Doug Monty

Vories is the only one recommended one here. I don't particularly like his work and documentation to be honest. But that is just my opinion.

 

I don't like the Neograft device at all. The grafts are violently sucked out of the scalp with little to no regard for the surrounding tissue, potentially tearing the protective tissue around the graft in the process. Great FUE surgeons carefully use forceps to gently pry the graft out from the scalp, poor FUE surgeons merely yank the graft out once it has been punched. The Neograft device yanks the graft out in a similar manner. The grafts, once extracted via vacuum suction, are stored in an air chamber which is constantly circulating with air, giving potential for desiccation(drying, dehydrating) of the grafts. The grafts continue to collect in the air chamber until the surgeon empties them out.

 

It is no secret that I am very pro-FUE. But Neograft, in my opinion, is not a good thing for FUE. In fact, I think it is ultimately detrimental to the progress of FUE. I'm no fan of the ARTAS device either as the results that have come from it have mostly fallen well short of the promotional claims made by the manufacturer.

Mickey, arguing with you is like trying to convince the Taco Bell Dog that you prefer a Hamburger.

All the traction corrosion suction BS was created by a couple of hacks who were jealous that we built a pretty awesome device and have been proven wrong. And it keeps getting repeated by drones like yourself, but that's okay. We are now one of the biggest names in the Hair Transplant industry so we have to put up with the little people nipping at our heals.

We get it. In your country people like the old ways of doing things. And guess what the old way still works.

I think your the type of person who would only approve of a mechanical device if it was powered by Elven Magic and because of this there is no arguing with you.

But seeing how you love FUE so much you can't be all that bad.

Spanker,Arrie,Since21,Mickie85, and hsrp10,

 

 

 

Thank you all for taking the time to view our patients results. Excuse me, if you could not see the 4 days post-FUE photo to the right of the first day FUE photo. That photo shows his donor area 4 days after his surgery. Spanker, agree with posting some macro photos we shut in RAW. Hope this helps to further elucidate this topic.

 

 

Can you please explain why Dr. Arocha uses the Artas system for such a very small amount of the hair transplant and then uses a motorized manual punch for such a large portion of the head?

This is the second hair doc today which needs to use a second motorized hair punch in order to successful complete an FUE proceudre when started with the Artas.

It almost is starting to sound like a bait and switch technique.

Or the old "Fox Test" to determine if the patient was a good fit for FUE before they were switched to a strip procedure.

Hi,

 

We understand that there are some issues of growth/concerns with few of our patients who had the Artas used.

No matter what type of procedure we do at SMG, we take utmost care in achieving satifactory outcomes . Please contact Matt or myself so that our physicians can review your files objectively with proper pictures and surgery data. If there is an issue of yield with the Artas, we'd certainly like to know about it. Aside from few posters here, the feedback we've been getting from our Artas patients have been positive. There is a conference next week with Restoration Robotics and all the physicians using the ARTAS, it'd be good to present our cases whether it's positive or negative.

 

When we first started using the Artas, the main concern we were hearing was the size of the punch, that the dull punch size was considered too big and therefore it may create unexceptable donor scars. We started and still maintain our cautious approach in using the Artas. We generally start off the two day FUE procedure by using the Artas the first day. If the grafts look good under the microscope we'd proceed, or switch to SAFE if the extractions were difficult. The second day we'd use the SAFE method to even out the extraction pattern and get remaining grafts needed.

Hi Janna,

This just sounds crazy to me. Can you please go into more detail on the problems which you encounter using the Artas.

1. It takes you two days to do a 2000 graft procedure using an Artas?

2. You state you Generally Start off a two day procedure using the Artas?

What makes you switch back and fourth between the Artas and the Safe scribe. Your Doctor has said in prior posting that the Artas is superior. http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/170216-artas-fue-transplant-dr-paul-shapiro-2007-grafts-3.html

3. Can you show us some examles of the bad grafts you get using the Artas. What makes the grafts look bad. Is it the Double punch technique or is it the proding of the grafts to get them to come out of the scalp?

4. By your statement it appears that no matter what the quality of the grafts are you use the Safe Scribe to even out the extraction pattern on the second day. Can you please explain this more, it does not make sence to me if the Artas is a superior system that you would need to go back to very old technology.

5. It seems to me that your practice is promoting the Artas but are actually still relying upon the bulk of the procedure to be performed by the Safe Scribe as you state you use the safe scribe on the second day (Again your words not mine).

6. If the Artas is this difficult to get quality results with one of the best hair docs in the world is this because of the system, training or patient?

7. When the Artas was first designed there a reason why the Dull punch was large. It worked better with a larger punch. However patients/doctors want a smaller punch. Did forcing to go to a small punch due to patient and doctor demand force an unknown quality issue with the Artas? Thus causing bad grafts and the need to continue to use the Safe Scribe.

I am looking forward to your answers,

Best Regards,

Doug

This is quoted from a doctor that does FUE only surgery.

 

Limitation of Neografts

 

Well Lorenzo if an FUE Only Doctor says it, it must be true.

Did you see the video of Dr. Basin's patient. Looked pretty amazing to me. But what do I know.

I think it's great that Hasson and Wong never want to get the NeoGraft.

Dtemin,

Don't be fooled by the hype. You should look into getting a superior NeoGraft procedure with a NeoGraft doctor.

We problably have more NeoGraft systems in doctor offices than all other devices on the market combined.

There is a reason for this. The market has determined what works best for the patient.

Because NeoGraft was an outsider and not developed in concert with a "Hair Only" doctor. It was looked at as a something bad for the industry. But we have single handledly changed the face of hair transplants in the USA and have grown the FUE market exponentionally.

Dont be fooled by the Hype or the BS from all the posters who claim otherwise. They have all been proven wrong many times over.

 

Dr. L was terrific to work with. He speaks candidly about your condition and the treatment options. Compared to my last doctor who did not spell out the whole process, this came as a much needed alternative. Speaking of past doctors, I won't name names, but do not try the Neograft system. After more than a year with that treatment, there was no noticeable regrowth.

 

Dr. L and his assistant took about 6 hours in total and the procedure did not hurt at all. We were not able to harvest as many follicles as hoped, but we are hoping the results will still be good. In fact, unlike some docs who might say they will charge you a certain amount, Dr. L was honest about the lower than expected harvesting (if that's the right word?) and he charged me less money than I was expecting.

 

I will post photos shortly but I have not seen much of a difference at this time. I realize it may take a few more months to begin to see growth. Here's hoping for the best!

I am curious why the doctor was not able to harvest as many grafts as you might have hoped. 6 hours for 630 grafts seems like a very long time for such a small amount of Grafts. I think most posters would agree that this is a very long time for such a small amount of grafts. However after researching the doctor, the largest FUE case he has profiled on his website is only 750 Grafts. I was actually quite surprised at this. Considering how warmly he is received on the boards. I would consider this a Red Flag for FUE patients, especially those that need a lot of hair transplanted and quality growth all in one session (unless he just has not updated his website - then disregard).

I think that most posters/doctors would agree that you should see more growth at the one year mark than what was shown.

I did a side by side from your Pic #1 in your first post and your pic #2 from your last post and personally did not see a noticable difference.

One of the questions I would ask, is, if the lenght of time for such a small case had any effect on hair growth? Seems like a "Red Flag" to me.

Hope you have more hair growth at the 18 month mark. If not, I am sure the community could recomend another doctor who maybe specializes in transplanting into scar tissue.

Doug,

 

It's unfortunate that a NeoGraft representative would conduct himself in such an unprofessional manner in an otherwise healthy debate. While experienced physicians like Dr. Mike Vories who regularly produces excellent results using the NeoGraft device has done a service to the device, you are doing a great disservice by coming in swinging and attacking members who have an opposing opinion.

Bill,I guess we have a different idea of what we consider to be a "Professional" environment. Seems to me that all the completely unfounded agenda driven opinions are being stated as facts.

For the record, this website consists of thousands of members who are entitled to their own opinions even if its publishers don't agree.

 

For the record, the publishers of this community don't feel the NeoGraft (the machine) is "bad" (as you put it) but does not recognize NeoGraft as a "procedure". Furthermore, we have concerns about how NeoGraft (the company) has marketed the device to neophyte surgeons and inexperienced technicians.

 

For the record, NeoGraft used almost the exact same wording to market and promote the NeoGraft as the makers of the Feller Punch and the SafeScribe. The only difference being we built a far superior device and did not have a "chosen one" as the inventor. For a moment, just think about common sense....if there is no difference between the devices and its all doctor driven or to your most ardent anti-neograft crowd, the NeoGraft is just horrible, why would a doctor spend $100,000 when he/she could have spent a fraction of the cost for the other two. It just does not make sense and the free market has spoken and anti-NeoGraft people are just not happy.

 

 

As a device, the NeoGraft hair transplant machine comes with a list of potential advantages and disadvantages like other tools/devices. Moreover, the success of the device depends largely on the experience and skill of the surgeon. This is true for every tool used for similar purposes.

 

There are those who've mastered manual tools, the SAFE Scribe, the ARTAS, the motorized Feller Punch (etc.) and there are those who've mastered the NeoGraft. Like physicians, patients have their preference and opinions about varying extraction and implantation devices. But put any of these tools in inexperienced or novice hands and you're creating a recipe for potential disaster.

 

Bill again you have no idea what you are talking about. Let me be perfectly clear instead of beating around the bush and being polite.

 

Several years ago at an ISHRS annual invent in Orlando the NeoGraft went head to head against the SafeScribe. We had a Tech and Dr. Bauman harvesting with a tech doing most of the harvesting and Dr. Harris was using the safescribe. Not only did the Tech and Newbie doctor (at the time) outperform the safescribe and the inventor , the transection rates were not even close with the NeoGraft being far less than one percent and the Safescribe being over 8%. I was there along with 100 or so other doctors.

 

We never actively promoted this because we did not need to. Bashing someone else's tool is just not good business sense. Now that we are the 400 Pound Gorilla in the room it does not matter.

 

Also Please Please Please tell me what one Single Disadvantage is using the NeoGraft than is not an opinion from some troll.

 

 

 

One thing these devices all have in common is that they are tools physicians/technicians use in follicular unit extraction (FUE) procedures. Whether or not one is truly and objectively better has yet to be determined since physicians all have their preference and have mastered various tools.

 

Yet you would never know that from reading posts from your website. However when the master of one tool (safescribe) was outperformed by a tech, in a head to head match up, supervised by 100 other doctors at the ISHRS. I have to disagree with your statement.

 

Keep in mind, if the NeoGraft had been out performed by the Safe Scribe and Dr. Harris, we would still be hearing it today. This is the reason why doctors would rather spend $90,000 more for out Device than to purchase a Safescribe or other similar device using the same principles. It's what is BEST for the PATIENT.

 

Another thing to keep in mind. Its been FIVE FREAKEN years since the NeoGraft was introduced and all the Doom and Gloom BS of how the NeoGraft was going to set the industry back 10 years with all these "New" Doctors starting to offer hair has now come and gone and all been proven false. If Fact NeoGraft has done just the Opposite. It has grown the Hair Transplant industry and has changed FUE to the New Gold Standard for Hair Transplants.

 

NeoGraft has continued to prove you and the core group of bashers wrong year after year.

 

Doug, as an official representative of the NeoGraft, we welcome your input and invite you to participate constructively in discussions. However, if you are going to resort to insulting this community and its members and/or making knowingly false and misleading claims (which are in violation of our terms of service), your posting privileges will be suspended.

 

I am a Hair Loss Suffer and NeoGraft patient who happens to work for NeoGraft. No different than any other person on here who works with or helps answer questions regarding a certain doctor or procedure who happens to be affiliated with a certain practice.

 

Please afford me the same freedoms as everyone else. Also let me know if I have made anything which was false or misleading and I will gladly correct it.

 

I wont ask you to do the same for all the posters who have posted Negative Agenda driven comments about NeoGraft because that would take too long to correct.

 

As far as micky being full of C@#P I was at a loss for words regarding all the False and Misleading statements which he made and thought this was the best word to full describe his entire view and agenda driven posts.

 

FYI I had a NeoGraft procedure and not a Hair Transplant with the NeoGraft.

 

 

Best wishes,

 

Doug Monty

Doug Monty,

 

Are you here officially representing Neograft? I have been asking openly in the forums here that Neograft representatives willingly field questions from forum members so that all forum members can learn more about the Neograft company, product, and practice.

 

NeoGraft has been around for 5 years and we have been bashed on this site since day 1. Our latest system costs $100, 000 and we probably sell more of these per month than Dr. Feller's punch or the safe scribe combined. But yet these two tools were deemed superior to the NeoGraft for years. In fact the NeoGraft went head to head against the safescribe at an ishrs meeting. The NeoGraft outperformed in speed and quality. And we had a tech do the bulk of the harvesting.

 

If you are not here as an official representative, I still am interested in hearing more about your support of Neograft; at the same time, as a non-official representative any comments you make are highly suspect:

 

Read everything negative on here and take the opposite and you will have all your questions answered.

 

I believe they're approved members of this web site who offer a NeoGraft procedure. They can fill in what you want to know. I would highly suggest you contact them to get a professional medical opinion. Obviously anything I tell you is going to be seen as biased.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Can you provide documented support for this claim - preferably with official support from the Neograft company? How can we verify, for example, that your avatar image is what you claim and not actually a hi-jacked image of a strip procedure?

 

I took the picture, I had video posted on here several years ago, not sure if the link is still up here.

 

I am very interested in all aspects of hair transplant, including Neograft. It would be great if Neograft has indeed developed a tool that allows someone with no previous experience to successfully extract all perfect grafts with no damage to any grafts during the process - really, that would be fantastic. I am very interested in this claim. Can you or another official representative of Neograft support this claim with documentation?

 

 

Thanks!

 

- Nathaniel

 

 

 

 

Blake,

 

I do appreciate very much your desire to insure a certain degree of etiquette in this forum; however, I ask that you please refrain from censoring Doug Monty's comments or blocking his participation. To my (albeit limited) knowledge no Neograft representative has made an appearance in these forums. Although Doug Monty's demeanor is not at all appropriate for any corporate representative in a public forum, he does claim to be an employee of the Neograft company in some facet - the first such employee/representative to date. Hopefully Doug Monty will realize that making inappropriate comments as a representative of Neograft ultimately do not in any way reflect positively on Neograft as a company or a product and only hurt the image of Neograft - company, product, and employees - regardless of the Neograft's actual abilities whatever they may be. If he does not realize this then it is Neograft, and ultimately Neograft's employees, who will literally not profit from such poor representation. With this in mind, I again ask that you not censor or ban Doug Monty. As I previously stated, I am very interested in what he has to say - whether it reflect well on his company or poorly.

 

- Nathaniel

Nate,

Just please go back in time and read the mountain of negative info out there about NeoGraft and ask yourself, if a NeoGraft procedure was as bad as this web site claims then why would we be so successful?

Doug,

 

While you are more than entitled to your opinion, this type of aggressive behavior on the boards will not be tolerated. If you would like to debate the merits of FUE extraction devices, you are more than welcome to do so. However, telling people they are "full of crap" and calling the individuals associated with our site "hacks and quacks" will absolutely not be tolerated.

Dear Pot,

Remind me to call kettle.

Thanks,

Black

The good news is that you did not go through a NeoGraft procedure. ARTAS is significantly better than NeoGraft in terms of yield. ARTAS currently uses 1mm punches(although the .9mm punch is said to be available very soon?) and even with scarring(or missing follicles) you still should be able to shave down to a grade 1 or grade 2(I assume the former due to the small quantity of grafts taken). A grade zero would be unlikely however. You may be pleasantly surprised by the result but I do think you will need a subsequent procedure to cover more area but on the plus side you will have more hair on top. Chin up buddy, it is way too early to dwell and there are positives with you.

Micky you are so full of crap. You and the rest of the hacks and quacks on this web site who have bashed the NeoGraft because as a whole you all saw the NeoGraft as a threat to your small little pockets of existance.

Who and what do you think single handedly changed the landscape in the USA for FUE procedures - NeoGraft. Look where FUE was 5 years ago and who was doing it and where it was now. Look at the high profile docs who were pimping their little machines and where those machines are today.

With 100's of systems out in the field, and on-going patient and physician education. The general public has been made aware that there is a far superior medical procedure for FUE hair transplants - a NeoGraft procedure.

Additionally you can't compare graft quality, with NeoGraft with any other punch system. The grafts with NeoGraft are far superior. There is no difference in function between the safescribe and the artis, when the graft is lined up with the punch.

Put your thinking cap on and think about that.

Once scored the grafts still have to be poked prodded and you have to pull on the hair, causing additional damage and trauma to each and every graft. This is not in dispute.

Also with the safe scribe and artis, you have no idea if you are getting transection. With the NeoGraft you know each and every time what the graft quality is because you see each and every graft after harvest.

Bottom line is a NeoGraft procedure has always been the most advanced method for FUE hair transplants producing the best grafts with the best results.

I recently sat in the audience in Miami and listened to a golden follicle award winner bash NeoGraft as I watched him proudly show off his video of a strip procedure where he proudly uses a knife used to skin a deer to cut the grafts off of a strip. Massive trauma to the underside of the grafts and this guy was supposed to be an expert.

Fyi my avatar image is of 500 grafts harvested by a nurse who never did a hair transplant before. All perfect grafts

Blake,

I agree with almost everything you wrote.

I knew this was going to be a tough question to hear or answer.

I Understand the team approach. Tom Brady and Bill Belicheck make a great winning team. Bill calls the plays and Tom Brady gets the work done on the football field. But who is more important?

Anything that is not consider politically correct is not going to be termed a useful exercise.

However it is a very valid question for patients.

If the doctor stays the same, but the team members underneath him change and they are the ones doing the bulk of the work. Shouldn't the patient know this or else be prepared to ask the questions.

Yes doctors do wear a lot of Hats, the Hair Techs only wear one. And yes it is a team effort.

But every member of a team typically has a person who is the MVP.

Getting back to the initial subject question who is more important to hair growth, the person putting the game plan together or the person handling every single graft multiple times and then implanting?

With the massive increase in FUE Cases over the last several years and in light of recent legal decisions and other posters dancing around the issue, I think its about time to ask the question:

Who is more important to a successful Hair Transplant Techs or Doctors?

Sure I guess you could say they are both important. But the question is who is more important.

For patients seeking a strip procedure, the doctor is responsible for removal of the strip and closure and typically responsible for hair line design and making the sites.

The Techs are responsible for slicing up the strip into appropriate sized FU's and then implanting the grafts. In cases where the doctor promotes stick and place, the techs are more than likely making the slits for the sites just prior to placing the grafts.

In either case the techs are handling the grafts several times and are typically that last ones touching the grafts as they are implanted.

So from a strictly hair growth standpoint; it's the shaving of the grafts, the gentle handling and the proper placement of the grafts which is actually going to directly contribute to hair growth.

It does not matter how small the scar is or how beautiful the slits look...... if the grafts shaved and placed by the techs are not up to the standards of the doctor or industry standards the Hair Transplant could have a negative outcome.

When its all said and done it is the tech who will have more of an impact on actually hair growth than the doctor.

Obviously for FUE cases the Techs have been taking the lead in this time consuming tedious procedure for years. It's quite common for techs to be doing the harvesting along with the implanting.

Even in practices where the doctor uses a rotating tool or does harvesting by hand its frequently left up to the techs to actually remove the cored out grafts from the patient and once removed they are sorted and then implanted by the techs.

So while the title of this thread may rub some people the wrong way the reality is you better make sure that the doctor you choose has high quality techs because they will typically have more to do with the actual hair transplant than the doctor.

I was prepared to have my head shaved to make everything easy for the Doc, but they said it would be better to leave the hair but short so as they can see the direction of the surrounding hairs and then match the transplanted hair witht the surrounding hair.

This seems to make sense. I would also think the transection would be lower from possibly cutting existing hair when your making the sites.

Actually I answered everyone one of your questions.

I wanted to get a baseline on how you were getting your info and asking you how many procedures you have witnessed and which types is a valid question, especially if you are giving your opinion.

and you came back with?

ad hominem:

If you have never seen a case, which I will assume, since you refused to answer the question. I have to also assume that all your opinions on the NeoGraft are based upon another doctor's Input who had a competing tool.

No real conflict of interest there.

I have see many doctors operate, using different FUE tools (hand and motorized), Strip, cases, Eye Brow's, Body Hair, I have spoken with the patients before, during and after these procedures - I don't pretend to be an expert. Just a purveyor of facts as seen through my eyes.

Please don't confuse a good debate with an argument. If you have ever taken part in a debate in school the one who thinks the debate is heading down the argument path is the one with the least points at the end of the day....

I know we have come down a long path, from the start, but the First Poster was just looking for a place to get some FUE work done and we ended up here.

Respectfully yours,

Doug

Future_hair Doc,

I am actually enjoying the debate, so no you can't hurt my feelings.

Since I have been doing my best to answer as many questions as possible on my day off, maybe you can answer a few of mine.

How many FUT procedures have you been seen live?

How many FUE procedures have you seen live?

With how many different doctors have you seen perform these procedures?

How many different Hair Techs have you seen sitting at desks slicing off grafts underneath Microscopes with lamps too hot to touch for hours at a time?

How many different Hair Techs have you talked to, to find out the extent of their experience or their length of employment?

As far as the ill informed arguments of Torsion, Traction, Compression, Overheating, and Desiccation. The video clearly shows this to not be the case. If you look at the slow motion portion, you can actually count the number of revolutions which it takes prior to harvesting the graft about 3.

One of the best selling points of the system is when we have a doctor ask, "well doesn't the suction dry out the grafts"?

Then the other question is "well what about all the damage from going through the tube"? Then we show the harvested grafts and they look like the below link.

Doctor's who see the procedure live, have no worries of any of the unproven accusations which were leveled at the NeoGraft in the past.

I really enjoy the argument of grafts drying out. And then ask questions about how long the strip stays under the microscope and is rubbed, squeezed, pressed and cut.

I have let slide a lot of recent comments/statements which you/Bill imply I made. Please if you are going to quote me on something and then counter point at least get what I said right the first time.

Also show me where I ever said anything negative about any other tool on the market.

The FDA Approved our 510K also our manufacturing facility ISO Certified.

Artistic Value - Show me where I said anything about the NeoGraft having anything to do with Hair Line design.

I am not sure where you were headed with the Strip Stuff in the video, its just in there to show the difference between the two procedures for patients who are not familiar - anything else and you are reading way too much into it.

We have recently had quite of few plastic surgeons either enter or re-enter the world of Hair Transplants. Many have done this in the past and got out for various reasons.

However I find it hard that you are going to tell a plastic surgeon who is capable of re-attaching hands or reconstructing a face that they are not capable of making the slits to gain a perfect hair line design.

Currently there are no qualifications for any type of doctor becoming a Hair Transplant Physician, just as long as they are a MD or a DO (maybe even DDS). This is evident by the diverse background of well respected hair restoration physicians we have today.

Anecdotal evidence? How is almost anything within this industry not considered anecdotal? Show me where statements like Torsion, Traction, Compression, Overheating, and Desiccation (as it relates to the NeoGraft) are not considered Anecdotal and are supported by Data.

I have spoke with Doctor's who have used other FUE devices and they have told me that they either could not get them to work as described or they kept on breaking.

The NeoGraft is a complete FUE Hair Transplant System it allows for people to harvest as well as implant. Hair Techs who have been implanting for 15 years are probably more comfortable implanting by hand. But the system gives you the option.

You are correct when you say that the NeoGraft is a New Device and that we cater to practitioners who want a better faster way to get FUE Hair Transplants performed.

To Quote a well Respected Hair Transplant Physician

"This tool also offers the unique combination of LOWERING operator skill level requirements while actually RAISING the quality of each and every extraction. This translates to faster 'ramp-up' times for new doctors interested in adding FUE Hair Transplant surgery to their practices; as well as making for easy and near seamless integration into clinics that already offer FUE to their patients.

This device allows not only for greater quality of extraction, but greater speed as well. Much greater. And all without any extra risk to the grafts themselves. The same cannot be said of other FUE tools on the market.

All these unique benefits result in far less fatigue for the doctors, technicians, and patients. It's important not to forget this all important (but often ignored) human factor because in the end any 'work product' will only be as good as the vitality, enthusiasm, and confidence possessed by the doctor and team at the time of the procedure.

The obvious purpose of the tool is to facilitate the FUE procedure for practitioners; but that is only part of a far greater strategy: the sparking of a new and legitimate industry that's inclusive of ALL practitioners-novice and veteran alike.

The bigger picture is to elevate the current 'cottage industry' status of FUE to a more mainstream role in hair transplantation; and to forever strip away the mystery, hype, and secrecy with which it has been unnecessarily surrounded by since it's inception.

However, for this field to grow, the credibility and exposure of the FUE technique must increase, and I can think of no better way to achieve this than offering a device that makes it easier for hundreds or thousands of other doctors to get into the FUE field themselves. Once they get a taste of the success I've had with FUE over the past 7 years, a greater number of doctors will join the FUE ranks. More successful FUE practitioners means greater numbers of satisfied patients, and thus a more popular procedure with ever increasing demand. Everyone wins. "

Dr. Alan Feller 3/29/09

I could not have said it better myself and I agree 100%

Hi Bill,

Hopefully I answered all your questions.

Doug,

If the FUE procedure was so easy, then not only every hair restoration physician would be performing it with consistent excellent results, but a $90,000 machine wouldn't be needed to perform it.

= You actual help to make my point with this one....FUE is easy if you can get the grafts out. Prior to advances in technology grafts could not be easily harvested, which is why you had doctors feel the need to say it was an "Art Form" to get the grafts out....because it was...Yes it is a very expensive system and its not for everyone - especially for doctors who have no patient base that wants FUE.

The problems I have with the NeoGraft machine isn't whether or not it's effective, it's your marketing strategies.

1) It's being promoted and overhyped as a superior machine over other FUE tools (which by one of your very employee's admission on another discussion topic is unproven)

= Not sure what you are referring to, but I know of no employees who feel that way, but I do know several who have had the procedure done themselves. I do know that the NeoGraft system has gotten a lot of exposure this past year. I do know at the last ISHRS Live Work Shop the NeoGraft outperformed expectations in front of 100 doctors.

2) You're attempting to market the NeoGraft as a distinct type of procedure which you believe requires it's own name giving NeoGraft the credit. I've already seen a couple posters ask about the "NeoGraft Hair Transplant" as if it was something distinct from FUE. For all I know, this is just one of your employees attempting to covertly sneak the term "NeoGraft" into the term "hair transplant".

= Is Branding a procedure wrong? Have you ever heard of CIT or any of the other self identifying techniques which Doctors use to help distinguish themselves from their competition.

3) You're placing much more importance on the machine than the physician who uses it which I believe is a huge mistake and disservice to prospective hair transplant patients considering FUE.

= Well you really do need to see the procedure live. When considering FUE I personally would choose the machine over a doctor harvesting by hand, its all about graft quality and you can not tell me that the human hand is that repeatable after 1000's of attempts.

4) You reject what the leading hair restoration physicians say regarding patient candidacy and mislead prospective patients into believing that FUE is the only viable option worth considering.

= Your Web Site only Recommends TWO hair transplant doctors who perform FUE. So forgive me, if I take those comments with a grain of salt. I see countless doctors who do not perform FUE so it is no surprise that people they see are not "good candidates" for the procedure. On the flip side I see doctors who are FUE only and are doing quite well. The official position of NeoGraft is that its up to the patient and their doctor to determine what is the best option for their procedure. The NeoGraft does open up patients who may have not been a good candidate in the past. Keep in mind that Doctors may say a patient is not a "good candidate" because they need 2000 grafts. And the doctor just can not spend 4-5 days on one patient to get the case done.

5) You're using anti-strip scare tactics to sell your tool to patients (which is quite interesting in itself considering it's the physicians who are your real market)

= What you see as anti-strip, I see as transparency. When I went in to have my hair transplant consultation, the video I saw, showed the hairs magically float from the back of the head to the front of the head. No real mention of a strip being removed - or if it was it was so quick I did not notice. Again I went in for an FUE procedure but was talked out of it because I was not a "good candidate". Even though the doctor advertised that they did FUE.

The bottom line is, NeoGraft is just a machine to aid an FUE procedure and as long as there's proof, it deserves some, but no more recognition than any other tool designed to accomplish this purpose.

Well the NeoGraft is FDA Approved and made in an ISO 9001 certified facility.

I also think it's funny that your company feels the need to attempt to sell the concept of NeoGraft to prospective patients as it's the physicians who ultimately have to "buy in".

Are you hoping that if you can convince the patient community that NeoGraft is superior that they'll put physicians under pressure to spend the $90,000 on a NeoGraft machine?

One major doctor who uses and whose been outspoken about NeoGraft charges $20 per graft. I don't see the patient community trying to convince physicians to charge more for surgery, especially when there's no real proof that NeoGraft is any better than other much less expensive FUE tools.

= Well the cost of the machine is a major downside, personally I wish it was less expensive I think we would be able to sell more.

The cost of the system can lead to higher prices for the patients but the bottom line is, if all the tools were the same - quality, speed, ease of use - do you honestly think that doctors would spend 15 to 20 times more for a system if everything was equal and produced the same results - especially in this economy?

Best Regards,

Bill

Not only does the below video link show the entire procedure from start to finish it also includes some before and after photos.

http://app.talkfusion.com/fusion2/view.asp?NTcyNDU1_2421254

Future_HT_Doc, Actually I thought my points where pretty good, especially on how easy the FUE procedure is, the importance of technology and constant need for continuous improvement.

But most importantly the importance which the Hair Tech plays in the procedure which is often times over looked.

I am not really sure anyone is arguing, just open discussion and give and take of view points.

If we all had the same views then these boards would not be as popular as they are.

I think you need to go back and actually see what, if any of the exact claims I have made, instead of interpreting my comments.

TC - to expand on my technology point. "You" could still take a picture which landed on the cover of Time Life. The picture you take today, is still better than the best photographers could take 100 years ago.

But if you were to take an average professional photographer and then put in his hands far superior equipment; it could then make that average photographer great. Just like if you were a new photographer just learning, if you put great equipment in their hands the learning curve to greatness is shortened.

Hair Line Design and harvesting grafts really have nothing to do with each other. Once high quality grafts are harvested or sliced they are ready for implantation.

The "Art" which FUE Doctors talk about and refer to is the harvesting aspect. It is this Harvesting Art which prevents doctors from performing this surgery - it takes a long time for true "Art" to develop but technology is fast and easy. Every doctor talks about their "Artistry" of hair line design and as well they should.

Doctors are responsible for Hair Line Design and Closing the donor site. The Hair Techs mostly do the rest of the work.

Look at WWI Figher Pilots, don't you think they are a little jealous of the kids who fly Unmanned Air Craft today - using a joystick from 1,000 miles away. There was an Art to flying and not getting shot down back then. Versus a kid texting and flying a plane at the same time.

Again if you look at what my claims are, that I have seen a person who never harvested hair in her life knock out 250 High Quality Grafts in no time and compared this to a well respected doctor who is an FUE expert not able to effectively harvest grafts with a manual tool. My point being advancements in technology trump the old way of doings things almost every time.

I guess we can agree to disagree on how simple an FUE procedure is. Personally I have seen plenty and it’s pretty simple and doctors who I have talked to have agreed.

In order of difficultly which one of these steps is really that complicated that a trained physician could not master?

Who performs the consultation?

Who designs the hairline?

Who administers the anesthetic?

Who makes the recipient slits?

Who determines if the grafts need to be trimmed before implantation?

Who makes certain grafts aren't being removed from outside the universal safe-zone?

The doctor could do everything pefect and if the hair tech was mishandling the grafts they could damage every single one and result in poor hair growth.

Thankfully we live in a free market system so doctors can charge what ever the market will dictate.

Compare this to some strip surgery doctors charging $1 to $2 per graft. Personally I would want to pay more than $2 per graft for a procedure - just like I don't want to eat a $1 dollar porterhouse steak at a restaurant.

At least give me the perception of quality.

Hi Bill,

I was not trying to be difficult, I was just pointing out the fact that the Poster wanted to have an FUE procedure done to make some more volume in the front. He was still in recovery from his strip procedure. And he was being directed to go to doctors who will not meet his needs - this is not in the best interests of the patient. And this was ripe for the bait and switch potential which I have been subjected to in the past.

Not 100% sure how soon after a strip procedure that it's safe to get another strip procedure. But this person wanted FUE and FUE Only - probably to have all his hair come in together. Which in this case FUE is the ideal procedure for this patient.

I am a hair loss sufferer myself and am in need of a hair transplant. However just like a large portion of the population - there is no way in hell, I would ever let a doctor carve a piece of my scalp out and then hand it over to a bunch of people to cut up and then place back in my head. No matter how undetectable the scar is going to be, its just not going to happen, I would rather let nature take its course. So just because the "best" doctors in the world says its the "best" procedure, its not the best procedure for me...and after all it's "ME" that counts and has the final say so on the matter.

Just like every other Doctor who has a "tool" they say it's easy for Doctor's to use and learn. Some Medical Devices are just more user friendly and repeatable. And if you can make the medical device so effective you are able to take the word or phrase "Art" or "Art Form" away from the procedure. You have a superior Medical Device. Doctors who say that FUE is an "Art form" are referring to the Harvesting of the Grafts. When I think of the word “Art” I don’t think of Highly Repeatable medical precision and science. Doctors can say that they have “artistic” techniques to enhance beauty. But I do not want a doctor to use the word “Art” in any way around the harvesting of the grafts. This tells me that his technique is not repeatable. And if they are doing 1,500 grafts is graft 1 going to be the same quality as graft 1000 after fatigue sets in - if the process is an "Art Form"?

150 Years ago if you wanted a picture you had to paint one, 50 years ago if you wanted to make a Disney movie you needed 100's of illustrators. Today because of superior devices and improvements in technology “anyone” can take 100's of High Quality pictures in minutes and I can make a cartoon movie; render, edit, lay down a sound track and publish and get millions of views just sitting in my kitchen.

Not really sure what issues can arise with an FUE hair Transplant its one of the most basic of all cosmetic procedures. When you break it down an FUE procedure is pretty straight forward. Your harvesting hairs from a donor site using a very small punch, inspecting them for quality and then implanting them. The donor site then heals naturally.

An FUE procedure is so basic I will bet you that most doctors have their Hair Techs harvest most of the grafts.

So there are only "two" doctors in the entire country who you would recomend for an FUE procedure? What is this saying about the industry? Not really ideal for someone who wants 500 grafts to fill in the front hair line and has to travel 100's of miles to get it done.

Well that in no way anwsered my question.

Flashcab is looking for an FUE procedure in Chicago and if you look up the web sites of the doctors you suggested, they either say they do not offer FUE or they are vague about it.

If there are no Doctor's in the entire state of Illinois which the Hair Transplant Network would recomend for an FUE procedure, then FlashCab needs to know this. What he does not need is the ole' bait and switch....which we have all been through from Doctor's who say the do FUE and then try to talk them into a small strip procedure.

I am not sure that I ever classified FUE as a "Delicate Art", I would say its difficult to perform with out extensive practice or a truly "State of the Art" medical device.

Future_HT_Doc,

I think FlashCab is looking to have FUE performed. Do any of the docs you recommended actually perform FUE? And if they do how often do they perform the procedure - what are their results like.

As you know from working with Dr. Feller, FUE is not easy which is why so few doctors actually offer the procedure; unless you have great skills honed over time or have the best equipment FUE is a tough procedure to do.

Flashcab,

I am not sure of any Doctor's in Chicago who use the NeoGraft to perform High Quality FUE Hair Transplants, but I am sure it will not be long until a well respected "Board Certified" physician steps to the plate and gets one.

I am not sure if I would classify the NeoGraft as a Tool. At close to $90,000, it is a highly repeatable Hair Transplant transplant system which is FDA Approved and manufactured in an ISO 9001 facility.

Non of the other "tools" are FDA approved and I doubt that they have gone through ISO approval process (but I could be wrong).

Personally if I was going to have something surgical done to me, I would want it done with an FDA Approved piece of medical equipment.

My image is from Grafts which were harvested from a Nurse who never worked on a hair transplant in her life. As you can see they are quite nice. She harvested about 250 grafts in two hours while she was training. Not bad for a first time. All High Quality grafts.

I have seen long term ISHRS FUE Doctors who had troubles harvesting FUE Grafts by hand - and I would put this first time user Nurse using the NeoGraft up against their harvesting skills any day of the week. And I am sure the Doctors would agree.

I also would say that it is a combination of the Physican, Hair Techs and Graft conditions which makes a great Hair Transplant. I am sure there are some physicans out there who perform 100% of the procedure. But the vast majority do not and in fact it is the Hair Techs which are most involved with the outcome of your procedure.

I have not been offered any PM's for Romance yet...please forward some to me.

I just watched Dr. Feller's Video and he is 100% on the money with his statements.

FUE is a great adjunct to anyone's practice.

The bulk of the Hair Transplants being performed are "strip procedures" but yet at least 15% of the population wants to have an FUE performed. But so few doctors want to perform FUE because it is tedious and time consuming.

So to break it down:

If you typically see 100 patients a year and you end up turning away 15 of those patients who want an FUE procedure performed.

To use "MAXXY's" Dr. Feller example:

15 Patients

$10 Per Graft

1000 Grafts

_____________

$150,000 in yearly revenue

Eventually more doctor's will start to see offering FUE is not only a viable option to the bottom line but there is a sizable patient demand for this type of procedure which is not being met.

There currently is a real demand for FUE for scar repair and for patients who can't have any more strip surgeries. I am sure it's in the patients best interest to have these procedure performed by the same Doctor who did their Strip Procedure.

Dr. Feller is 100% correct once doctors start to offer FUE as an alternative, the industry will start to grow, the doctors will make more money, the cost to the patients will go down and the quality will go up.

Doug Monty

Note: I work for NeoGraft the Global Leader in Automated FUE Hair Transplant Technology

According to the ISHRS Leadership FUE done with a 1.0 mm punch or smaller is going to leave virtually undetectable scars.

I was just at the American Academy of Cosmetic Surgery convention 2 weeks ago, with the NeoGraft on display.

We had a doctor visit our booth who had a NeoGraft FUE procedure performed with 3,000+ grafts harvested. Another doctor asked to see the harvested area, and for five minutes he was combing through his very short hair trying to find even one hint that grafts were harvested. He found no evidence.

So is FUE totally safe? I guess it is when you compare it to a strip procedure, but more invasive when you compare it to topical hair loss treatments.

Doug Monty

NeoGraft