Matt27

First time I've ever seen a NW5A with a forelock like that. So I'm not surprised he finally lost it.

Mind you, non-Europeans' hair loss patterns can strongly deviate from the European norms we're used to.

You are only 20 years old, which is way too young to get a hairline transplant.

Maybe I exaggerated by saying tons, but I have seen them. And their FUE cases routinely do have average donor. Especially Feriduni's.

Bisanga is overly conservative anyway. He pushes finasteride more than anyone and seems more concerned about the possibility of an awkward looking transplant down the road than he is of a patient ruining his health. So I admit he was a bad example to use. He isn't an option for me anyway.

No he's correct, these doctors do not believe that the two techniques are equal.

 

From Feriduni's own site:

 

 

 

Now keep in mind, Feriduni is primarly known for his FUE, so there is some marketing speak here, but even then, he does not say that FUE yields are equal to or greater than FUT. At best he minimizes the difference. This line of reasoning (That FUT yield > FUE yield) is common and widely held among surgeons like Feriduni who are competent at both techniques. Feriduni is great at FUT too!

I've already conceded that. What I initially said is that Bisanga and Feriduni will give the patient the option between FUE/FUT for most surgeries.

You said that they prefer FUE for patients with very good donor and I responded by saying that most FUE results they post (even large sessions) have average donor.

The reason I said what I did is because Dr. Feller suggested that there could be a business incentive for European physicians to push FUE. I said that, from what I can tell, they generally don't try to hard sell either method. They leave it up to the patient.

The exception is if you don't have enough donor for a decent result (as is the case with NW6+). Then they may deny you FUE. But I see them operate on tons of NW4-5s with average donor.

3k grafts will cost around 10k euros I think. So no it's still pricey.

KO,

 

Yup. Nailed it. Anyone who performs both obviously feels this way -- or, by definition, they wouldn't perform both. Most just aren't as active on the forums.

That isn't necessarily true. Many physicians will perform both because there is demand for both.

Budget and premium options are generally offered by any business. Not saying FUT is strictly a budget option as there is more to it than that, but there would be reasons to offer both regardless of such differences.

Nope, he prefers FUE for people who have great donor areas, for the "average" high NW patient, he prefers FUT. For example, stinger99 had a very strong donor area. Dr B, while he does a lot of FUE, pretty much agrees with the mainstream on the pros/cons of FUE vs FUT. I bet even Feriduni does the same. Just look at his portfolio, most of his high NW patients are FUT.

Most of the FUE results I have seen (and I have seen a lot) posted by Feriduni/Bisanga have donor densities of ~80 FU/cm^2. Basically Average.

But I think you have just repeated what i said in different words. That it's a lifetime donor issue. The patient's long term strategy is also important.

Dr Feller - could you comment on why you use the grid-placement of the grafts?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Completely untrue, Bisanga in particular. Biology works the same way in Europe as it does in the USA. Btw, ask Bisanga if he disagrees with Feller on the pros and cons of FUE. I think we all know where Dr B will stand.

I'm under the impression that Bisanga favours FUE for large cases because of the larger lifetime donor. But, if a patient is aware of the limitations of FUE in that regard, I'm sure he'll perform FUE. Unless they're NW6 or something.

Are you saying you may have a small doubt and that FUE yields may not generally be on par with FUT yields ?

 

What jig are you referring to ? You can be honest, I promise to not be offended. What do you think I"m concealing; or, what angle do you think I"m playing ?

 

Speaking of playing, are you sticking to your answer that the right one is the FUE ?

I haven't really researched FUT because I don't consider it an option for me. I am sure FUE yields are a bit lower, but not by enough for me to stress about it.

I already stated what I think your angle is (disparaging FUE; possibly suggesting that the right patient had his grafts more densely packed to compensate for lower yield), but I could be wrong. And yeah I'll stick with my initial prediction.

I never thought of that. Do YOU think yields for FUE may be lower than FUT to the point that these doctors feel the need to compensate by offering more grafts for the FUE choice ?

Hahaha. Come on doc. The jig is up. Anyway, I haven't seen evidence of it. But that doesn't mean it isn't possible.

I'm not sure it's "every post" , but to be sure FUE vs FUT is the hot topic.

 

You think I and all North American doctors favor FUT over FUE solely for business reasons, nothing else?

 

Is it possible that non-North American doctors favor FUE solely for business reasons ?

Non-NA doctors don't seem to necessarily favour either method. They just react to demand. They don't, from what I can tell, attempt to hard-sell any particular method on their patients. Feriduni, Bisanga, etc. will do FUT or FUE for the same job. I'd be curious whether they quote more grafts if you opt for FUE though.

Matt,

Why do you think that would be my point? Because it could actually be true, or, because it is actually untrue but I'm disingenuously pushing my agenda?

 

And in your view, what is my agenda?

Because in every post of your's I read you are criticizing the yield of FUE.

I get it. You're a businessman. But every American (and Canadian) doc and rep says the same self-serving thing. FUE is just for small jobs like temple closure, etc. It's easy to see through.

Although I realize this is just part of your agenda, the right is FUE. The point you are pushing is that the yield will be lower in the FUE case so grafts need to be placed more densely over a smaller area.

However, my own conclusion is that the right guy has much thicker hair than the left guy (as well as less aggressive loss in an A pattern) and they are attemping to match that density.

Wow! Another one.

I don't understand what's so surprising about it. The ability to shave down without a strip scar is a necessity for many of us. I have been shaving my sides and back with a #1 guard since I was 16 years old.

IMO... most guys do look good with a shaved head if they have a hairline. There are exceptions, generally if the man's head is too small.

I used to shave my head as a NW2 and the cosmetic difference between NW2 and NW3/3A when shaved is massive. Nevermind the difference between NW4/5 and NW2.

Surely this debate is pointless? All this rant for rant people will get what THEY want anyway. I would still choose FUE even if the yield was 50% success compared to 98% for FUT. it's all about the scar and having to have your hair longer unless you want to see the line.

So would I. Seriously... FUT sucks. Chances are my crown will start to go and then what... rock the Hugh Laurie hairstyle? No thanks.

Looks outstanding for the # of grafts used. I'm approaching the same loss level... 3A. I never imagined 2k grafts being enough for that.

Guys who are taking or have taken Finasteride - Did you check DHT levels before hand? I have recently spoken to my Dr. about going on it (he scared me out of it initially) but have had DHT tested now. Waiting on results, but if DHT is high (which I suspect based on ridiculous body hair and libido) then is it safe to take?

No... many men with PFS have high DHT. And finasteride inhibits the production of various steroids. Not just DHT.

I have more body and facial hair than the overwhelming majority of men. Still got PFS.

Hey I'm also from Edmonton. I plan to travel to Belgium for one eventually. Don't cheap out!

Also, I actually signed up to this forum prior to developing PFS. After browsing the forum, I realized that finasteride was more or less 'mandatory' to get a HT in my situation (although I disagree with that now) and decided to use it.

We are not some small group of men who try to infiltrate every hair loss forum. When I registered, I was just an ordinary guy whose biggest concern was my hair loss.

So I do think it's irresponsible for users on here to push finasteride as aggressively as they do. Even guys with stabilized loss have users screaming at them to jump on meds. Hair loss progressing behind a HT is far less horrific than the reality of PFS. And this is coming from someone with a "milder" case of PFS.

Honestly, though, I don't see what the studies could show users like LondonHTseeker that would convince him not to take it. Most people seem to believe it exists now and understand that there is some risk involved.

There is no fear mongering at propeciahelp. However, there are some hypochondriacs and emotionally unstable guys who make others like Chrisis and I look bad.

It was partly because of those users that I didn't completely take the risks of finasteride seriously. I'm sure that sentiment is common on the internet. It doesn't help that those users are some of the loudest. And that forum is moderated very poorly.

You look like you will end up NW6. So you'd have to plan for that.

Also, it is mere speculation that DHT inhibition is the cause of PFS. Finasteride inhibits much more than just DHT.

For example, it inhibits the synthesis of neurosteroids that modulate the GABAA receptor. One of my symptoms is constant muscle fasciculations. It isn't difficult to imagine how interfering with GABA (our primary inhibitory neurotransmitter) could cause over-excitation like this.

Interestingly enough, the neurological research team in Milan is investigating 5ar1, not 5ar2.

Just to continue from my last post, I obviously do not think that finasteride is worth the risk, but I am not going to tell anyone not to use it. I just think that the risks need to be understood so that everyone can make an informed decision.

This denial about finasteride side effects isn't productive. People deny them only because it helps them sleep more easily at night.

I did believe the risks before taking it, but I used it anyway. I rationalized that I drive everyday, which is surely more dangerous. A handful of people I knew growing up have died in car crashes (and many more will follow), but everyone still drives. People smoke, etc.

I have always been a risk averse individual... except in this instance. I got emotional about my hair loss and decided to use finasteride. I think I would have stopped taking it once I calmed down and came to my senses, but it took only a few pills to develop very strong side effects, which have persisted to a large extent.

I do think that those of us who developed PFS have something that predisposed us to developing it. In my case, I had health issues before I took it. Others did not, but they may have had something subclinical that wasn't apparent.