Swooping

Sure. However the popularity question is somewhat answerable due to the ISHRS data numbers and the opinions online which are surely indicative. The overwhelming majority just talks about FUE or wants it. If one thinks otherwise he is either blind or emotionally invested in this issue. You know this just as well as I do. The better result question isn't really answerable, its subjective and more a matter of opinions than the truth.

Looking forward to your elaboration .

Well I agree completely with you that the smartest or rather most safe thing to do would be to maximize your life grafts. But some people don't think like that. Ask yourself this question. More and more people undergo surgery today without being on finasteride. That is pretty risky right if your hair loss isn't stabilized? Most surgeons will recommend patients finasteride before undertaking a hair transplant. Yet enough people especially nowadays neglect this and have surgery anyway without finasteride. I do however completely agree that many people , in fact the masses are unaware that a FUT + FUE combo yields most grafts lifetime. I have rarely seen this brought up on other forums for example. Perhaps more people would re-think their options if they were proper educated about this?

What do you think that the average guy who goes for a hair transplant is going in with a "mindset" to fully maximize their donor area? Think again. You make it almost sound as if the market gets dictated by supply instead of demand. If you think that the best way to go for you is to maximize your donor then go ahead. That's your personal choice. Many people have a way other outlook on these things or are in a different situation. Not everyone thinks the same as you do. Hey and if things go wrong with FUE in the future at least one can shave down as a way out. With FUT not so much .

I replied to both gunther and gilgamesh. However my message is pending approval. I assume this is because of an outbound link to PLOS medicine? If one of the moderators could correct this, thanks:cool:.

You are correct. And if you want to for FUT because of that, that's your choice. However the people you talk about are a minority group who really need to maximize their donor supply. FUT is already heading into a "niche" treatment for a small group of people. I just browsed yesterday on a big international forum and came across a topic which was called "FUT or FUE". I can tell you that approximately 90 to 95% of the people were calling FUT "old fashioned", "brutal" and the "scar" was mentioned extremely often. Again open your eyes on the international forums. The beauty with this question is that everyone does see the same unless they don't want to. Look at the ISHRS census which show the growth of FUE. If you want I can make topics on big international forums to lure a discussion about FUT vs FUE? I can tell you that almost everyone will say the same thing about FUT. Even people like Spencer seem to agree with this all. Spencer being founder of the IAHRS. That's a very bold statement for someone like Spencer, you can understand why. Anyway the beauty of this question is that time will tell . Easy to setup? I don't think so, it will be far from easy. I can't seem to find your "rough" outlines of the method besides that you want a "good" peer reviewed study. That's easy to say. Can you sketch a more detailed study which would answer the FUT vs FUE debate (yield), and would be easy to set up? Pretty impressive if you could make it happen. You already start out well by mentioning the following point; "Objective and unbiased third party.". I think we all know how easy it is to get a double blind peer reviewed study through which suffers from heavy bias. John P. A. Ioannidis has written an excellent piece about this which expands more deeply on all; PLOS Medicine: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. Most downloaded paper on PLOS. Anyway how further?

You are correct I don't . I just randomly picked Lorenzo btw. I think more FUE doctors get very close to the yields of top FUT practitioners. However it's my opinion, nothing more then that as I stated multiple times. If you think otherwise you are free to do so. But you can't present it as the truth also. That's just also your own opinion, not the truth. The evidence in studies isn't going to come. It's too hard to set those up, to many variables. I would be impressed if you could think of a study that isn't going to flawed and will answer the question in the FUE vs FUT debate. The answer is never going to come. However what will happen is that FUE will get more and more popular until FUT will slowly die out. This is already happening in full speed. People just don't want the scar and will even happily sacrifice some yield for that .

Pff you have insanely thick hair man, lucky asians lol. Going to be a killer result. You on any meds though?

I don't believe this particular statement. However I do agree with multiple other points as displayed on his site. Furthermore I can imagine that Dr. Lorenzo gets the same yield numbers as top FUT practitioners .. If everyone was at his level worldwide, there wouldn't be a need for FUT anymore. Problem is that very few are. You can count them on 2 hands, probably even less. Remember this is all my opinion. I don't state them as facts. However better graft quality then FUT? Doesn't make sense. But hey maybe he does have X-ray vision who knows . Anyway I'm going to try call him this week and ask him some questions about FUT vs FUE. Will be interesting to hear his opinion. I think honestly he is going to agree that FUE is on par with FUT by his observations. But we'll see. Definitely going to ask him to about these studies.

Great result mate

That's interesting Dr. Feller that he falsely then misleads patients on his website while mentioning other things to you in person. I'm going to call him this week about this and will report back. Curious anyway what his standpoint is and I want to hear it from him. I would assume he stands for what is presented on his website; Source: http://www.injertocapilar.com/English/differences_fue-strip.htm

Exactly well said, nice post. In 10-15 years FUT will be just about extinct indeed. I would bet my money over this any moment. From the moment on FUE was bound to overtake FUT. The numbers tell everything from the ISHRS as well as the whole online community. I also like how you mention that this will only stimulate more innovation and competition. Which is what we all want. But FUT won't have a place in the near future. It's already decreasing every day.

Thought I would post this here. Graphs taken from the ISHRS census results. As everyone can see FUE is overtaking FUT badly and is indeed becoming increasingly "popular". The numbers from 2014 tell us it's 50/50. However notice the incredible growth for FUE each year. We are already approaching 2016. Yes, FUE is probably already more popular than FUT worldwide and is gaining more popularity each day.

So did you talk about your friends between FUT and FUE? What do they want. I would bet they want FUE. Also these "hair clinic mills" often do offer FUT for a even lower price than FUE. Yet most people seem to pay that little extra more for a FUE procedure? You are right also that these bad FUE only clinics pop up. But it's obvious why there are no FUT only clinics popping up. Simply because it would be a pretty bad idea business wise to open a FUT only clinic in 2015. The demand simply doesn't ask for that. If demand would ask for FUT there would be FUT clinics popping up currently but these people opening these kinds of clinics understand that FUE is increasingly more popular. I would do the same in their shoes (not that I would ever do that lol). Wouldn't you? FUE was bound to overtake FUT. Was just a matter of time.

@Yaz89 There is are no ISHRS members who run hair "mills". These statistics are solely from members from the ISHRS which show the 50/50 scenario in 2014. The growth furthermore of FUE in these years is obvious. Have a look at the reports yourself and the picture that I posted. Correct me if I'm wrong. Furthermore the forums I talk about are generally well researched members. It's quite obvious to me why even the most elite FUT practitioners are forced to offer FUE now (Konior, H&W). Quite simply because demand forces them to do that. This is the "era" of FUE already. I concur with Dr. Bhatti that FUE is already a standalone treatment. FUT will still exist but will slowly fade away. You'll see. And this development will stimulate more and more practitioners who will perform FUE to the highest standards possible. Anyway good for you that you did good research and got a great result. I am happy for you . Your friends were just not the smartest to walk in uneducated. There have been/are enough bad FUE practitioners as there are bad FUT practitioners and they will always exist. That's why research is crucial.

What is there to add to this discussion? I have spoken my words earlier in this topic. The absolute truth is impossible to find in this one. This topic is filled with opinions based on observations. It’s that simple. You do understand this right? My remark about FUT being brutal and old fashioned, yes it is harsh. However it is my opinion. I can tell you however that the general public concurs with this statement even more than me and increases to do so. The procedure itself is already seen as that, not to mention the scar it leaves. I have seen your results too. Beautiful result, world class work, no doubt. I don’t neglect the fact either that FUT has produced stunning results over the years and has brought on many happy patients. However it’s 2015 and I can tell you something that does somewhat reflect the truth. Most people don’t want FUT anymore primarily because of the reasons I just said. When we look at this topic the name is “FUT is more popular than FUE”. Well it couldn’t be more wrong then that. Not to mention the 99% favour to FUT what is slammed around here lol. Look at the following results taken from ISHRS census results; http://s17.postimg.org/4fvx1eurz/FUEpopularity.jpg. Numbers from 2014 show almost a 50/50 scenario between FUT and FUE. Look at the growth too over the years in favour of FUE. Also go look around on forums like HLH, BTH, HLT. I dare you to make a topic about FUT to attract opinions on these forums. Have a look furthermore on results posted on international and national forums other than this forum. FUE is so heavily favoured over FUT, it’s not even a competition. All these observations are highly indicative of what people want and that is FUE. This will continue to do so. People just primarily don’t want to be left with a linear scar. FUE does offer a escape route when one needs to shave down. What if your donor area will thin in the future? What if your native hair will miniaturize further? What if one has to drop finasteride because of possible induced side effects in the future? What if someone wants to accept his baldness and move on in the future? Jup, if you had FUT and you want to shave it down then a linear scar will always be properly visible, even if the scar is perfectly “pencil thin”. Thanks for the comments on my FUE. I’m not going to respond too specific failures. However to return the ball I can tell you that in the last 3 months I have seen 2 or 3 failed results from H&W, the elite if not the best at FUT worldwide. At least they are considered as that online by many people. Bad luck? You tell me. Could it be that FUE is less reliable is what you ask me. Everyone has different opinions about that. Remember it’s all opinions because the truth is as I said impossible to find in such questions. Only proper studies could possibly somewhat reveal the truth, but these would be just probably too hard to set up. Furthermore the FUE of X doctor isn’t the same as FUE of Y doctor. What are we left with anyway? The opinions of doctors, members and our own observations. Hell, look at Dr. Lorenzo his site for example; I assume they stand for what they have written on their site and as such they argue that their graft quality of FUE is better than FUT and this is even supported by their studies (Knock knock.. bias?!). However perhaps they do get the same yield as the best FUT practitioners. You don’t know period. Or do you? We have no proper conducted studies to go by. Therefore I would advise everyone to never listen to a single particular doctor. Research thoroughly and form your own opinion. As such I formed my opinion that I think FUE is just about on par with FUT in yield and reliability. That is assuming you go with a skilled top notch surgeon. These minor possible differences however are far less important to me and worth the small very small risk instead of having a linear scar on the back of my head. And I bet many people think like this. And that is why FUE marches on.. Both supply & demand are heavily changing in favour for FUE. This will only continue to do so until FUT will go the way of the “dodo”, like Spencer founder of the IAHRS said it in one of his last shows.

From the cases presented he seems to do a very good job. I also like the splitting of 1000 grafts to minimize the time out of body. Extremely cheap too by the way!

Man. Reminds me why I never opted for FUT. It's a brutal procedure and old fashioned.

Thank you Janna. Yeah overall improvement of hair quality and stabilization again. I also stabilized from stopping minoxidil after a long time I think. I was just looking at some pictures I took on the day of the operation and it was getting bad; Now;

Thanks Dr. Blake :cool:. Yeah I did. My personal opinion is no more than 3000 FUE grafts per procedure. I purposely split it up in 2 days though indeed. Details; First day 1500 grafts 2nd day 1335 grafts _____________________ Total 2835 grafts Punch size 0.7mm Implantation Choi pen 0.8mm & 0.6mm

Thanks PupDaddy :cool:.

Just throwing in some pics in between. 7 months now, happy already ! Wish I had done it sooner! Only the utmost corner of my right temple seems somewhat lagging behind (it's a small spot). I'll throw in another update at month 12 which will include better pictures (close-ups, different (harsh) lightning etc).

It's looking fine at 2.5 months. I had lingering redness till 4.5 months btw. Happy growing!

Census results of ISHRS 2015 results say it's 50/50 now. However the trending growth of FUE is extremely high and will continue his march. This will only continue to do so until FUT becomes a small niche pick. It's inevitable. One could pretty much say that worldwide FUE is already more popular, no doubt. Perhaps FUT does have a slight edge when we look at the outcome. However the reality is that people don't care about this slight edge. What consumers want is FUE. And the market will drive towards that. In fact it's already doing that in full speed. I think this is a excellent development. FUT will go slowly to the graveyard while the focus is set on FUE worldwide. This can only stimulate new innovation/progress. That's what we all want.

Well the carrier is one part of the story. Some ingredients in the carrier may enhance permeability and some might slow it somewhat to make it stay more "local". Hydroxypropyl-chitosan for example in the above study is a filming agent which supposedly should make it stay more "local". However that's not the most important aspect. The most important aspect is the chemical itself. See pharmacokinetics; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmacokinetics. Apparently finasteride as a drug itself just goes systemic if applied topically. No carrier will change that. Definitely don't buy into stories of a topical finasteride that doesn't go systemic, because it will.