Dr. Alan Feller

FUE is only gaining popularly thanks to the all the hair mills offering FUE especially from novice surgeons, tech run clinics (Dr M anyone!) and inexperienced clinics using micro-motors. FUT will never go away. FUE might surpass on the above points I have stated. How many surgeons are there offering FUE to the highest standard possible? Not many? All the proven FUE surgeons charge a premium which the common working man simply at times cannot afford. The diamonds such as Erdogan, Bhatti, Vories, lorenzo, Keser and the others are simply too expensive to the common man. (Bhatti in Indian standards is quite expensive). Thus the rise of FUE thanks to budget, amatuer run clinics whose patients hardly research and only think about the cost but not the quality!

 

For example, I paid nearly 7k in British pounds. England is well known for high living costs, low wages. When friends, family and people who I knew found out I paid this amount; they were like "fcuk why did you pay so much when you could have done it for 1200 pounds!". They did not understand I had researched for nearly 3 years (still am) and I chose an reliable surgeon. My result speaks for it self. Meanwhile, 6 of my friends used whatclinic.com and chose the cheapest clinics in Turkey. And guess what! Horrible donor extractions, donor destroyed by micro-motors, I was told all the nurses did the work; the end result? Little growth, lack of yield and density. And permanent shock loss to non-transplanted areas. How do I know this? Thanks to my 5 years of research!

 

FUE will only increase in popularity thanks to these rogue clinics scattered around the globe. But the diamonds are rare. There are not many Feller's, Lindey's, Bhatti's, Erdogan's, lorenzo's or Vories's out there.

Amen.

A rational and common sense statement of reality. Well done!

The following post shows an everyday FUE megasession scar-

http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/179786-fut-more-popular-than-fue-84.html

My Case of the Day of August 17, 2015.

Picture is again attached.

I'm sorry, Dr. Bhatti, but that is an extremely scarred and fibrosed scalp. Where as the scar and damage would have been confined to a few millimeters in an FUT procedure, in your FUE example it is everywhere. I can see even from that very complimentary picture the confluence of scar throughout the donor. When one looks close there is so much confluence of scar it looks like punches of 5 mm or more were used in areas. I'm sure they weren't, but as the smaller scar coalesce they form groupings of scar tissue that gives that appearance.

I hope he grows well, but he would have been far better off with FUT not only because it would have greater growth yields in the recipient site, but it would have left the rest of the donor area virgin for surgery in the future.

This man with a "bad" FUE scar still looks 100x better than your average FUT scar, try again Dr. Feller

 

But don't you see HTsoon that you had to show a completely shaved photo to make your point? FUT does not make the claim that you can shave your head. It's FUE that makes that claim, and it's simply not true.

I don't know about that huge scar at the top of the donor, I've never seen anything like that before. But the linear scar in the donor below probably is from an FUT and is EASILY concealed when the hair is not shaved. He could even do a fade cut right up to the bottom border of the scar.

You are so concerned with "winning points" or "gotchas" that you lose sight of objective reality.

haha!

 

... Fewer extractions mean moving to Dr Feller!

Just joking!!

Quite true !

That is not typical fue scaring! !!

 

We can all bring up the worse strip scars out there and put them on this thread and call them typical but that would be very misleading!! Sure fue scars, but typically not like this! We have seen hundreds of fue shaven donor areas and very very few look like this!! Can this happen? Yes! Is it typical, no!

Actually, this is typical FUE scarring. You are just focusing on the inferior donor area and the nape of the neck where the scars expanded and fibrosed. Now look into the proper donor area above. It is massively thinned out. Now imagine that the grafts that were wrongly taken from the nape were actually taken from the proper donor area instead. That area would look even worse.

The more FUE grafts you extract, the greater the extent of the donor damage.

This is not a MEGASESSION!

I agree it is a very bad scar, Dr Feller. And unacceptable.

Is this is a case that came to you today?

Even if it is picked from your library of scars, an FUE scar should never be like that.

The problems here are not in the healing but in the technique-

1. Punch size is clearly over 1 mm. In Caucasians the ideal punch diameter is 0.75 mm and no greater.

2. Each punch scoring has been made adjacent to the previous without leaving adequate intervening bridge of skin. Ideally we must leave one follicular grouping between 2 adjacent punches or else the thin bridge will necrose and the punches become confluent leading to confluence of scars which make then appear “moth eaten” or “rat chewed”. This is highly preventable and is not due to healing but because of bad technique.

3. Lastly he may have poor growth since nape of the neck hair is mostly not DHT resistant.

This is an unhappy FUE patient who posted his own photo unsolicited on this very site.

At least we agree on a few things about this case:

1. It was performed via FUE

2. It is an unacceptable result

3. The extractions never should have been taken from below the donor safe zone

4. Nape hair grows poorly and should be avoided

I do not believe the punch used for this procedure was larger than 1mm. In fact I think it was a .8 mm because if you look at the extractions this doctor actually took from the proper donor area above the nape the punch holes look much smaller. The punches just looked bigger at the nape of the neck because the skin was more flexible and stretched/fibrosed more during healing.

Even with a small punch this case produced a lot of fibrosis. Grafts were taken from the inferior donor zone and nape which should not have happened. But this practice is all too common among FUE megasessioon practitioners and is in evidence in just about every megasession case.

But let's say this doctor DIDN"T extract from the nape or inferior donor zone. Then this would have meant he would have had to take even MORE grafts from the proper donor area. More punches means less space between extractions and more inflammation and fibrosis during healing. So in this case the bulk of the scarring would have been shifted from the nape of the neck into the proper donor area causing the same moth eaten effect, scarring, and thinning of the hair.

There is no way around this problem unless you do fewer extractions. And fewer extractions means moving away from megasessions.

Would Acell or PRP reduce scarring for FUE or FUT?

No, unfortunately they would not.

Acell is powdered pigs bladder and has no clinical efficacy that I have seen to date. Yes, I heard the story about the guy whose fingertip regrew with Acell, but never anything before or since. To me, it's just an unnecessary foreign substance being introduced into a fresh wound that would more likely inflame the tissue.

PRP would absolutely make the situation worse. PRP stands for Platelet Rich Plasma. That means that one of the prime elements of clotting and fibrosis are injected in concentrated amounts right into fresh donor wounds. This would produce hyper scarring. Besides, do you know how PRP is "activated" ? It's done by injecting an area with PRP and stabbing it hundreds of times with a needle. This multiple stabbing alone would add massive fibrosis to the tissue.

Not a good idea.

If there were something that could reduce inflammation I and everyone would be using it. Steroids and antihistamines have been tried by me and MANY others, but they don't appear to do anything.

Skin is living tissue, and it's very sensitive. It has to be, the slightest break has to met with a vicious response lest an organism get a foothold in the body. During an HT the skin doesn't know it's in controlled and antiseptic conditions, it just thinks it's being attacked and breached so it responds with massive inflammation and fibrosis each and every time. There are no exceptions. The more stab or cut the skin, the more it reacts.

That's why FUT is superior to FUE. The "attack" is limited to a small area, and most of that area is actually removed. So there is about a ten fold less surface area for the skin fibrose over during healing compared to FUE.

Come up with a way or chemical that will allow the skin to heal normally but not become inflamed or fibrosed and you will be an overnight BILLIONAIRE, and a 6 month TRILLIONAIRE.

Look at the photo in the thumbnail below. See that wide area of scarring? Well obviously the FUE doctor didn't actually puncture every square inch with his punch. He only had to punch a small percentage of the area and fibrosis and confluence of fibrosis did the rest. This would not have happened in your average strip closure. All the grafts would have been taken from one area and then sealed leaving just a line instead of that mess.

Yes we understand that there is also chance of possible scarring with FUE but generally that option is easier to cover up than the linear scar if goes bad.

Euro,

Take a look at this man. Did FUE give him the ability to "back out" of looking like he had a hair transplant ?

How would he cover that FUE donor extraction fibrosis ? The answer would be to grow his hair a bit longer. But that is the same exact remedy for concealing an FUT linear scar. The difference here is that the FUE recipient now has far more damage around the FUE scars because there are far more of them compared to FUT.

Choosing FUE as the "back out" procedure is simply not true because clearly this man cannot shave his head and pretend like nothing happened.

By the way, this is the NORM for FUE megasessions, not the exception.

Wow you really don't listen to prospective patients!

Yes we all understand that more grafts are available with FUT! We Get It. The 3 forces!!!!!!!!

We just don't care. People who would rather opt for FUE chose it for one factor alone. They don't want to risk the Linear scar turning out awful. Whatever chance of that actually happening be it 0.1% or even less. They want to be able to have shorter hair in the region of that scar so this has the best viable option to do that. Yes we understand that there is also chance of possible scarring with FUE but generally that option is easier to cover up than the linear scar if goes bad. From all that has been written and posted that's what I get from everything. Is this not the case at all?

No, you've got it backward. Should a linear scar stretch or become "hyper scarred" the FUT patient can just leave his hair at a normal length and it will easily be concealed. It is the megasession FUE patient who runs into trouble because to remove that much hair from the donor site requires a wide area approach that necessarily thins out the area to a cosmetically noticeable level. And that doesn't even include the shock loss that accompanies megasession FUE. If you are not sure where the shock loss is on such patients, if you have chance to view the donor area of an FUE megasesion recipient just look at the fibrotic and disrupted nature of the donor area. It won't take long even for an untrained eye to spot it.

Also, you analysis neglects the most important reason for having an HT : hair growth. FUE handicaps the grafts through trauma inflicted by the extraction process itself. FUT has no such detrimental forces of dissection and no equivalent. So growth is better for FUT.

Finally, most FUE practitioners today are HT novices. They buy what seem like high tech machines and think FUE surgery is a "turn key" business. Take the suction FUE machine users, they are the prime example. I believe these practitioners don't even know what they don't know.

how does this make any sense, scar yourself for life and then when all else fails FUE which thins the area you want are so desperate to hide... screams madness to me

 

 

and sorry Dr Feller 1 unsatisfactory transplant, my mistake,

Apology accepted, Seth.

Just goes to show that everyone needs to be careful who they pick for their doctor no matter which procedure you favor. I didn't know at the time how inexperienced my first HT doctor and his staff were and thus I had 50% growth. Even FUT in the wrong hands can produce dismally low yields. I honestly think this site helped to clean up the FUT field by exhaustively parsing out and publicizing the details of the FUT procedure itself and naming which doctors performed which techniques. That made the procedure improve REAL fast. Back then people were truly interested in the technical details. But not anymore. Not with FUE. The analysis and intellectual curiosity and discussion has been replaced with a caveman grunt and a wagging finger pointing at a few good to mediocre results. When asked about poor results the response is usually nothing or in a captain caveman voice: "nothing see over there, move along!"

By the way Seth. ALL surgery scars you for life. FUE is definitely included in this category. But FUT gives you a greater chance to cover up the scar after a megasession.

l

Feller himself has had 3 FUT transplants, 2 unsatisfactory yet he goes around slamming FUE and wants to drag others into his stripped out logic.

 

Incorrect.

I had one unsatisfactory FUT procedure over 23 years ago by a low end doctor who doesn't even perform HT anymore. Despite this I did not have a large or regrettable scar.

I also do not "slam" FUE. You are projecting. I perform both FUT and FUE. It is you and other FUE-only advocates who "slam" FUT every chance you get. Don't you ever tire of tearing things down instead of building them up? You are pure negativity on these threads. It's your view or no view, right?

In truth, most of the opposition to FUT is blind fear of the procedure itself, not the normal and easily concealable scar it leaves behind. In reality it is FUE scarring that causes more damage to the skin and the remaining donor follicles limiting overall available follicles in the future.

The formula for hair transplantation is simple: Do as much FUT as possible, then finish with FUE.

Dr. Feller,

 

I came on here to respond to your comments however, your post appears to have been changed. Where are the rest of your remarks? Regardless of whether or not they've been removed by you, I do want to point out that you are right. You perform surgery and I don't. But to suggest that I have no basis to form my belief is preposterous.

 

While I certainly don't want to discredit your experience, you are one doctor operating at one clinic. Each physician performing surgery possesses a unique experience and not everyone of them will be similar to yours. Many physicians feel confident that they can successfully move large amounts of hair via FUE without sacrificing yield. I have spoken with dozens of doctors who feel strongly that in their hands, yield is virtually the same when they perform mega sessions versus regular sessions.

 

After reading several of the comments however, I am inclined to agree that increased speed and moving more hair per day should not become a standard. However, just because I do not perform surgery does not mean that I do not have enough information at my fingertips to draw conclusions or form beliefs. Based on that opinion, I guess you believe that patients don't have the right to form a belief or opinion about whether or not a physician is good enough to recommend on this community either right? :-)

 

Best,

 

Bill

No, I do not believe that you or the other posters on this site have enough information at your finger tips to form an INFORMED decision concerning FUE. That's the problem I am trying to set straight here.

You look at an FUE result and think it's either cosmetically significant, or it isn't. When I look at the same result I think the same thing, but I also wonder how many grafts were sacrificed to get that result. Just like when one magician watches another magician perform. He's see much more than the average audience member or magic enthusiast. It is not a comment on intelligence, it's a comment on experience.

I am one doctor working in one clinic, this is true. But the laws governing FUE exist in every clinic. I don't care which clinic I walk into in the world. If I bring a video camera and film that FUE surgery you will see decapitations, failed attempts, and transections. And that's just the damage you can see. There will be more damage you can't see. All the result of the three detrimental forces I have been describing. The only real difference will be which doctors admit to it, and which don't.

As sure as I know a train wreck will kill some people and injure even more I KNOW FUE will damage grafts. So to be able to produce anything like the consistent results FUT does an FUE clinic MUST implant more grafts to make up for the shortfall.

You wrote:I have spoken with dozens of doctors who feel strongly that in their hands, yield is virtually the same when they perform mega sessions versus regular sessions.

I beg to differ with them. The forces that act on FUE are no different in their office and hands than they are in mine. UNLESS they are claiming to perform a different technique with different instruments. Which none do. There is scoring and there is pulling. That's it. The difference here AGAIN is that some doctors admit this, and other don't by trying to snake around the question as much as they can to maintain the implication that they are doing something different and are therefore "more advanced".

Also, what is THEIR definition of yield? Is it the same as yours? Does it include the failed attempt ratio? Injured grafts? Transected grafts? I doubt it. Amazingly, I have heard FUE doctors claim that "the grafts that grow grow as well as FUT". What they really mean is the grafts that SURVIVE uninjured will grow as well as FUT grafts. This is of course true, but this definition excludes very conveniently the grafts that don't grow or grafts that were transected during the extraction attempt.

I think because you don't perform these surgeries that you are not familiar with the variables and so can't come to an informed conclusion. And not surprisingly, many of the FUE doctors you are talking to also aren't aware of them, or, they are aware of them but play them down, or, they are aware of them but don't care-they' just grab more grafts.

Finally, if FUE were anywhere near as good as FUT, then why hasn't the entire HT doctor population switched to it? It's been FOURTEEN YEARS ! Why would there be clinics like mine that offer BOTH, but still do mostly FUT?

I am simply in search of the truth about a subject that has been mired in internet muck for far too long.

I happen to agree with this statement. But can you expound on it, please?

And if you have a moment, can you tell us what it was in your consultations that either interested you or put you off HT?

Thank you,

Dr. Feller

- Minimal depth extractions

 

 

I don't really think maximum session size or speed should be a factor. Skill, technique and protocol should definitely take precedence as I have seen some aggressively large FUE sessions being done in one single day and wouldn't like to see this promoted or encouraged. Just my thoughts anyway.

Amen.

Dr. Feller,

 

Thank you for your feedback. I know that you believe that increased speed equates to decreased yield, but I don't believe that's necessarily true. While I'm a firm believer of quality over quantity, if

Wow you had some posters on here creating diagrams and graphs based off of a percentage you came up with based off of looks. You bring up a good point about comparing both procedures, but when I tried to bring up 3 detrimental factors in FUT it was swept aside as a mere distraction, I think in order to compare both procedures we need to review the good and bad from both procedures do you agree Dr. Feller?

Sure HTsoon. If you can come up with 3 detrimental forces that negatively affect follicles as much as those as FUE then I am all ears.

The stage is yours, go.

This forum must think your posts are twice as important as anyone else's. You should be flattered.

"One issue to consider is speed and the ability to do FUE megasessions without sacrificing yield. The question is, does this ability make one physician better than another? Perhaps speed and the ability to do FUE megasessions should be a Coalition standard for FUE? What does everyone think?"

Considering speed as an "ability" is destructive, Bill.

By definition increased speed must mean increased damage and decreased yield. Considering speed an "ability" means rewarding rushed surgery. Thus, the inverse becomes true as well: the slower and more considered a surgeon treats the extraction process the more he is punished.

There is no area of surgery where the doctor is punished or rewarded for racing the clock. Rushing through a case is a golden ticket to a medical malpractice lawsuit.

Instead you should implement a definition of "ability" based on verifiable technique. This is the only true objective way to gauge actual FUE ability.

Hello Dr. Feller, maybe you missed my prior post. Please try to answer these questions:

 

1) How did you lose all that weight.

2) How many HTs have you had, and how many grafts total? I assume all strip?

3) What do you think about ARTAS. They have probably sold at least 150 of those by now. Do you think ARTAS FUE is worse than say Australia doctor's or Atlanta doctor's FUE in terms of yield and scarring?

 

Thank you.

I did miss your post. Here goes:

1. What weight loss? Are you implying I was fat?!!!

I lost 55 pounds in 10 months by doing two main things. No joke. The first was cut pizza almost totally out of my diet. The second was I walked outside 4 miles per day no matter the weather. That's it. No running, no harsh dieting, no strenuous exercise. Thank you for noticing.

2. I have had Three HTs. The first was to my hairline which did not work well. The second was to my hairline and top. It worked incredibly well. The third was to my posterior top and anterior crown. It worked ok. But in all fairness not a lot to work with. I'm very happy with my results.

3. An ARTAS rep would show up at my office every now and then to sell me on the machine. Very nice and amiable guy, but I just couldn't see the point in buying one. All it does is score around the graft for a few hundred thousand dollars. Well, I can do that for $50 with a feller punch and do it faster with greater care.

The only ARTAS results I've seen have been online and I have not been impressed at all. By now I would have thought they would have a huge catalog of great results. But no. At first I thought it might have a place in the office of a novice HT doctor in that the technology could make up for the inexperience of the doctor. But so far it hasn't done that.

Hey, if this device worked as advertised I'd buy ten of them and do ten cases at a time and perhaps program one to make me coffee so I can kick up and read the paper while the machines did my work. But nope. Not happening.

As far as comparing the ARTAS to those doctors, I suspect that they would all create the same amount of scarring if they performed the same number of scoring attempts. I say attempts because not all extractions are successful. And while you may not be rewarded with an intact graft, you will still definitely get the donor scar and subsequent fibrosis.

As far as yields it extends passed the machine. The hard part in FUE isn't the scoring, it's the "delivering" of the graft. Since the ARTAS users are more likely to be inexperienced next to the other doctors you mentioned (or didn't mention) I suspect their yields would be lower.

I appreciate everyone's interest in this debate. This topic includes thousands of views every day and includes over 40,000 views and almost 1000 replies. That's pretty impressive. In fact, I will be creating and sending a newsletter about this topic and inviting others to get involved as well.

 

I have been doing my best to follow along with this topic, but honestly, it's so popular and busy, it's hard to read every single post. That said, I'd like to know where Dr. Feller came up with the statistic that FUE yields only 75% growth. Is this strictly conjecture, an educated guess or an actual statistic from a controlled study?

 

Regardless however, I firmly believe that FUE is not only here to stay, but will only become increasingly popular. I also firmly believe (despite Dr. Feller's claims) that FUE has improved over the last decade. I've posted several links to editorial content on our website that show much of the innovation and evolution of FUE. For those who missed it, you can start by looking at the "Follicular Unit Extraction (FUE)" editorial content on the Hair Transplant Network. Be sure to follow all the links.

 

Given that FUE is here to stay, the real question is, how do we all work together (namely physicians) to improve the technique even more so that any remaining forces or issues are overcome? While no physician has X-ray vision, I have heard from many physicians (in particular those who use manual devices) that they can tell a lot by "feel". Also, by inspecting the graft after extraction, it should be relatively easy to determine whether or not the graft has been transected or damaged.

 

I also don't want to ignore Dr. Vories' comments regarding implanter pens. While the main difference between strip and FUE is regarding the donor harvesting process, implanter pens can assist with minimizing damage to the graft during the implantation portion of the procedure. Read more about "Implanter Pens and other FUE Implantation Devices and Tools". While implanter pens may not be for everyone, some swear by them.

 

Despite such a hot topic and heated debate, at the end of the day, I still firmly believe that physicians providing their input are strictly speaking from their own experience and/or studies they've seen. Everything else is just opinion. There is no way for Dr. Feller, Dr. Bhatti, Dr. Vories or any physician to know the success rate of FUE or any procedure at another physician's clinic. That said, it would be interesting to hear other physicians' experience with FUE as well.

 

FUE megasessions are also becoming increasingly popular. I am a firm believer of quality over quantity. However, if physicians are able to harvest and implant more follicular units per day without sacrificing growth yield, then I'm all for it. The question is, does speed and the ability of moving more hair per day make one physician better than another assuming yield is not sacrificed? I'd like people's opinions on that, especially as we begin to create/refine FUE standards for physicians we recommend. What's everyone's opinion on that?

 

I look forward to everyone's ongoing input.

 

Best wishes,

 

Bill

Bill,

The only way for FUE to improve is for new practical technologies to be invented. To date they haven't been.

I got the 75% number by simply looking at the results of FUE patients, both mine and others. Actually, I think the number is lower.

You are correct that we can't go into physicians offices and collect the data ourselves on growth yields. But we also can't look to patient results either because they are very variable in and of themselves. And, most importantly, we can't tell how many grafts were used to achieve a particular result.

The only way to evaluate where FUE stands with respect to FUT is to compare the procedures themselves. And that's pretty easy. Look at the Bhatti video and look at the Feller video. Look at the Lorenzo video, I've seen that bounced around too, and simply compare using common sense. The more in depth stuff is addressed rather deeply in my posts right here on this thread.

Dr. Feller,

 

Sorry to say but your sarcasm doesn't really work on me. Again, had you read my post "thoroughly", you would have noticed that I said "I am a Patient of Dr. Bhatti. I chose Dr. Bhatti as my HT Surgeon after years of research and AFTER 2 FAILED FUT procedures by a prominent Clinic in California"

Don't you think that "years of research" and 2 FAILED FUT PROCEDURES IN CALIFORNIA would involve reaching out the past Patients of the HT Surgeon that I chose for my FUE HT? Involve watching videos of the HT Surgeon that are available on his website and Youtube? Please don't underestimate the Patients. I am not a Medical Doctor (my wife is) but for whatever it is worth, I do have a couple of Masters Degrees and hence I believe I should be capable of researching and making educated decisions.

 

Don't you find it strange that Dr. Bhatti's "FUE" Patients are SO SATISFIED with their results that sometimes folks "think" that they are Dr. Bhatti's reps? These are folks that come from different parts of the world and most probably, won't need to see Dr. Bhatti again.

I take this as a compliment to FUE in general and Dr. Bhatti in particular.

 

On a personal level, it kills me to say this line to my hair dresser "EVERY SINGLE TIME"......"Please make sure that you don't shorten my hair too much .....I have a scar that I need to conceal"...........That said, I started going to the hair dressers only AFTER Dr. Bhatti and FUE gave me my hair back!

So, THANK YOU FUE AND THANK YOU, DR. BHATTI! MY ONLY REGRET IS THAT I DID NOT MEET YOU GUYS BEFORE!

 

Best regards,

You still haven't answered my question.

Did you or did you not see a video of your doctor's technique BEFORE your procedure?

Which video demonstrates a more gentile technique to your mind? His or mine?

And since your wife is a doctor, what does she think of the way tissue is being treated in that video?

What scare tactics?

 

Again, Dr. Bhatti has been posting Patient cases in REAL TIME. Please note that the Patient pictures show the daily newspaper which proves beyond doubt that the pictures are not "dug out" from databases. Can you say the same for the FUE Patient picture that you posted?

 

I clearly DON'T perform daily FUE cases because I find them to be too damaging to the grafts and unethical in most patients

 

Dr. Feller,

With all due respect, Dr. Bhatti never asked you to post your "FUE cases". Rather, he asked you to post your "FUT cases to repair the FAILED FUE HT's". You always blame folks for not reading/understanding what is written properly. I am requesting to re-read what Dr. Bhatti had challenged you for.

 

The real challenge is in comparing techniques not how many patients you can inflict FUE on per day. Your doctor posted a hideous video of grafts being removed haphazardly and in haste. My video, on the other hand demonstrated a paced and delicate procedure. I win. Hands down.

 

That is a pretty strong, unilateral and unsubstantiated declaration of victory. You win? Hands down? Says who?

Maybe you are the plaintiff, the defendant, the jury AND the JUDGE!

 

You never did give your comments on it. Would YOU want that done to your grafts? How about to a loved one?

 

I am a Patient of Dr. Bhatti. I chose Dr. Bhatti as my HT Surgeon after years of research and AFTER 2 FAILED FUT procedures by a prominent Clinic in California. Does that answer your question?

I became Dr. Bhatti's Patient Advisor only after I was extremely satisfied with my HT procedure and the HT results with Dr. Bhatti. Like his other Patients, I believe in Dr. Bhatti and have full faith in his expertise. I am not "selling" Dr. Bhatti to anyone.....I am just sharing what I have experienced myself. So, the answer to your question is a RESOUNDING YES!!!

 

Also, this thread has over 41,000 hits so I don't think interest is dropping at all as you're doctor is claiming. There are more hits each 24 hour period compared to the previous 24 hour period.

 

If the hits to the thread make you feel good, we are happy for you. May your thread reach the 100,000 hit mark soon! One of the members commented on this thread.....'who needs Netflix".....

 

Best regards,

California

Oh, I see, your challenge is much more genuine (sarcasm). You want to compare the number of patients who come through your doors daily with prior FUT work seeking repair compared to the number of patients who come through my door daily with prior FUE work seeking repair.

Did you happen to note the name of this thread or read the first post? Obviously there is far less FUE out there as there is FUT. You must know this. So how is this anything more than a disingenuous challenge?

With respect to the video, did you actually see how your doctor performed the procedure before you signed up for it? Did he inform you of any differences in expected yield in general between FUE and FUT?

Thank you Dr Feller.

 

Asked about the method as I just wondered if it was standard practice for doctors to note placement/number of grafts in a procedure and then later count said grafts (fairly laborious and difficult) or to do so in one square centimetre and take that as an average (which would assume even results throughout) or just examine and take an educated guess.

 

And thank you Des. That's another of my worries - a lifetime of chasing my tail.

I think there are very few doctors who won't at least take a mental note of the success of a prior transplant when the hair is shaved down in preparation for a second procedure. You really have to as the doctor because in the second procedure you have to be careful to go between the grafts of the first procedure and thus be aware of the density. When placing new recipient sites between prior FUE grafts this is usually much easier because there are more spaces. Unfortunately, there is also more fibrotic tissue representing grafts that were implanted, but didn't grow. And in patients who have had body hair transplants it's like implanting into a fibrotic minefield.

Dr. Feller,

 

I believe that Bill is also monitoring this thread and hence I do not need to share the entire "history" with him. He asked me a question and I responded to that. As simple as that.

 

What "scare tactics" are you referring to?

 

As far as what you call the "disingenuous distraction" goes, please note that Dr. Bhatti is NOT digging into his databases or archives to bring up bad FUT scar cases. He is just sharing his Patient cases in "REAL TIME". Please note that he had challenged you to post your Patient cases in "REAL TIME". Please refer to post # 821 on this thread. Copy/pasting below from Dr. Bhatti's post:

 

Please note that a conversation of cross recriminations is not the right way to proceed scientifically. I challenge you to share your FUE case of the day every single day till this thread is alive and kicking and I will reciprocate. Lets see what bad cases you get daily from FUE, Please post and show and so will I.

Let the members on the forum decide for themselves. Plain rhetoric has no place on this thread. Members want to see real stuff now. They are bored of your semantics.

See the TRP rating of this thread has begun to dip.

Lets breathe some life into it, Sir.

We all want to see the FUE cases you get so commonly with bad scars.

You show yours in real time and I will mine.

 

................................

Please note that Dr. Bhatti has just been doing what he challenged you to do. No database searching, no digging in the archives.....just real time Patients. We are still waiting for you to take up the challenge. We believe that it would benefit everyone if we could let the actual Patient cases (and not rhetoric) do the talking!

 

Best regards,

California

What scare tactics?! Your doctor posts an unsolicited shaved donor area with an FUT scar in it out of the blue with no explanation for it and have the nerve to innocently ask "what scare tactics" ? Do you really think I and the viewers are so na?ve?

And as for your disingenuous "challenge" I clearly DON'T perform daily FUE cases because I find them to be too damaging to the grafts and unethical in most patients. Now you know this, that is the very basis for this thread and most other FUE threads I've made.

The real challenge is in comparing techniques not how many patients you can inflict FUE on per day. Your doctor posted a hideous video of grafts being removed haphazardly and in haste. My video, on the other hand demonstrated a paced and delicate procedure. I win. Hands down.

By the way, gotten many kudos on the performance in that video? Here's another link to that piece of work:

You never did give your comments on it. Would YOU want that done to your grafts? How about to a loved one?

Also, this thread has over 41,000 hits so I don't think interest is dropping at all as you're doctor is claiming. There are more hits each 24 hour period compared to the previous 24 hour period.

Destorious - ah, right. Thanks for the reply. I shall keep the nagging doubt a little longer until I see more real-life results!

 

Dr Feller - silly question, but I don't want to assume anything: so, literally, how do you measure the yield to know it was 75% in Destorious's case? And is it something you routinely do in follow-up consultations with each patient?

The way I became sure about the yields of FUE in general was when I operated on patients who had already had FUE in the past. Either with me or elsewhere. I would note how many grafts they received, or told they received, and compare it to the number I counted when I shaved the hair down in preparation for the recipient sites. In the end, adjusting for telogen hairs, I concluded that the average was about 75%, and the best I'd seen on any kind of semi-regular basis was 85%.

In Destorious's case I just took the information he offered in his post and did some math. So I put FUEs into both sides. One side he said grew fine. So let's say that represents 100%. The other side he calculated only grew 50%. So if you crunch those two numbers you wind up with a 75% overall average yield.

The reason I pointed this out is because I have claimed for years and years that 75% is about the average growth yield for FUE, and here is one of my very own patients whom I haven't talked to in years stating quite unknowingly that he felt his own yield was in fact 75%.

What's even more interesting about his post is that he is not surprised that his results were not 100% or even near it. This is because I made absolutely sure he understood the variability of FUE as compared to FUT. And, I made him read an informed consent document that states the disadvantages of FUE very clearly that he had to acknowledge and sign before I would perform surgery on him.

So he knew I was being a straight shooter with him before operating on him. And like he said, he knew the risks and rolled the dice. Sounds like he did ok, but if he wants to fill in the weaker side he will need to do more FUE. And so it goes with FUE, the need for filling in and "touching up" is insatiable compared to the equivalent FUT.