Dr. Alan Feller

actually I think it is crucial to this whole thread, you knew exactly where that clip was from and lead people to believe that was from the head, you used under the chin example where the skin has completely different characteristics and didnt say a word, misleading people and now you've finally admitted it. thank you

You really like to put words in other people's mouths, don't you?

As I wrote in the very next line that you quoted it looks like head hair to me. No misleading. That's what it looks like. And it is immaterial where on the body it is.

The purpose of showing the clip is to show the force of TRACTION which Dr. Bhatti said did not exist. Well, clearly it does. Even if it is on the face where the skin is flexible the grafts still have to endure tremendous traction force, it's just easier to see it.

But to my mind we are looking at the occipital area of the scalp. Am I 100% sure ? No, because the "video" is really a collage of clips from three areas of the body. The reason I don't think it's face is because the facial hair area looked to be much lower density. But again, it doesn't matter.

So please do not claim that I am misleading people.

@Hair Jo, for me personally the information that has been put fourth isnt much, Dr Bhatti's racking grafts does scar me, but does it cause poor yields, perhaps yes or perhaps no, certainly looks bad. the video clip that Feller used to expose his 3 forces argument wasn't even FUE it was BHT, which he doesn't perform, but FUT supporters fell for it hook line and sinker,

 

@ Stig Dr Feller is in NY and Dr Bhatti is with the rest of the worlds HT surgeons are in Chicago, which suggests to me that Feller was not willing to go into this debate with his peers, he can only argue on line, of course he'll say he's booked up, but last I heard he was only booked up 3 weeks in advance, conveniently as the conference is ending.

 

Ive said this all along, 5000+ grafts needed go the FUT route anything less go FUE so for now there is still a place for both methods, but if people start their battle against hair loss earlier FUT wont be needed and I predict that within 10 years FUT will no longer exist,

Seth, you really are a nasty and unabashed liar aren't you?! I have reported your antics to the moderator, again. You will not succeed in trying to intimidate me off this site.

For the sake of the general audience:

It doesn't matter if the video clip shows body hair or head hair, the presence of tremendous traction force is available for all to see. Besides, it looks like that clip is focused on the lower part of the back of the head, not the face or body. The density of the hair also looks to be scalp. But again it is of no consequence.

By the way, I did plenty of BHT long before your doctor even considered doing HT and found it to be bust. About 1/3 successful growth, so I don't offer it. Just another lie that because I don't offer it for money I can't do it. Ever get tired of hating? One thing you have shown me for sure: you can't be liked by everyone all of the time.

 

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

Matt,

That's not what I said nor suggested.

I only asked you if you believed European physicians have business incentives to push FUE since you already wrote that American physicians had business incentives to hard sell FUT.

I wanted to see if you knew you were applying a double standard.

I'm not going to comb through 150 pages, I remember you said the forces could not be completely overcome only reduced, you said this when you answered my question as to how you specifically overcame the three forces. You presented an FUE case in which you did FUE in to the strip scar do you remember?

Excuse me, but if you are going to quote someone on a public forum you should be ready, willing, and able to back it up. Clearly you can't because I never wrote it. So remove the false quote.

You are now trying to claim that my saying the detrimental forces of FUE "can't be COMPLETELY overcome" is the same as my supposedly saying they "CAN'T be overcome" ? I don't think so.

Remove your false quote.

Apologies for the mis-post. That patient asked for help to sign up for an account at the office and the secretary left it open on the computer. Now straightened out.

Dr. Fellers claims that the "three detrimental forces" can not be overcome.. .

HTsoon,

I never wrote nor said that. You are just blindly quoting Dr. Bhatti (an FUE-only doctor) who made it up and falsely attributed to me.

Show me where I ever said or wrote that the three detrimental forces cannot be overcome. Find it and then cut and paste it right here. I challenge you.

Spanker - I strongly believe that hair transplants by themselves " pull forward " any pending hair loss in patients that have new grafts placed between or around existing hair . It has happened to me twice now . While I am happy with the transplanted hair , I certainly lost a lot of hair around it . Now mind you the transplanted hair quality (donor hair) is much better than the thinning native hair that was limpy and hard to style so the net effect is a +ve enhancement to appearance.

VERY popular misconception. It is tempting to think this, and it may even be true in cases where the transplants are placed right into very thinning areas. But what people forget is that by the time a patient has actually gone out of his way to seek out HT help he is already well on his way down the hair loss road. By the time he has an HT he has lost an alarming amount of hair. And by the time an HT starts growing its another 8 months down the road as well. All that time the genetic balding has been at work doing it's dastardly thing. In a case like the one I presented here it is just a matter of time that the forelock would be targeted and eaten away "pac man" style. Usually a bit longer, but perfectly within the norm. Hair loss is progressive and that needs to be taken into account in each and every patient which is why I usually opt for more conservative hairlines. More forward hairlines are very appealing to young men, but doesn't serve them well as they get older and lose more hair. Also, when hair is lost behind the transplanted front line, the front line looks a bit thinner. Better to keep the hairline a bit high and have the grafts necessary to "back fill" if necessary. That's what we did with this patient and why he is signed up for another small procedure.

Thanks for playing. More coming...

Is it just me or is 10 months a ridiculously short period of time to go from a very strong core lock to heavy loss? I know it happens but it is very infrequent and I've never seen it in any person that I knew "in real life."

 

What was this gentlemen's age and was he on fin?

Sure you have, you just don't think about it. Most people lose their hair in spurts, this was his time. To lose a small section after already having lost the rest of the top is more the norm than anything else.

He is in his early thirties and is not on Fin due to side effects.

Ok, time to give the answer.

The photos are REVERSED. The photo on the right is the BEFORE photo. He had a good forelock, but the rest of his hair was gone. The photo on the left is the AFTER photo. After about 10 months. The hair you see me holding back were the hairs we transplanted around the forelock 10 months prior.

What actually happened is that he had a very strong forelock so we transplanted around it. But hair loss being as unpredictable as it is he lost it sooner so it left a hole where it used to be.

If you look at the photo series included here you will see in the real after photo at your far right he has a nice thick top thanks to his transplants, but a hole visible where the forelock used to be. So he is now booked in for a second smaller procedure.

Yes.

By the way, I know how you feel, I lost my hair too and got it back with FUT. I would not do FUE on myself unless I absolutely had to. These chat sites are filled with FUE hype and has been taken on as almost a religion by some of the regular and more vociferous posters.

FUE has it's place, but not on a patient like you. You are still losing hair and will need more up the road and need every hair you can get. Pack out the front and LIGHTlY into your forelock with about 3000 grafts via FUT. If you do FUE you will need even more grafts to compensate for the lower yield.

Because I am always accused of "marketing" I will ask that you do not consider me for your transplant (not that I am saying you were). There are GREAT FUT doctors out there with LONG track records of success. Try the following for FUT(I'm excluding doctors I have financial relationships with). These are some of my favorites:

United States:

Konior

Hasson and Wong

Shapiro Brothers

Rahal

Alexander

Gabel

Europe:

Feriduni

Deveroye

Bisanga

Go with any of these guys and your chances for a knock out result are MUCH higher than if you go with FUE no matter how caring and skilled that practitioner is. That's just how it is. This is reality. By the way, some of those guys do FUE themselves, and some damn good FUE, but if you want the BEST chance for knock out growth with minimal donor damage only go with FUT. You'll be very glad you did. No matter how good or bad an FUE result is, an FUT would have been better. No exceptions. Go with any of those guys and come on here in 10 months with your results and I have little doubt this board will be singing your praises and you will owe me a beer. Don't gamble with your scalp or your donor area, you only get one in this life.

Best

Dr. Feller

I've been contributing thoughts in a separate thread but failed to add pictures to support my questions and story.

 

Background:

 

*Almost 35 year old male suffering from hair loss for almost 10 year.

*Loss and been progressive but steady. I've been quoted most recently for 1800 +/- grafts which was the same recommendation made when I had my first consultation 3 years ago.

 

FUT vs FUE consideration:

 

This has been a more difficult topic that I originally anticipated. I came in with an understanding that FUE offered a quicker recovery and no scar in exchange for 80-90% yield / thickness / quality equivalency vs no scar, quicker aesthetic recovery (for someone w long hair) and more predictable consistent results with FUT.

 

I've since come to understand there's some wildly different opinions on this topic. The one piece of agreement "appears" to be that an expert surgeon can mitigate much and make differences negligible between procedures

 

Me:

 

I live a very active and entertainment heavy lifestyle so am very conscientious about continuing to mask this. Its been an exhaustive process for the past 3 yrs thats been very damaging to my mental health. I'm somewhat proud of myself for lasting this long given when my frustration started. I've being using courve and toppik with some solid results but the process that I undergo everyday is painstaking.

 

Priorities:

 

*Outcome / Results are my # 1. Well above $$, scar, etc

*I would love to avoid a scar and/or not shave my head while getting equivalent results, but not at the expense of the quality.

*Some concerns over fully recovery from scar but hear its not bad

*I want to factor in subsequent surgeries in my decision. (ie FUT/FUE combo)

*Should 1800 grafts factor, and which should come first if so?

*Cost is not factoring into my decision

*Recovery time is important but I am taking a month off from work

*I intend to make a call in the next week

 

Surgeon Consultations:

 

Bernstein: His history is what attracted me to him, and being based in NY. His bedsides manner and demeanor leaves much to be desired, but its also the kind of temperament that suggests extreme confidence and comfort---qualities I do want in my surgeon. Admittedly, even as a NY'er who appreciates the dry manner and wit, extracting answers from him has been a challenge. He is confident, short, and direct about his direction that I should have FUT. He seems "safe".

 

Harris: I saw he was the recipient of the Follicle award and he was advancing FUE techniques with the SAFE system. These felt like compelling factors and a strong reason to add him to the consideration, particularly if considering FUE: http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/177464-dr-james-harris-honored-2014-golden-follicle-award.html

 

He's been very fair in both of my consultations, not trying to sway me in either direction but delivering confidence that concerns about "messing this up" by choosing the wrong procedure is much less a factor, rather, the surgeon. He's provided a ton of info and do feel drawn to him.

 

Shapiro: I've consulted with Jeffrey Shapiro (not sure if theres more than one Shapiro) he has also given me a ton of detail. He doesnt focus on just hair which for me is a big detractor, but has been a voice that has level set some of the opposing opinions that the other two seem to share. He leans with Harris in being able to delivery equal FUE results

 

This forum seems to be a big advocate of H+W and Feller to a degree as well. If Im overthinking I want to be told I am. If the decision between this group and choosing either procedure will be negligible in differences, I want to be told as well.

 

Thank you

There is a very big difference between FUT yields and FUE yields. If you have good physiological characteristics AND you find a good FUE doctor then you have a chance of a good cosmetic result. Great, even. However, you will not know if have good physiological characteristics until AFTER you've done the surgery and waited about a 8 months to 14 months.

With FUT your physiology does play a role, but not nearly to the extent that it does in FUE. I have rarely seen completely failed FUT procedures, but I have seen this many times in FUE procedures. The reason is the excess trauma placed on the grafts during FUE as compared to FUT. It is simple common sense.

Also, if you chose FUT the majority of your donor area will be available for future procedures up the road, whereas after 2500 to 3000 grafts of FUE the donor area will be pretty scarred making it more difficult to get more grafts up the road.

Also, most FUE clinics quote higher numbers to cover the same area as FUT clinics to compensate for the expected lower yield.

Here is a patient not much different than you who rebuilt his hairline and thickened the top in one 1800 graft FUT session.

Best of luck in whichever you choose.

I flew a few days after my procedure - and I was "asked" to take my hat off when I went through airport security. I did not have the quick wit of Dr. Feller to say that I just had scalp surgery! gotta remember that one ... What I also encountered was that they took my saline spray bottle which had less than 10oz of saline water - but because the bottle was not clearly marked for size, they didn't allow me to take it through security. Luckily my flight was not that long, but I did go into the plane's bathroom and soaked some napkins and used them to squeeze some water on my grafts - a little hint from the doctor's office! Other than those few things, travel was alot less stressful and fearful than I had imagined. Nobody really cares .. and that's the honest truth ...

Wow, I hope you used bottled water and not the airplane tap water!

I think you mean FUT can harvest more grafts in a single sitting, when you say yield you're talking about the growth of the grafts, it's a hotly debated topic on here, but in my opinion the difference in yield via FUE vs FUT is insignificant, 1,800 grafts is relatively small for FUT, not sure why you'd want to do so little grafts with FUT, even for hairlines typically 2,000-2,500 is a good amount.

I must disagree with this on two levels.

The first is that the difference in yield via FUE vs FUT CAN be insignificant, but more often than not is NOT insignificant. This is the unabashed truth regardless of internet FUE hype and explains the second point:

The second is that while FUE may need 2,000 to 2500 grafts to achieve a significant cosmetic difference on the hairline as mentioned, FUT can do it with less far more often because there is no need to overload the area to compensate for a lower yield.

Here are the results of a patient I did FUT on years ago. I just picked these photos off his own blog just now. Look at what 1800 grafts of FUT can do. It is hardly insignificant, and this patient's hair is anything but thick. He has classic thin and silky hair.

No growth at 3 months can be normal. Don't sweat it.

You should be seeing sprouts by 4.5 months. Come back on then and share your good news.

Most of the time the new transplants are put in at a "neutral angle" not much different than the angle of the original hairs when they were the there. The problem is that in the hairline the original hairs were softer because they were thinner, and this made them more pliable and "styling compliant". Unfortunately, BECAUSE the original hairs in that area were thin, they were prone to falling out if male pattern baldness was in your future, which it obviously was. NOW you have put in new hairs from the donor area which are comparably thick and not as flexible or "style compliant. The good news is they are not prone to fall out.

It's great to try to plan for a particular hair style before a transplant, but I have learned that it's best to tell patients to stick with which ever style looks the best after the first year and stick with it, even if it's not the original style the patient may have been hoping for.

This is not a new concept for any of us since as we were losing our hair we changed our hair styles to maximize coverage. So go with what looks best with an open mind rather than trying to force it into a particular style. Remember, an HT is about the illusion of having more hair than you really do and styling plays as much a roll in this deception as do the hairs themselves.

Grow well.

Dr. Feller

I have had many many patients fly within 12-24 hours of the procedure with absolutely no problem. In fact, the sitting up in the plane for however long the flight is is actually a good thing as it allows the fluid and swelling to drain downward away from the transplants whether you had FUT or FUE.

if you have FUT and surgical staples are used there will be no problem going through the magnetometer. This is because while the staples are in fact metal, the density is very low so the magnetometer doesn't sound.

If you wear a hat that is usually no problem. If security asks you to take it off tell them you just had scalp surgery and would prefer not to and request they "wand" you instead. It's just another magnetometer which is hand held. Don't ask me why they bother since you will have already gone through the big magnetometer, but that's how it's done. None of my patients have ever had a problem nor been embarrassed.

Best of luck with your Ht and grow well.

Dr. Feller

sorry english is not my native language, where is the forelock? Just above the front?

That puff of hair right in the front.

What's left of your hairline.

Also, is it Enrique Iglesias? And was he your hero?

I'm going to give the answer today with pictures. But where did Enriquie Iglesias come from????

This is the "Mohawk effect" so I can see why 2 K might seem like enough, FUE or FUE.

But if you look into the forelock itself it's thinning, so best to fill that area as well in the same procedure.

Probably closer to 3K. At that level FUT is best.

Best to you

The less the contrast between hair and skin, the better it looks. You can do more with fewer grafts. Great when we get these patients.

Dr. Bloxham of Feller and Bloxham, PC discusses:

In other words, there was a mix-up when compiling this patient's case photos? Both are "before" photos, taken months apart (note the longer hair in the photo on the left) that could be, and possibly were initially confused for before-after photos of work on the patient's frontal forelock?

You are so close, Pup. So close !

The only difference between the photos is the haircut, no HT or treatment has been done?

He definitely had a hair transplant. Did it myself.

What's wrong here? Think a bit out of the box.

There is a virtual Ferrari in it for whomever figures it out.

This fellow walked in for a consultation. Says he had 2000 FUE grafts across town with limited results. While he has VERY DENSE donor hair that partially obscures my picture, he has a "shot gun" blast of scar across his donor region.

 

Dr. Lindsey

This is exactly what I've been talking about. Thank you for posting this photo.

Those FUE scars speak for themselves. Prime example of FUE confluence of scar.

Of course in and of themselves these scars are not bad, but they exist in stark contrast to the claims made by FUE advocates on this and other forums. Fortunately he has plenty of hair to cover them. But if this is the case, he should have just gone for FUT and his growth yield would have been better.

Answer to be announced tomorrow with photos.

There is something wrong with the case being presented below. Can you figure out what happened and what is not quite right about this presentation? What do you think the plan was, and what actually happened? This is definitely a trick, but if you're really good, you'll figure it out pretty quickly. HT doctors invited to chime in but all may try for the prize.