Dr. Alan Feller

Maybe he won't, but I do. That said, his reasoning is correct, FUE hairlines do not seem to pan out as well as FUT hairlines. So forget any extraneous information. Just look at the two and observe the differences. It should come to you shortly after that. Give it another shot.

I'm not sure it's "every post" , but to be sure FUE vs FUT is the hot topic. You think I and all North American doctors favor FUT over FUE solely for business reasons, nothing else? Is it possible that non-North American doctors favor FUE solely for business reasons ?

Thanks, post op makes more sense. But how can you tell from that photo how deep the incisions are in the skin ? Or, is it the other way around, you see more blood and therefore assume the incisions must be deeper?

Matt, Why do you think that would be my point? Because it could actually be true, or, because it is actually untrue but I'm disingenuously pushing my agenda? And in your view, what is my agenda?

I'm not sure what you meant by FUE "pre op". Did you mean "post op" ? And when you say "incisions seem deep" do you mean each incision appears deeper into the skin or the incisions in general are placed farther back from the hairline toward the crown?

Good thinking. That SHOULD be true. But it isn't...if you know what you are looking for between the two photos. Give yourself a moment to just look at the two and compare the differences. It will come to you as the differences are fairly obvious.

Try and get a bit more specific if you can. When I reveal which is which and why it would be interesting to see if the reason for your answer matches. Was there any particular characteristic that helped you decide?

I'm not going to give the answer yet because I want to see what others think first and why. But you think it's because there isn't enough hair shaved in total in either? That's interesting. I will tell you that they are not both FUT. And I will ask you another question. How many grafts do you think are represented in each case? Hint: it's the same number. Thank you for playing.

Why do say that lileli ?

Again, not very believable. Your video in and of itself is scandalous. A virtual tutorial on how to mishandle grafts during FUE extraction. And it ran against every word you wrote about "advancements" in FUE surgery on this thread. Moreover, it supported everything I had been writing. In your zeal you posted it because you believed everyone would be impressed with the SPEED of your technique. But in doing so you blinded yourself to the increased graft mishandling that speed would necessitate. You also underestimated the HTN community by thinking they wouldn't notice it. They did. Right after I posted my critique of the technique in your video you knew you had to pull it off but couldn't because you knew you'd get caught. That's the only reason why I can still reference it now. So you went into damage control mode and created the edited version. That in and of itself is not clandestine. But going back into your old post to plant it there in place of the original video is blatant subterfuge. You did that so that any reference to your own post, or any search engine that happened to find that post in your name in the future, would have the edited video and not the original. Then you would let some time go by when attention turned away from this thread and quietly kill the original Youtube video, leaving just the edited version. And if this thread were ever pulled up by anyone in the future your new edited link would still be there, while the links to the original video that are in my posts would be broken. Or, you would have just kept the links in my post alive but switched in the edited video on the Youtube side very quietly. At the eight day mark after posting the video you ran into a problem though, didn't you? I suspect you found that you could no longer edit your post and make the switch because the edit function for that post expired. So to get into your old post and make the change you had to contact Bill to allow it. You wrote as if he knew and approved of what you were actually going to do and why. While he gave you "permission" to make an edit, I doubt he knew what you're intentions were in doing so. If you wanted to post a new video, that is, an edited version of the one you already had already posted, I'm sure Bill would have told you to just make a NEW post so there would be no confusion. So my guess is that Bill is not aware of what you did once he unlocked the edit feature on your old post. I suspect when he learns of what you did and why, the old link will be re-established, as it should be. There could be no other explanation for you going back into an old post eight days after you posted it to switch out the link to a new video. If you wanted to make a new version of the video that "focuses more on the surgery", or whatever, then you would have simply made your edits and published it in a NEW post with the headline "New Bhatti Video", or something like that. But you didn't do that. (By the way, I still fail to see how blurring out most of the video and shortening it by one third "focuses" more on the surgery. But it's your video. ) It is clear you don't want the public to see that original video any more than they have to. The fact that you blurred ANY part of it out shows any rational person you are indeed engaging in a cover up. Literally. And the fact that you went back into a post you wrote 8 days prior and changed the link to a newly edited video shows again that you are engaging in another level of cover up. Had the scenes you deleted and blurred had nothing to do with our debate then I wouldn't have said a word. But the opposite was true, everything you edited had everything to do with our debate and so should never have been edited and switched in your original post. I have not shamed you Dr Bhatti. You have truly shamed yourself through your own actions. I will alert the moderator to your activities.

Below are two patients with similar balding patterns and hair characteristics who received the same number of grafts. Which was performed by FUT and which by FUE? Why?

I wrote an article that was published in our industry journal about the issue of sunburn. In the nineties I had a patient who decided to play tennis for several hours between 10 am and 4pm at the start of the spring. He did so without a hat and received a massive sunburn. The works, hyper redness and swelling. Classic case. And like you he came to office in a panic worried that it might hurt his grafts. Upon exam his skin was very red with very white dots representing where the grafts were placed. The skin was very tender to the touch and puffy with swelling. Almost as if he had just had a transplant within the last few days. When your skin turns red in the sun it's not because you are baking like a turkey. The color change is a protective response to the sun. The heavier the tan, the greater the response. There are cells in the skin called Chromophores. These cells, when activated, create the color change. But after a hair transplant these cells are not active within the transplanted tissue. They are likely not even alive. So when the sun strikes the skin, the healthy skin around the transplants become red, but the graft tissue itself remains uncolored. This is why you should stay out of the sun for the first six months-because the grafts can't protect themselves from heavy sunlight like they could before the transplant. That's the bad news, the good news is that new Chromophores will develop in the graft tissue and begin to start allowing even the grafted tissue to tan and protect itself. Back to my patient from the nineties. So I gave him some oral steroids to help with the inflammation and sent him home. he visited months later and guess what... all his grafts grew with no problem at all. So even with only 6 weeks of healing time the grafts endured a second degree sunburn and "laughed it off". So I should imagine that at 6 months your transplants are fine. I'll post the article I wrote about it here after surgery today. Hang in there and grow well. Dr. Feller

I insist my patients shower every day starting the day after surgery. So you should be fine on that score. As for reflexively scratching your recipient area if you didn't see any blood streaming out then you are likely fine. When you dislodge a graft you KNOW it. I don't know about your clinic, but I also insist my patients start rubbing their recipient area during shampooing starting on the third day to help mechanically start breaking up the scabs. Feel good and grow well. Dr. Feller

That's a good question, and an important one. You should not drink alcohol starting 10 days before your procedure because it impairs the ability of your blood to coagulate or clot. I have had patients who have ignored this instruction and they tend to bleed more during the procedure making it harder to keep the grafts in their recipient sites and making the procedure take a lot longer than it normally would. Interestingly, I've had patients come into my office for a procedure drunk! As you can imagine he was asked to come back another time. Any other questions feel free.

Couldn't tell you why people or doctors do what they do. It doesn't always make obvious sense. But I know the mindset.

I know you're being sincere, Mickey. I think you and I have reached an accord of civility and mutual respect and I think we are both the better for it. Now on to your question: In the real world, while the gross number of FUE procedures is indeed rising, it is not doing so at the expense of FUT. As I predicted, FUE has become an ADJUNCT to strip surgery, not a substitute. Most patients going for FUE have already had FUT performed within the past 5-7 years. Look at the very patients Dr. Bhatti posted daily on this thread.They ALL had FUT in the recent past. That is, they chose FUT over FUE initially. Most of these patients would not submit to another strip surgery for various reasons so they would have been out of the market. But with the FUE option they will give it another shot. So the overall market of HT expanded by having the FUE option. As for "first time" hair transplant recipients it's the same thing. Most of the people who submit themselves for FUE simply would not have FUT under any circumstances. But with the FUE option the market EXPANDED. And of course the number of FUE practitioners exploded. Not so much in the US, but in Europe. Now a newbie doctor can get into the field with little training, no need for a large facility, or a large staff that needs to be trained and paid. As for the ISHRS numbers, they are of course unreliable. I got the same questionnaire everyone else did and it was laughable. No doctor in this day and age is going to admit they don't do FUE. They're not going to allow the appearance of competency of their clinic to be any less than the next doctor's so they claim to be doing the procedures as well. But look at the clinics who do both. Me, the Shapiro Brothers, Rahal, H@W, etc..., have they given up strip surgery? Not on your life. An FUE-only clinic can not offer the patient a choice, so of course they are all in on offering only FUE. But those clinics who offer both side with and prefer to perform FUT because the results are more consistent and richer looking.

I agree with this. It is compulsory for doctors to post results, I agree this would be a better chat site if doctors were required to participate in the discussions a couple of times per month as well. But that just won't happen. I also agree with your Rodney King analogy and call for peace. Enough is enough. Way too much negativity. So I extended an olive branch.

???? This makes no sense. And I"m not going to bother to try and unravel it. I'm growing tired of this negative back and forth. I'll throw out an olive branch: Why don't you just admit that you and your paid reps mistakenly attacked me in your very first posts on this thread and that you apologize for it. Not the round about version you offered at the beginning, but a direct no nonsense admission and apology. And then admit that you made a mistake in editing your video as you did and when you did. And that even though you don't admit to any wrong doing it at the very least APPEARED bad and apologize for the confusion. Then we can let this all go as far as I'm concerned. -OR- We can keep at it which at this point serves exactly nobody. What do you say? I think if you and California could meet me on those grounds we can have an accord.

Sorry HTsoon, but that is not just a mere disclaimer, it's a statement in fact that the very company who produced the numbers has not verified its accuracy, so even THEY don't stand by their own presentation. The information I've presented was made very clear in Dr. Bhatti's own video. There's one difference That's about asa factual as you get. And when he edited his video and slipped it into his old post to cover it up he was giving his admission, another fact. Honestly HTsoon, why are you so contrarian and resistant to what's being put right before your eyes? You have no problem with a doctor on this site doing what Dr. Bhatti clearly did? But you keep attacking me for some conspiratorial marketing scheme that Dr. Bhatti invented. Does that really seem right to you? In the end this thread is for you and other patients and people who would not know better if not for the information contained herein. Don't you get that? This site is, or at least was, all about transparency. Now it seems more about cheering for your favorite team and vilifying FUT doctors.

We've already dealt with this ISHRS statistical nonsense. Even THEY don't stand by it. Here's the disclaimer that came with the report (again): Prepared by Relevant Research, Inc. Chicago, IL, USA Notice: This Practice Census is published by the International Society of Hair Restoration Surgery (ISHRS) and is a compilation of information provided solely by participating physicians. The information published in this survey was developed from actual historical information and does not include any projected information. Neither Relevant Research, Inc. nor ISHRS has verified the accuracy, completeness or suitability of any information provided here, and ISHRS does not recommend, encourage, or endorse any particular use of the information reported in this survey. ISHRS makes no warranty, guarantee or representation whatsoever and assumes no liability or responsibility in connection with the use or misuse of this survey. And as for the mFUE marketing conspiracy I would post my response but Bigfoot stole it.

Excuse me David, but this isn't a case of mere "gotcha". But even if it were, so what? He was caught being sneaky. Remember, this isn't some anonymous poster this is a physician. And what he did isn't just some small point. It's major. He now claims he edited his video to focus on the surgery? How does blurring out 95% of the field help to focus on the surgery? Nonsense, he was covering up THE aspect of the surgery that clearly demonstrated the detrimental forces of FUE as I had described them. That is, massive traction and massive compression. Not to mention that hideous raking of the grafts. Yet he STILL screams for "scientific evidence" when that's exactly what he's trying to cover up in his edited video. Why do you think he blurred out the actual extractions? Isn't that part of the surgery? Notice in the edited video that you can no longer see what he's doing with the forceps? He also claimed that he does all the extractions himself. So that was HIM who was ripping them out. And now he wants to "focus on the surgery" by cutting out the very part that he supposedly performs himself? That just doesn't make any sense. And he didn't just edit the video, David, he also quietly snuck the link of the edited version into his old post so nobody would notice. There is no other explanation for that maneuver. Don't you see that video of his is THE irrefutable data that you are asking for? And that him editing out the actual extractions is his confirmation? It's your forum, there's nothing more I can do other than expose the truth. The rest is up to you.

That's some equivalence you're making there David. Seth had not only already been accused of being a paid rep long before I started posting, but had been investigated for it as well. My suspicions and accusation were not without merit. Even thereafter Bill had to warn him again to stop engaging in obvious rep behavior. I think that's a little different than what happened here with Dr. Bhatti and is way more than just a "misunderstanding".

Manhog, You can't believe FUT likely produces more consistent yields and exposes grafts to less potential problems unless you also believe my fundamental forces argument. Because if not for the fundamental detrimental forces inherent to FUE how could FUT be considered more likely to produce more consistent yields? I agree with you that we have run into a SEEMINGLY circular argument. But we have not. If you can cut away all the BS and read the actual substantive material you would see that what I've been writing about is as indisputable as gravity. I understand that not everyone can follow the details. You really need to perform the procedure to appreciate what I'm saying. That said, you can also rely on the credibility of the people in the debate. I have been forthright and transparent. Dr. Bhatti has been the opposite and has used his hired reps to run interference for him. Then there was his video, and then the edit of the video, and the cover up of the edit. See for yourself:

David, Dr. Bhatti has just been exposed in a literal cover up the likes of which has never been seen on this site and you have nothing to say about it? This is not conjecture or supposition, it just happened in undisputed reality but nothing from you? Really? The proof of two of the three detrimental forces he claims don't even exist are right in his own video. But he only realized it AFTER I made him aware of it. So he tried to cover it up by editing them out. Don't you see that?

This is not a very believable explanation. It is apparent that you failed to realize how you were obviously mishandling grafts by tearing them out and how easily even a lay person could spot it. So after I commented on it you blurred out the offensive use of forceps and slipped the edited version into an older post so that it wouldn't be noticed. There can be no "efficient" reason for this maneuver. Neither you nor your reps made reference to it because you didn't want it known. Since you are so keen on bringing up the names of our colleagues without their knowledge or permission to support your viewpoints, why don't you contact them and let them comment on your video (the un-blurred version)? If you wish I can contact them for you and ask them to participate. Would you like me to do that?