tofur

JeanLucBergman said:

This is why I'm more than happy to criticise doctors who SHOULD know better than me, but clearly are prone to making sweeping generalisations that are less accurate than a high school science student would be expected to be in an assignment.

 

"And there is no such thing as donor management when it comes to FUE megasessions and young patients. "

 

So I guess that's why you will find hundreds and hundreds of Erdogan and Lorenzo cases over the 5000 FUE graft mark with no visible donor diffusion, and others get butchered by after 1500. Apparently in your world extraction technique, extraction method, punch type, punch material, punch size, doctor doing the extraction and field of extraction make no difference to donor management with FUE?

 

No Dr. Bloxham, what you said was a laughably inaccurate and ignorant generalisation, and quite frankly, a lie.

Why do you keep latching onto these 5000 FUE megasessions as evidence of FUE being so close to FUT in donor management as to make it insignificant? 5-6k is the generally accepted limit to FUE'ing an average donor before donor issues show up, just because those guys look okay now doesn't mean you can get anymore appreciable amount of grafts out of that donor when they inevitably lose ground over the next 4-7 decades of their life. We won't even get into how far out of the true safe zone you have to go with FUE to get those big graft numbers and the risks that brings in the long term results.

There is insufficient data provided to conclude the above, at least in the graph presented.

 

To make such a blanket statement would assume that all patients respond to finasteride identically, experiencing both the same initial and continued efficacy. We know this to be fundamentally untrue, both anecdotally and statistically. Consider the example in which several of the men who took finasteride over the 5 year period were poor, or even non-responders (due to age/progression of hair loss or other physiological factors); the data has now been significantly skewed in a self explanatory fashion.

 

I'm not categorically saying your statement is incorrect (frankly i haven't researched it enough to consider myself that well informed on the matter), but it certainly seems likely that it is. Regardless of the underlying sentiment you proffer, it is lucidly based on what appears to be a fallacious extrapolation of the data presented. Further, one need only consult the Rossi study for several examples of men who serve as a direct refutation of your conclusion. Therein lie clear examples of men for whom finasteride retained its efficacy for a period of 10 years.

The 5 year study was done with 1500 men and was double blind placebo controlled, it would take a lot of men to significantly skew the results.

The 10 year study was shit by comparison, only 118 men.

I regularly get my sides and back to a no 1 and its not visible after fue. The girl who cuts my hair can't see anything and there'll be no one up as close as your barber/hairdresser.

#1 is a buzz cut, I'm talking about the Bruce Willis approach to hair loss, razoring it down to nothing or no-guard clipper at the most.

Bro read the graph properly lol those people are still above baseline and thats not even the 10year study.

 

You shouldn't expect to keep your 'gains' on finasteride, but clinical evidence is clear that a majority stay above baseline. We still have to prepare for the event that we are a minority case that isn't so lucky so be proactive and do everything you can. Using all your grafts with FUE, going to a great doc who gives a solid yield, potentially throwing in some smp etc and at the very least having some great full head years followed by some less than perfect ones is WAY better than just getting rekt.

Yeah and which way are they trending? Time keeps marching on, for guys who still have a solid 50-70 years of life left 5 years is nothing. It's something you have to take into account before you permanently put hair on top of your head, that's all. There's no guarantee.

jjsrader you got FUT so obviously the prospect of eventually losing eveything and having to shave is a lot worse than those who got FUE from a DR with good skill and donor management.

 

Thanks for sharing your experience though

Uhh you can't shave down with FUE either, it isn't a scarless procedure.

Tofur, you have claimed that finasteride stops working over time. I don't think there is any evidence that shows that this is the case. By all accounts if it works for you in the first year it will continue to work for you long term. Hair counts may decrease slowly over time but it's still working as you will have more hair than if you never took finasteride.

No for sure fin is better then nothing, every guy losing his hair should at least try it and see if it works well for them and they don't get sides. It just doesn't truly stabilize your loss forever, it slows it down. This is totally logical, it isn't eliminating all of your DHT it's just knocking it down, your DHT sensitive follicles are still getting hit by what's remaining in your system, just not to the same degree.

My issue with it is when I see guys cutting up their heads on the premise that fin will forever keep their hair the way it is when they start it. There are many examples of men who switch to duasteride anywhere from 3 to 15 years into fin because they start losing significant ground and need more DHT suppression to maintain their hair. Problem with that is duasteride seems to have more side affects so it's a double edged sword.

Ultimately, we need something new to stop native loss. Shiseido/replicel's RCH-01 is the most promising upcoming treatment to watch for, shiseido's phase 2 results will be out Q2 of 2018.

"Lmao you're a clown bro"

 

nek minit

 

"You really gotta lay off the personal attacks, makes you sound like a petulant little child. "

 

"You provide us with hundreds of 10k graft FUE cases and maybe I'll agree that it's something a man can count on."

 

nek minit

 

"I didn't say it's not a good procedure because it can't achieve 10k grafts"

 

"You conveniently ignored my pointing out of the study that showed guys are back at baseline after 5 years of fin,"

 

*Didn't actually point out a specific study

 

"You don't have the grafts to do that, starting the hairline that low increases the surface area to cover dramatically."

 

Despite the fact that 5500 grafts at 55 microns can give dense and full coverage on a norwood 6:

 

International Hair Loss Forum - Djeetee: 5500 FUE - Dr Erdogan - 27&28/09/16

 

 

I reiterate, you are not a smart person, and it seems not smart enough to argue with. You are a worm.

I called you a clown because of your personal attacks.

You were trying to push FUE as a realistic option for guys needing a lot of grafts. Still haven't provided even one case of FUE approaching 10k. That guy you linked still had hair in the transplanted region, he wasn't cueball and wasn't a true NW 6 since his sides were still tall and his crown is still weak afterward.

Anyone who's done even a modicum of research on HT knows that graft count alone is only part of the story. Hair caliber, number of multi-FU play a huge role in the final appearance so continuing to point out men that have thick dense hair to prove your point is disingenuous. I could point out NW 6 who get 5k grafts and look like shit but you'd just ignore it.

If you get a HT while relying on fin and didn't know about the 2002 5 year study on fin then you have no business calling anyone stupid. The drug buys you time, that's it.

You're the one who claimed that FUE couldn't achieve 10000 grafts and therefore isn't a good procedure, and yet I'm the clown?

 

You then claim anecdotal evidence about finasteride wearing off means anything? "The absolute general consensus"? You mean what you made up? And how in the world is 15 years of stability not worth it for someone in their 20s as a norwood 3 getting an aggressive hairline procedure?

 

I also never lumped Konior's claims in with Feller, and I asserted this in the last comment very clearly. You lack basic reading comprehension skills.

 

You're a scummy idiot plain and simple. It's bad enough you argue so poorly, but you misrepresent everything I say and move the goal posts every post you make.

You really gotta lay off the personal attacks, makes you sound like a petulant little child.

I didn't say it's not a good procedure because it can't achieve 10k grafts, why do you insist on continuing to project your own brand of bullshit onto others? It's a great procedure for the right situations, consistently getting 10k grafts out of a donor is not it's thing, in fact getting more then 5-6k grafts isn't it's thing. It has advantages but total graft count isn't one of them. Of course there are exceptions but it'd be a mistake for guys to assume they are that, rules are rules for a reason.

You conveniently ignored my pointing out of the landmark study that showed guys are back at baseline after 5 years of fin, you get around 2 years of a increased hair count then it's all downhill from there. Fin delays and slows down the inevitable, it doesn't stop it. You're one of the lucky ones if you make it 15 years without losing ground. Now hopefully there's something else on the market to replace fin by that point but you can't rely on that potentiality that much, guys 15 years ago probably thought there'd be something else by now but here we are, relying on fin still.

15 years (or less) will come and go then all that hair that it's been holding for you behind that NW0-1 dense pack will be vacating your head. The transplants will remain. You now have to match that density across your whole damn head to avoid a really unnatural appearance (basically the opposite of natural balding where the front thins into the middle of your head, you'll have a thick front and thin middle/back). You don't have the grafts to do that, starting the hairline that low increases the surface area to cover dramatically and you've already used a large chunk of your donor. It's not a good situation.

So Dr. Feller is correct when he says the yield of FUE is in the average range of 75% and that no more than 1500 grafts should be extracted on any donor via FUE? Being a doctor doesn't mean they are immune from saying stupid, inaccurate and baseless statements. I didn't talk down Konior either, I said he is correct if we want to talk about absolute maximum donor capacity, but as a generality it doesn't make a huge difference.

 

Finasteride has a multi-decade efficacy and 80-90% respond with maintenence quoted by various studies. You don't care about statistics or facts clearly, but the facts say that if are if you're a norwood 3 and you get on finasteride you won't lose the rest for decades.

 

International Hair Loss Forum - Djeetee: 5500 FUE - Dr Erdogan - 27&28/09/16

 

And please, explain this case of a full blown norwood 6 to a norwood 1 with FUE if graft numbers are such an issue? Very few patients require more than 7000 grafts for full coverage and average density.

 

What can I say though, you have the intellect of a dead goldfish.

Lmao you're a clown bro. The longest study on fin was 10 years and you're here spouting off "decades" as if there's any evidence supporting that claim and have the balls to call me stupid in the same post. Might wanna look in the mirror, you're projecting.

The absolute general consensus is that you will start losing ground around the 10-15 year mark on fin, countless guys have experienced this to the point where it's odd to find a guy who hasn't lost ground by that point. There's also tons of guys who start losing ground after a couple years even though studies show most guys get a nice bump above baseline in the first 2 years then start a slow steady march back to baseline by year 5 or so (guess where they go after that...), it's not a magic bullet medicine it can stop working tomorrow and you're fucked.

You won't find me ever defending Feller on his 75% claim and you're trying to run a false equivalency by lumping FUT focused doctors in with ones like Konior who is great at both and does a lot of both, talk about moving the goalposts. We were talking about Konior, a surgeon who does both methods very well and charges out the ass for FUE so he has a vested interest in pushing it but he still will tell a prospective client that they should strip out first if they are looking like they'll need all available donor. Your attempt to minimize the graft difference is pathetic though not at all surprising.

I like this thread!

 

Just one thing, those w/fine hair and a bit lower density w/less avg. hairs per follicle (on avg.) and that are losing their hair at age 25 or younger - watch out!

 

I've been on minoxidil since the early 90's and am now using 30% minox compounded from a pharmacy the last 18+ months, been on propecia since about '96 or '97 and switched to avodart in '02. Use a 400+diode laser helmet since June '17 (high quality), been using nizoral 2% shampoo for 15+ years & have had 8,500 grafts done since '91. Last two surgeries were 2250 fut in 2004 and 5000 fut in March '17.

 

I'm 50 and have been losing my hair since probably age 21. It NEVER stops - regardless of how hard you try.

 

It's a progressive disease. Young guys 'hope' they have stabilized, and sure - at times you will.

 

Hair transplants for at least 50% are a lifetime commitment if you want really good results and you don't have thick/dense Spanish or Italian or Mediterranean hair.

 

Ever seen Indian or Asian guy's hair? It's poor in density and thickness and overall quality.

 

It's a long road and MANY guys even w/early hair loss will see what I am writing about once you hit your 40's (hairloss can accelerate no matter what) once you've been on drugs/lotions for 15+ years.

 

Good luck and yea; I'm gonna' do a couple FUE surgeries AFTER my final fut surgery next year. I'm hoping I have another 2-3K left in FUT.

 

peace

Yeah I see way too many guys who seem to only care about/focus on the present and the near future when the reality is that they have 40-70 years of life left and this shit is progressive in nature while the transplanted hairs most likely are permanent. It's a recipe for disaster if you go about it the wrong way and I see sooo many young guys dense packing their newfound NW 2.5-3 hairline back to a NW 0-1 with 2500-3k FUE (I see 4-5k too which is really bad). That bitch is gunna keep going and likely the midscalp and/or crown will go as well. The grafts add up quick.

I like your math approach, especially as some members an even clinics have proven to have some major issues with math (to calculate %, to distinguish between % and %-point, to calculate density). However, in your approach, you might (!) miss the point of e. g. donor laxity. If FUE reducses laxity due to scaring then this could explain the benefit of FUT first and FUE later.

 

It is just a comment, as ifetime grafts is not my main concern, I did not focus on it.

The guy tried to talk down Konior for fuck's sake. Talk about arrogant, you think you know better then a surgeon of that caliber as a layman then you've got serious issues. There's more to it then just pure graft numbers and %'s, I'm layman as fuck and even I know it comes down to scarring/fibrosis/damage to the existing grafts left behind/etc.

Very few people require 10k grafts or would want to go through that many due to time and cost constraints so that is a moot, ridiculous point to make. Before it was an appeal to authority fallacy, now a move the goalposts fallacy.

 

The grand stupidity of what you said doesn't count the fact that you can still get an FUT, albeit with a lower yielding strip after you have extracted 5-6k FUE grafts.

 

Regardless, the hundreds Erdogan and Lorenzo 5000-7000 cases (many with Erdogan 5000 in a single two day session) and total lack of misfires prove the hypothesis of Feller wrong. FUE can, and does on a daily basis provide top notch megasession results for high norwood cases and many of the doctors doing so are just as consistent as any FUT surgeon in the world.

 

You can't argue against the results. Many doctors aren't talented or experienced enough to provide successful FUE that stands up to FUT, the problem is these arrogant doctors who blame it on the procedure type, not the procedure itself.

"Total lack of misfires" lol just lol if you really believe that. They aren't gunna broadcast their failures or the patients who have raped donors and are shit out of luck when they inevitably lose their remaining native hair and need more grafts. And strips are horrible once you've raped the donor with FUE, you can't count on that giving you any appreciable amount of grafts once you've done that FUE damage. Also we are talking about total donor supply, no shit these FUE megasessions show some results, we are talking about when those guys lose their remaining native hair and need thousands more grafts to maintain their look, they aren't getting another 4-5k grafts out of that megasession FUE'd donor. This is especially pertinent for the young guys who Erdogan loaded 4-5k grafts into their frontal 1/3rd.

And the 10k graft number came from him hypothesizing that is what he has available and realistically NW 6/7 men need 10k at least to get a good result, every single case I've seen that's less then that would benefit immensely from thousands more grafts and quite frankly should've just shaved the remainder off and moved on, but that's their choice to make. And if you can't afford to move that many grafts you shouldn't have gotten a HT to begin with, no one can predict how bad your loss will get with the passage of time.

Finally, Dr. Konior told me that the way to max out donor is to strip out before FUE'ing out. IF you think you know more then that guy then you really are delusional.

The burden of proof is on you to disprove the coverage value system of Lorenzo and Erdogan, as they are the one consistently proving they can hit targets of 5000-7500 with FUE on average donors with no visible thinning. Likely over 1000 of these results visible online between them.

 

Provide evidence to the contrary in regards to RESULTS, or you simply come across as incompetent at arguing this. Bringing up Feller's complaints to argue against results is nothing more than an appeal to authority fallacy. It doesn't hold up to reality.

Lol well the most obvious response is that the men in those countries naturally have thicker hair so those doctors will have more examples to show off. And just because they can get guy's donors to appear non-raped after 5-6k grafts (7k+ is rare) doesn't mean they can double that amount afterward. You provide us with hundreds of 10k graft FUE cases and maybe I'll agree that it's something a man can count on.

Some members might remember the story about the “Interview” with Feller, Feriduni (as a FUE/FUT clinic) and myself, which finally never realized.

 

Nevertheless, I went to a second consult with Feriduni. Please be aware, I made an appointment for a consultation and not (!) an interview. Therefore, I only could ask some questions directly related to my case. I also did not record (of course) the discussion, but made notes before and after which I want to share. I also mentioned that I am in an online discussion about strip vs. FUE.

 

- Dr. Feriduni recommended FUE as the right procedure for me (same did Bisanga and Lupanzula but the latter is performing purely FUE so maybe that doesn’t count).

 

- This time I mentioned directly to Feriduni that I am open for strip if the results woud be significantly better

 

- I also mentioned, that in the past I always had my hair long enough to disguise a good strip scar

 

- Feriduni was confident that he could get results with FUE very close (or even similar) to his FUT and I had enough grafts available (which makes the lifetime graft count not a decisive factor for me)

 

- He mentioned that I am (most likely) a good FUE candidate (hair type)

 

- From what I understand it required many years (starting in 2003?) to come from 100-200 grafts a day to the numbers/results he does nowadays

 

- He also mentioned that he would defend his opinion (almost similar results with FUE vs. FUT ) against anyone and actually there is a lot of discussion in the FUE conferences about this topic

 

- Interesting point was that he told that on both sides (pro strip and pro FUE) there are “extremist” in both their opinion and their language (he mentioned the clinics names, but I will not publish them)

 

- He admitted that there is very poor scientific data (FUE vs. FUT) and we had a brief discussion about the scientific articles and how they are edited (would be worth an extra discussion).

 

- Interesting side note: Feriduni briefly explained different FUE extraction methods depending on the patients grafts (which helps reduce trauma but reduces grafts/session)

 

Background to put the recommendation of the clinics into context:

 

- I am 38 years old

- Currently require totally 2500-3000 grafts

- From my age and family history lifetime grafts required are ~ 5000 (if meds stop working)

- All clinics estimated around 10 000 grafts available via FUE (and above average thickness and number of multis)

As I am always suspicious and do not trust any doctor blindly (not Dr. Feller, not Dr. Bloxham nor Dr. Feriduni):

- I used the “coverage value” from Lorenzo/Erdogan to calculate the available grafts myself and also ended up with around 10 000 grafts

- Before I go for a big FUE session, I will do a minor fix for my W-Shape hairline (<300 grafts), which will hopefully tell if I am a good FUE candidate (how easy the grafts can be extracted)

- If I am not a good candidate I will do FUT for the major area (crown)

 

Maybe some will find this summary helpful.

The sketchy part of this is your assumption about future loss and how many grafts you'll need (requiring 2.5-3k now but assuming you'll only need 5k total over lifetime which is probably another 40 years of progressive loss), plus it's impossible to guess how bad your hair will get when fin stops working for you (not if, when). My hair isn't following any known family loss, it's earlier and worse. Also you say you don't blindly trust any doc but then seem to trust a doctor's coverage value equation in the next sentence.

Also 10k grafts from just FUE is pretty much unheard of, so unless you're in the very tippy top % of men then that's not right, most men get like 5-6k grafts before the donor starts getting that depleted look. If it sounds too good to be true... yeah you might actually be in that top % but I'd be very careful making plans on that.

Why would fin stop working? :confused:

I thought it loses effectiveness over time...

So what was the reasoning behind so many grafts in that area? Can you do a little before/after showing of each procedure? I'm assuming you did a couple of 4k FUT's after that initial 2k one? Are you worried about your sides dropping down at some point when fin stops working?

I was only norwood 2.

Started as a NW2 and got 3k grafts, don't know what everyone else in this thread is smoking... your temples look pretty receded in the pics you've posted (which admittedly are all face-on mostly with your hair shading the hairline and don't show the temple area properly, seriously take some good lighted pics with your hair pulled back and from multiple angles so we can see the hairline), where did the 3k grafts go? We need a post op pic showing the graft layout because you look like a NW2 right now...also I think the hairline edge is too straight/uniform which gives it a bit of that hairpiece look but again, close up focused pictures will help a lot.

Also FUE extraction can damage/stress the grafts enough to cause the hair to change it's character once it grows back in, which would explain why it seems markedly different to you. I'm preparing to get attacked for bringing this up but it's a thing that happens and is one of the potential downsides to FUE and it can come from both patient physiology and the ability of the person doing the extractions. Does asmed let techs do extractions or does the doctor do it all?

Sigh, I never needed to post on this forum before, I recently started looking into hair replacement and came here for help, not to be attacked as a liar or someone that is working for another surgeon.

 

As to why I never responded to Dr. Gabel, he messaged me (through this forum) and I don't really know how to respond. I don't know if it is genuine concern or a PR thing. Also, after the emails without any response, I didn't think he wanted me as a client and I wasn't going to call someone that didn't even respond to my emails. (I checked personal email and still haven't received any response)

 

I apologize if this is the wrong place for me to ask for help, that is all I wanted. Just a few recommendations, that's all.

 

Also, thank you Jean, just asking for help and getting attacked as disingenuous as a new member on the forum is disheartening.

Don't worry about it man, people are naturally skeptical on these kinds of boards because nefarious shills are a thing and this is a bit of a unusual thread.

If you run a search on here you'll find a lot of positive experiences with Gabel going back years (in fact this is the first negative toned one I've seen and I've read most all of them) so I'd say his PM is genuine. If he doesn't think you're a good candidate I'm sure he would just tell you that and give the reasons so you're educated about your situation, not leave you hanging. I find it amazing that he does the consult emails himself but naturally it means there might be more delay between emails or one falling behind as he's also doing procedures.

If you're too shook by it then either get in line for Konior in Chicago or go with Dr. Hasson in Vancouver.

Going to be honest, all this begging is a bad look. Likely a simple once off mistake in communication, but the fact that this posts warrants moderators and ten posters to come and back up Gabel (some to outright accuse him of lying about a common, basic error) certainly makes me less positive about Gabel, not more.

 

The response from Gabel was very fair and positive, but certainly if I was OP I would look else where when seeing this cult mentality. If his work stands up, he shouldn't need others including a moderator to beg a poster to have a consultation with him to the point they use insults and call him a liar. Take a step back and see how ridiculous that looks.

C'mon now this is a bit much, nobody is begging him to do anything, two or three have suggested he not give up on him over what is almost assuredly a unintended communication mishap and others were just asking for clarification on what exactly he experienced since it isn't that clear in his post. One person leveled a "shady" accusation and one other agreed.

While I didn't accuse him of anything but simply relayed my experience during the same timeframe this (supposedly) happened in and pointed him in other top doc's direction, the part where he points a finger at Dr. Gabel for "still refusing to quote a price at all" set off my alarm bells since he offered it to me as part of a email before I even had to ask him about it and OP makes it sound like he's been trying to get the Dr. to give him the price and he's refused/dodged it. OP ignoring the doctor's own post and all requests for more clarifying info have just added to my initial mild skepticism, forgive me for also being a bit suspicious at this point.

When I was doing my doctor research a thread like this would be very relevant and it's nice to hear a range of people's input/experience which is why I responded at all since you nailed the alternative doctor list right off the bat.

Strange, I've been emailing Dr. Gabel for a couple weeks now and just set up a date for the procedure and it all went smoothly, didn't have to press him for the price or anything like that.

But, what he said ^. In that general part of the U.S it's really Gabel and Konior at the top as far as I know, but Konior has a year+ long wait. Dr. Alexander is another one to look into, he's in Arizona. If Canada then H&W also are on the list.

Thank you for the info Tofur! I am definitely VERY lucky that Cooley is close by.

 

I have added some new High Res pictures. The first one is me with dry hair, that shows the thinning in the immediate forelock. This is where I have lost ground recently, which has prompted me to seek help.

 

The rest are wet closeups of the temples and hairline that show some pitting and the transplanted hair. Is there anything that can be done to fix this?

I'm not sure about fixing the pitting, that's something to ask Cooley. If nothing else the added density will conceal it for you.

I think it won't even take 2k grafts to reinforce what you have here, 1500 would be solid. If you don't want the scar to get any longer at all then that does limit the amount of grafts that can be taken along with the existing scar. This depends on your donor and how dense it is and what kind of FU's are near the scar.

Bosley 15 years ago compared to Cooley today is like comparing a 1990 honda civic to a 2017 Mercedes Benz.

Here's a Cooley result I saved when I was researching docs (going with Gabel but Cooley was one of the other 2 on my short list):

Thanks for all of the support everyone!

 

I'm trying to think positively about this. I'm just deathly afraid that my entire frontal forelock is thinning considerably, and then I'm really screwed. I definitely had a shedding period about a month ago that was consistent with a very stressful time in my life. Is it possible those hairs will grow back? The problem is that now I'm stressed 24/7 about my hair situation, it's a vicious cycle.

 

Having another FUT is a smart option in my opinion, because I'd love to try and revise the scar. However, I'm not comfortable with making the scar any longer. I may have to spread this out into two procedures, which sucks.

 

I went ahead and scheduled surgery with Dr. Cooley towards the end of December. I'm hoping things don't change drastically with my hair by then. I feel like I have to at least try to fix this problem, it has bothered me for SO long.

 

Can I really get a natural, full (appearing) head of hair that I can style anyway I want? I see so many amazing results on this site, but others that I would rather just shave my head with. And some are much more natural than others, which scares me due to my hair characteristics. Sorry for another long post, just looking for some reason to be optimistic.

 

Also, a few people have PM's me, but my PM isn't working. Just an FYI.

Cooley is a top 5 FUT surgeon in North America, probably globally actually. You're lucky he's nearby!

Yes, stress can induce a shed. I'm thinking that is the issue along with the normal seasonal shed we all go through around this time of year (July-August). When fin stops working in long term users it isn't a dramatic shut off like you're describing, they just notice that over time they are losing some ground as the drug stops halting loss as well as it had been.

These good FUT docs will remove the current scar as part of the new strip and then do a good closure for you, so no it doesn't have to get longer.

Technical question for the experts regarding strip scar size:

 

My current strip scar is about 14cm's long by .5-1cm wide. It's not too bad, but due to my hair characteristics, it's very hard to cover up even at a long length. When my hair gets wet, it is especially visible.

 

I am starting to feel optimistic about my upcoming procedure, but realize that to achieve my goals in the front, I will need at least 2000 grafts. Is this amount achievable without making my strip scar longer?

 

I really do not want to extend the scar into the sides of my head where I like to keep my hair short. I may have to spread this out into 2 sessions unfortunately.

 

I appreciate anyone's comments/expertise on the issue.

Damn 1cm is a huge scar, even .5cm is large for these top docs these days, most are no more then 3mm. Cooley will fix that for ya.

I know that, if you look back I've been following this thread since the begining.

Hands down best head of hair on this website, it's insane how less than a thousand grafts can make such a difference, this certainly proves a little goes a long way congrats bro keep killing it!

This is 8-10k grafts, the >1000 was a hairline touchup.

A question for the proponents of FUT - if I currently have long hair that's tied into a ponytail, will that have to be cut off or can be FUT be carried out without shaving the donor area?

 

If the latter is the case, won't FUT be the superior option for those who don't want to have their donor area shaved?

Yes FUT is the clear winner if not shaving the donor is important. They tape the hair above the chosen strip up out of the way and put a gauze pad down around the bottom then shave the strip itself and maybe a little bit on either side to make the incisions easier. Once it's done and sutured up your hair on top covers it.

FUT yields better

FUT done well provides a far smaller total area of scarring

FUT does not diffuse the donor

FUT takes the best section of the donor

FUT does less harm to the grafts

FUT maximises the potential of the donor

 

-

 

All that being said, there are some FUE surgeons - the usual suspects (Erdogan, Couto, Lorenzo, Lupanzula, Bisanga, Feriduni) who are getting better cosmetic results than the vast majority of FUT surgeons with the same amount of grafts, but even inarguably rivalling the cream of the crop FUT surgeons like Dr. Feller.

 

And that's all there is to it. FUT is better in the vast majority of regards, but for the best FUE surgeons the vast majority of the gap is closed. Even in regards to yield and consistency, Lorenzo for example has inarguably more results than any FUT surgeon in the world available for viewing online and has the track record to rival any FUT surgeon in cosmetic improvement per graft and consistency of high yields.

 

Some people just don't want a strip cut out the back of their head when they can instead just go to a surgeon like Erdogan or Lorenzo who 49/50 times is going to get results equal to ANY FUT surgeon.

Great post except the cosmetic results part, I really can't tell a difference cosmetically between the good FUE and FUT results. I don't have a dog in this fight since I'm probably going to have both procedures done at some point. They just have different functions and ideal uses and so often on here I see people pushing FUE as this cure-all miracle treatment that makes strip totally obsolete when it's not, at all.

I was initially totally against getting strip for the obvious reason (strip cut out, scar, eww gross no thanks) and also because I only had heard the surface level chatter about FUT vs FUE and the latter sounded like the new hotness, then I did the more research. Couple years later now I'm signed up for a strip with Gabel. My personal situation warrants going with strip until I can't anymore then still having the rest of the safe zone for FUE harvest, for me the thought of running out of donor is far more terrifying then having a scar hidden by hair. The rest of the FUT bonuses are just icing on the cake.

The only downside is the scar, and after some thought I concluded it really is irrelevant when you're in the hands of a top FUT surgeon, have a normal donor (i.e not thin) and never plan on wearing your hair shorter then a 3-4 guard. If some wizard snapped his fingers and a top doc strip scar appeared on my head without my knowledge I would have no idea it was there.

"Not true and you know it.

 

1) Dr Lupanzula and Dr Bhatti have both come on to debate you"

 

AGREE.

 

LETS NOT FORGET DR. JIM HARRIS AS WELL WHO LATER RETRACTED HIS STATEMENT AFTER MANY FOLKS HAD ALREADY A CHANCE TO VIEW HIS OBJECTIVE OPINION.

 

DR MICHAEL VORIES ALSO HAS JOINED THE DEBATE AND HAS DISAGREED WITH BOTH DR. FELLER AND BLAKE ON MANY ACCOUNTS.

 

SO THERE HAVE BEEN FOUR WELL RESPECTED SURGEONS WHO HAVE DISAGREED, AND WE ARE STILL WAITING FOR ANOTHER FUT/FUE HT SURGEON TO JOIN THE DR. FELLER CRUSADE OTHER THAN BLAKE.........

As far as I can tell Dr. Bloxham is right, how those three detrimental forces have been overcome was never explained, and frankly I can't even begin to imagine how they would be without violating the laws of physics but I'm not a surgeon so my knowledge on the subject is obviously limited. There are cases of great FUE results that appear to match FUT so obviously it's possible to move a couple thousand grafts and have them survive the ordeal well enough to grow in healthy, or maybe those patients just had ideal physical characteristics for the procedure which combined with the great surgeons doing the work is what minimized the forces on the grafts as they were extracted. More studies need to be done obviously.

There's no question it's a procedure that requires a lot of experience and skill to pull off consistently well. This makes all the FUE tech mills popping up very concerning, so many guys are getting burned by misleading marketing about how it's this new great procedure that's scarless and supersedes strip in every way. The over harvested/damaged/halo'd/moth eaten looking donor is becoming the new version of the old-school bigass strip scar.