Brently

Thanks Blake! Now I feel like we're making progress. 1) Excellent diagram. I can see how the scar would be bigger than the wound because the new tissue would need to anchor itself into the healthy tissue rather than being simply a plug that fits into a hole. Maybe we should call it "scar tissue" and "anchor tissue". Even with that revelation, you still haven't demonstrated how the anchor tissue "changes the way the tissue responds to FUE". My first assumption would be if the tissue is in the process of healing and containing fibroblasts and collagen, why wouldn't that same tissue (when transplanted somewhere else) be more able to assimilate than tissue containing no fibroblast or collagen? On the surface, it seems like 2nd-round FUE could have a higher rate of survival. Can you show why it doesn't? 2) That's a good point comparing 300 grafts to 3000 with the same scar... only it's not necessarily the same scar. Dr. Feller said he experimented with various suture types to determine the type that leaves minimal scarring, so that indicates that scarring varies according to suture type. Also, I've read that genetics plays a role and I'm assuming environmental variables. I accidentally cut my leg with a knife near the knee. The hospital used staples and I tried to not bend my leg for the entire 10 days the staples were in, but I guess I can't control what I do while sleeping. The scar is about as wide as my finger and about as long. Can you guarantee that an FUT procedure will leave a 1mm wide scar? 2b) It does seem like mFUE would leave minimal scarring because the wound is not very long. How many grafts can you get with mFUE from ear to ear? 1500? So, we would be comparing 300 to 1500 to 3000 with similar scarring? 3) The 10% number came from you: 80% - 70% = 10% roughly and just for sake of argument. So your claim is that the 2nd round fails 10% more often and that is what you need to prove. Comparing shotguns blasts to random dashes or 30cm lines doesn't mean much if you can't show why it matters. What if your claim is false and I can get 80% on the 1st, 80% on the 2nd, 80% on the 3rd? Or what if I can get 80% on the 1st, 85% on the 2nd, 90% on the 3rd? I think if you can prove your claim, that would end the FUT vs FUE debate for good. But it hinges on the existence of what I've called "anchor tissue" and that tissue extends substantially away from the scar tissue and grafts extracted from the anchor tissue have a substantially less survival rate. If you can't prove that, then it's just someone's opinion against someone else's opinion. Also, not only do you have to show that's it's possible for grafts taken from anchor tissue to have less survival rates, but that it's substantial and likely. Otherwise maybe it's 80%, 79.9%, 79% on 1st, 2nd, 3rd rounds only some of the time while the remaining could be 80,80,80. Or maybe it's 80, 60, 40 only 10% of the time while 90% of patients get 80,80,80. You seem to be implying that it's 80,70,60 in 100% of the patients.

Is there a way we can substantiate that statement beyond a doubt? I can't understand why scar tissue would extend beyond the damaged skin into healthy skin as seems to be the claim. If you put a 1mm hole in skin, what will be the diameter of the scar tissue? If "o" are hairs and "X" are hairs removed, then every "o" touching an "X" is a hair that is less likely to survive a future transplant? oXoooooXooooXooooo ooooXoooooXooooXoo oXoooooXooooXooooo ooooXoooooXooooXoo oXoooooXooooXooooo Then why not do this? ooooooooooooooooooo XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX ooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooo Same number of "X", but arranged touching less "o" Whatever that scar would amount to, it couldn't be worse than FUT and the width of the scar would be more consistent than the scar of FUT. Right? It would be a 1mm scar 100% of the time. No genetic variable. No suture type variable. Anyway, we still need to substantiate your claim before making progress in this debate. Even if you "think" you notice that 2nd-round FUE transplants fail 10% more often, without careful statistical documentation, it's not much different than me "thinking" I see the clock reading 11:11 more than any other time. This is especially true if you're biased to notice effects that seem to support your theory.

How did this story end? Which did you choose?