most reliable results and is why the overwhelming number of HT doctors perform it.

 

FUE on the other hand, especially "speed FUE" as seen in the Bhatti video subjects the grafts to greater trauma. You honestly don't see that?

How would a layman be able to deduce speed FUE to regular FUE? My point was that anyone with a poor result would ask for a refund and if their circumstance was not favorable would most likely file a class action suit.

I disagree with you Dr. Feller, I honestly don't believe that FUT is the most popular choice in hair restoration. I believe that it's performed more often because:

A. It's cheaper

B: you can move more grafts in one sitting.

In the dozens of consultations I went to with world renowned hair restoration physicians I heard the same thing. If you chose FUE you'll have to do more than one surgery to move the same amount of grafts you could do with one FUT surgery, and you'll have to break it up in to sessions. Never once was I told, if I chose FUE I wouldn't get the same yield, I questioned every single doctor I spoke with, every single one of them confided in me that transection mainly occurs during the learning curve of FUE. That was not one physician but many, so you see it's hard for me to believe just one physician who also has monetary incentives i.e new procedure.

Let me ask the members of the community a couple of questions with respect to Dr. Bhatti's technique as demonstrated int he video:

 

If YOU or your loved one were the patient depicted in that video and you wound up with a poor result, would you assign any of the failure to the indiscriminate squeezing, ripping, and raking you witnessed ?

 

If you were this patient and the result was poor, would you not take this video to Dr. Bhatti and say you clearly mishandled my grafts I want my money back?

 

If you were this patient and had a poor result and then saw this video would you not ask Dr. Bhatti if there was a more gentile procedure he could have performed that would not have necessitated so much graft trauma? Would you not ask why he didn't inform you of the more gentile alternative? And would you not be upset that you were not informed that this more gentile method was the worlds mainstream method for HT?

 

Because in the United States this video would be the open door for a class action lawsuit on behalf of any and all patients who did not grow well.

The key word Dr. Feller is poor result, I think anyone with a poor result would do the following, as a matter of fact if I had a thick slab of meat butchered out of my head id be a lot quicker to file a class action suit.

Mav I've never said don't be objective, but to heckle the dr in to apologizing then the next minute defend him is odd and shocking to me to be honest.

I don't know whats more amazing the fact that someone with the amount of hairloss he had would even bother getting a hair transplant, or the fact that he chose to get FUT and now has a scar for the rest of his life for a small amount of grafts.

Here is a video of Dr. Villnow I completely agree with his assessment, its what i've been saying all along. The advantages of FUT is your able to harvest more grafts at one time, where as with FUE you will have to do several sessions, this to me is the truth, it's what i've seen with dozens of patients and myself as well, the difference in yield in my opinion is not significant, there is no proof to substantiate my claims or Dr. Fellers claims and that's the truth, his percentages are his opinion.

So what it boils down too as a patient is personal preference, if you wear your hair short than you'll probably want to choose FUE, if you don't wear your hair short and don't care about a scar then choose FUT. All of this vilifying FUE has been uncalled for, not to mention accusing forum members of being representatives of their physicians.

Seth I've got a similar situation to yours I've even mentioned my friend in this thread, he got a strip surgery back in 06 by a well known physician in Toronto, while he did achieve good growth, he now has become terrified of getting haircuts, he literally stopped going to the barber, because every time he went to the barber he was always asked about his huge scar, he's had people ask if he's had brain surgery, to a metal plate in his head, this has caused him to be so self conscious, as hair loss sufferers we are already self conscious about our hair loss, so I can't imagine going from being self conscious about my hair loss to being self conscious about my scar, to me its exchanging problems instead of getting rid of one. Now with an FUE I never worry if people are looking at my donor area or if they know I got a procedure, a wise man once said you cant put a price on peace of mind.

HTsoon, he just stated that there only 3 FUT supporters here. Do you really believe that. I think you are a smart dude, and you have made some intelligent points, but please don't tell me that you believe what Seth just said???

 

Going back and fourth on what? I have never claimed to be a fan of Dr Feller, I am a fan of FUT until being stripped out and then FUE, I think Dr Feller has made some valid points, I really like Dt Bhatti and respect him standing up to Dr Feller, I have found Dr Feller to be offensive at times. Where exactly have I changed my position? Maybe it's called objectivity?

I just find it odd that one minute you're deeply offended by Dr. Feller's comments and the next minute you're defending him.