Dr. Alan Feller

Thank you, Mike.

Dr. Alan Feller

Great Neck, NY

I've been calling out FUE doctors since 2003, Mike.

I've made several "big" charges, not the least of which is it's unethical for doctors to solely offer FUE as it deprives the patient of the option of having the gold standard of hair transplant procedures which is FUT (Strip).

It is every patients right to be offered the procedure that will give the best chance for the best results. FUE-only clinics deny lay patients this right.

Please make sure you include that in that note you give to doctors when you consult with them. If any of them wish to come online and debate me publicly they are more than welcome to.

As for my protocol:

Let's say a patient comes for FUE but he is an FUT candidate:

The highest number of grafts I will offer a patient via FUE is 1,500 grafts total for their lifetime. And this is IF and only IF they sign a consent form that expressly states they have been offered the FUT procedure and rejected it. The document will also state clearly that they are subjecting their donor area to a guaranteed greater level of damage, greater amount of scarring, and fewer grafts available for future procedures AND that the chances for growth in their recipient area is lower than for FUT.

Anything above 1,500 FUE graft extractions increases confluences of scar in the donor area so precipitously that an ethical doctor could not justify it over that of a linear scar.

Since you are a fan of writing things down I suggest you ask your FUE doctors to commit the following to writing:

1. My FUE grafts experience no more trauma than properly performed FUT grafts do.

2. My FUE grafts grow as well as my FUT grafts and I have no reason to think otherwise.

3. The damage to the grafts during the extraction process for FUE is the same as for FUT.

4. The amount of damage to the neighboring grafts in FUE is the same as for FUT.

5. The amount of scarring in the donor area produced by FUE is less than that for an equivalent sized FUT.

6. The expected growth for an FUE graft is the same as that for FUT grafts.

7. The general growth yields for FUE procedures are the same as that for FUT procedures.

See if they will sign a document containing those 7 items before performing the procedure. Please get back to us with the names of those FUE doctors who will.

Thank you,

Dr. Feller

Great Neck, NY

First, I thank you for your unsolicited response. It speaks volumes that a forum post lacking the name of any particular doctor was the impetus for same.

 

I understand your motivation as well as that of any other professional.

 

And I must admit, I have not watched any of those Youtube videos. They're analogous to the medical version of Better Call Saul.

 

And here is an interesting H+W update:

"So now we are in a world where we have two different technologies producing equally incredible results..." Source: https://hassonandwong.com/our-journey-to-fue/

Arminius,

If you have nothing positive to contribute, why bother at all ?

Posting nasty comments and personal attacks helps nobody, least of all you.

Dr. Feller

Great Neck, NY

FUE should be reserved for patients who simply cannot have FUT.

FUT should be the first line for any and all hair transplant procedures.

Doing a 2,000 graft HT as an FUE when it could have been done as an FUT is irresponsible.

FUE cases of about 500 to 1000 grafts TOTAL lifetime MAY cause minimal damage IF the donor is large enough, the grafts are cooperative enough, and the surgeon can stay within the safe donor area.

Thank you, Mick.

Well said.

Dr. Feller

I read the entire thread. I am sorry to be so strident, but some of the posting doctors are categorically embarrassing themselves. Self-serving biases coupled with wilful disregard of leading clinic outcomes. Sad.

Arminius,

Believe me when I say I am on YOUR side and I want your hair to grow like gangbusters. That is my wish for ALL HT patients everywhere in the world no matter what procedure is used or which doctor performed it.

However, what I have reported on this site about FUE is indisputable fact. It is not opinion, or bias, or based on a hidden agenda.

Notice no FUE doctor has come on here to dispute any of it ? Including your own doctor who I guarantee reads these posts.

Your harsh critique of me personally was uncalled for and, frankly, inappropriate. However, I understand what made you feel the need to do it:

You don't want to believe or accept what I have been writing and reporting about FUE is the truth. And you are bothered by it. But you already committed yourself to an FUE procedure a few weeks ago, correct ? So to make yourself feel better you need to try to discredit me personally. This way you don't even have to explore or even understand the objective details of my reporting. It's just easier to "kill the messenger".

I read your other posts and know you are worried about crops of pimples popping up in your FUE donor area. You know this is not normal. And now you are wondering if this may relate to the recipient area in some bad way which will affect your overall growth and final result. This is a very real and intelligent concern. It seems you don't know HOW they may be connected, but you are correct in assuming they may be. If you listen to what I have been saying in my videos and articles you would understand why your concerns are infact valid.

I know you point to the good results of other FUE patients and clinics to find solace and to use as "proof" that Dr. Feller doesn't know what he's talking about. That's natural. But you are ignoring all the abject and inexcusable failures of FUE that have been published on this very forum alone. Not to mention the huge number of patients who, like you, have reported they just had an FUE, showed post op photos, and then fail to ever update the community with their results. Or, they post results that clearly don't compare to their FUT equivalents.

You ignore all of this. It's my job not to.

I am not some kind of ogre trying to sqwash the FUE industry. I perform FUE to this day, I have invented and patented FUE instrumentation and protocols. I have been cited in the aurhtorative HT textbook. I have taught other doctors how to perform FUE I was a true pioneer in the field. If FUT were outlawed today I would make a very nice living doing just FUE. But I would be conflicted knowing that a better way existed (FUT). A way that may not SEEM as attractive to lay patients, but nevertheless produces a superior result 100% of the time.

It is to the shame of my colleagues who ignore, downplay, or deny the limitations of FUE and who refuse to discuss this reality on this forum. I believe most of them are mute on the subject because they: don't have enough personal FUE experience but don't want to admit it OR they don't want to criticize a cash cow and thus limit what they can ethically offer to their patients for a payday.

It is they who should be embarrassed and whom you should be directing strident comments towards. I have no regrets sharing my surgical knowledge and intimate experience of FUE with lay patients so you really know what you are getting yourselves into, and will continue to do so. If my expose of FUE saves even one patient from an FUE megasession then I know I did my job.

Dr. Feller

This presentation is an excellent example of why FUE should be used in limited numbers and in limited cases.

The photos Dr. Cooley shows of the donor area thinning is extremely common in FUE patients. In fact, Dr. Paul Rose recently gave a lecture and wrote an excellent article as to why even relatively small sessions of FUE can cause pathological thinnig out the donor area.

This is a case of excellent patient evaluation and management.

Well done Dr. Cooley and Staff.

Dr. Alan Feller

Great Neck, NY

Unfortunately, the issues facing FUE are not just opinion. They are factually observed, well documented/recorded, have already been named and classified, and are immutable.

More and more ethical doctors are coming out and speaking publicly about the disadvantages and detriments of FUE despite the fact that these honest doctors stand to lose tremendous amounts of money while telling the truth.

It is simple:

The damage to the grafts during the procedure are markedly and demonstrably higher than that for FUT (the gold standard). There is no avoiding this, there is no debating this. It is established and observable fact.

Here, Dr. Lam gives a lecture that clearly demonstrates not opinion, but observable fact concerning the FUE procedure and the damage it inflicts on the grafts.

And remember to look for consistently produced results like these:

1. I start with one of you last statements. This just shows, how your mind works. Anyone who ask questions has to be an enemy. I am NOT a rep of any clinic nor ever have I promoted a clinic here or elsewhere (I am in a domestic forum as well). I would be a terrible FUE rep anyway, cause, if you read my posts carefully, I admit that I think you are right with a lot of your thesis. I am just questioning your way of bringing it across. But I am more than happy to give all my details including my scientific background to one of the moderators. After that you owe me an apology.

 

2. You have shown a lot of wrong “data”, you have shown few scientific data (as there isn’t much available) and most of it doesn’t answer my questions.

 

3. Yes, I do need this data, but more important: YOU need it as a HAT surgeon. As I had many smaller and bigger injuries from sports (to user your analogy) I know: Some (minor) injuries heal well over time. There are no longtime negative effects remaining. My questions was the same: Will the grafts heal if the trauma is minor and what is minor and what is major.

 

4.

a. This coming from you (see 1.) is rather ironic.

 

b. This is rather scary though. The surgery itself is just a small part of hair transplantation research. I really hope you are listening to other researchers in this field even if they do not perform surgery themselves.

 

5. That is completely false. None of these papers are exclusively for hairtransplant surgeons nor do you know my (or others) scientific reading comprehension.

 

6. I think this topic was addressed before (see 3.)

 

7. You have repeated this very often. I understand your point, but I like data more than opinion (even an educated opinion as yours). To explain my question a little more: Friction has a non-linear dependency on velocity. Hence, there is an ideal velocity cutting through any material (also skin) depending on the material combination and the sharpness of your device. Operating above but also below (!) this speed creates higher friction and in you case higher effect (damage) on the grafts.

 

To sum it up, I am not against FUT. I believe (!) FUT gives better results in average and is the best for all "bigger" cases. I believe FUT gives you more grafts in total. I just believe there is a crossing point (besides other topics such as skin laxity) and below this number (of grafts) FUE is better. I personally think I am close to this borderline, hence I want to understand more to make the right decision for myself (sorry, this comes across selfhish but it is true).

 

Finally, I have visited two clinics in europe to discuss the best options for myself. Both are highly recommended in this forum and both are performing FUT and FUE.

If you understand and agree that FUT gives better results on average and is the best for all bigger hair transplant surgeries, then I have done my job. Best of luck to you.

If you say you are not a covert FUE rep, then I believe you and do apologize. It seems we are on the same page. Forgive me as I am just used to being attacked subtly and viciously by FUE cheerleaders, chest beaters, and zealots -several of whom have been banned.

1. I have provided scientific data. You just choose to ignore it:

a. The FOX test.

b. Dr. Beehner's studies.

c. Dr. Wesley's studies.

d. The consensus of all HT doctors I've ever met save one.

e. The position statement of the ishrs declaring the primacy of FUT over FUE.

f. My 17 years of having performed FUE, offered the first live demonstration, and patented tools.

Finally, do you really need "scientific data" to know that if someone smashes down on your foot it will be damaged ? Because that is the "proof" and the "data" you are asking for.

You are layman, so you have no idea what is and is not out of proportion.

2. Your second question is a statement, more of an attack, than a question. It doesn't matter how smart or educated someone is any field. If a physicist doesn't also perform hair transplants, why should I care what they think? And if their rational and logic is wrong, it's wrong, no matter what their background.

All I've ever heard from the FUE doctors who have tried to defend the graft mauling they engage in include the rejection of common sense thinking with regards to the involved physical forces on the graft; and the most convenient and self serving inability to see a plainly injured graft sitting right in front of their faces in the form of skeletonization.

Of course you can't appreciate this because you are a laymen. So this is not necessarily your fault. The FUE doctors know better, or should know better. At least most of the HT doctors who perform both will, for the most part, admit the truth that FUE grafts are traumatized more than FUT grafts. Even if they try to downplay this reality.

3. You are a laymen and can't understand any studies that are presented. They are not written for you, they are written for practicing surgeons. It doesn't matter if the doctor performing the FUE perform FUE only or FUE/ FUT. The reality and physics of the situation are the same. No doctor, no matter his focus of specialty, utilizes a method that address and decreases the three detrimental forces that injure FUE grafts: Traction, Torsion, and Compression.

4. Yes, grafts will grow worse if they are injured. Just as your eyes will work worse if I squeeze, pull, and twist them them with a forcepts. Just as your foot will work worse if you drop a couch on it. No further analysis is needed. FUE is worse on the grafts than the analogies I just gave you, but you couldn't understand that because you've never held a graft or performed surgery.

5. Simple: Dead grafts don't grow. Injured grafts produce poorer hairs.

- No, stick and place will not bring dead grafts back to life or "uninjure" traumatized grafts.

-Damage to FUT grafts are negligible. When compared to FUE it is non-existent.

-Fast extraction causes more damage because all the detrimental forces are increased. When I see fast extraction I see medical malpractice. It's just a matter of time before a failed FUE patient takes his doctor to court and shows the carelessness with which the "fast harvest" FUE doctors engaged in to perform the surgery. That doctor will be toast, which is why you don't see this kind of doctor in the United States. In the third world, anything goes.

-As for the speed of the punch during surgery, you wouldn't understand because you don't perform them.

Gas, you sound like an FUE clinic representative to me. Why don't you just admit it and have your doctor come on here and debate me ? Let the world see the kind of work he is doing. In fact, I would love a video of your doctor quickly harvesting grafts. Another FUE-only doctor did that and it didn't work out too well for him. When the public posted how aghast they were at seeing this doctor literally and carelessly ripping grafts out indiscriminately he quickly tried to edited the video to cover up what he was doing. You will rarely ever see such a blatant demonstration of the consciousness of guilt as that one.

But perhaps your FUE doctor will stand more firmly behind his own work. Perhaps he can educate me. I'd love to be wrong.

Thanks for your honesty. BTW - I actually agree 100% with your statement, even though Dr Rahal is my surgeon and he hit a home run for me using FUT. I would have no issues letting him perform FUE on me either though, probably because he earned my trust, even though he would be delegating the extractions.

 

It is not lost on me though that you chose your words very carefully in that last reply. I'm wondering why you are now limiting to unlicensed and unqualified. What about delegating the extractions (cutting) to a licensed and qualified technician/nurse? Just for the record of course.

I did not make any special effort to choose my words. I don't know what you are getting at there.

There are no technicians or nurses worldwide who are qualified to do the scoring (cutting). It doesn't matter if they are licensed in their fields or not. What is the point of having doctors (referred to as surgeons) if just anybody can perform surgery?

In the United States, the center of the modern world and modern surgery, the "First Surgeon" must be a physician. Not a tech, not an assistant, not a nurse, not a PA.

No non-doctor is qualified to perform the cutting. These ancillary staff may ASSIST the first surgeon, but not take his place. Thus, when the first surgeon leaves the surgical field, much less the room, the staff member becomes the first surgeon and that is against the law.

Look at it from a moral perspective. If living human tissue is going to be cut it should be cut by the most qualified person in existence. By the person at the top of the pyramid of: skill, responsibility, and accountability. That person is the doctor. The others are just hired hands with no overarching responsibility for the patient. That lays purely with the licensed physician.

If the doctor leaves the room he may be blamed for a poor job being performed by a subordinate, but that doesn't help the patient on whom the poor job was inflicted. Had the doctor done this job himself, as proscribed by law in the Unites States, the poor job might not have happened in the first place.

Interesting topic! I want to add a little story which happend >12 years ago, but I remember still like yesterday.

 

At around 24 (5 years after my highschool exam) an "older guy" in his mid/end 30s on the street said "hello" to me.

 

I am very bad with names, but I never, ever forget a face so I said: "Dude, who are you". And he: "We graduated from higschool together, I'm XYZ". My answer: "Sorry, I have never seen you before, but you have a familiar voice".

 

End of story:

Of course I knew him from before. He was my classmate for 9 years. But he went from a boyish redhead into completly sly bald in < 5 years. He looked like another person. And older person for sure, but that wasn't the point, all of us got older. But he looked like somenelse. Totally different facial proportions. Just not himself.

 

I felt really bad (for him) and that I was so "rude". This really sticks to my mind and also freaked the hell out of my as soon as I noticed the thinning in my hair...

This is why I say hair loss is similar to losing an arm and why it's different than people who seek plastic surgery like facelifts. The former no longer see themselves, the latter do see themselves just older.

Here is a recent patient of ours whose identity we were able to recover in just one transplant session:

Jean,

As I've written many times before: I don't debate laymen. You are not qualified to debate me.

What sound do sheep make ? Baaaaah? I'll make that sound for now but not because I am following Dr. Feller. I will make that sound because I have heard first hand from multiple top docs on here that yields are getting better but are not the gold standard nor close to replacing on average the results of strip. ON AVERAGE. There are no doubt excellent FUE docs who are pushing the envelop. New research is coming out all the time. Boundaries are being pushed and FUE is the popular kid on the block. But it is one tool that may be beneficial to use for patient outcome and efficacy SOMETIMES.

 

I do not believe FUE megasessions are the norm in 2017. How do we define megasessions and is there any data to back that up?

 

I am amazed at those rare cases of NW6 being transformed by FUE. A lot of factors need to be looked at in these cases including donor density, scalp hair quality and characteristics and scalp size (not all NW6s are created equal in terms of diameter needed to be covered).

 

Yes the case of the doctor you posted is horrible and I would run far far away from him.

 

Have you looked at Dr. Umar's cases ? I give him credit for posting his results. Because he shows the LIMITS of trying to restore an NW6 with FUE only. He taps into body hair quite a bit mixed with scalp hair and the results in many cases are far from complete or even partial restorations.

 

Again I do not get my reason and evidence from Dr feller. I've never met him. I get my reason and evidence from a combination of sources and it all started with MAJOR top docs in the USA and Canada telling me they are following the research on FUE and basically saying the exact same thing Dr feller has.

 

BTW some of those European FUE docs are pushing the envelope and taking grafts from potential non safe zones and making calculations of xxx years before a patient recedes in those areas, using topical propecia as mitigator, using rogaine etc.

 

Here is my gold standard: what do you need to complete YOUR goals; what is your likely donor count; assume propecia or rogaine may not work so you aren't screwed if they don't down the road; find a surgeon who is experienced or well trained by an experienced doc; one who is willing to show you an average result from his clinic; one who will give you an opinion about what is best for you (I wanted FUE but was talked out of it by multiple surgeons --all of whom had the staff to do FUE--ethics ! And hopefully as a bonus a doc who is following the research and willing to adapt and offer new options if proven.

 

It's what Dr feller said : will ONE doc or two or even their reps please stand up to counter what he is saying?? Will one confirm ?? Dr. Lindsey actually comes close as he publically states

Multiple times inhis videos and posts that FUE just isn't there yet.

 

Spex where are you? Probably sleeping but you will see this when you get up. Respond . Any others?? Come on it's for patient education. So step up and debate!

Davis, you are good. Damn good. If we had just five more posters like you online the internet FUE hype would be stopped dead in it's tracks. Thank you for posting. You are extremely lucid and articulate.

Like mentioned in my previous post here:

I really appreciate your motivation to educate hair loss sufferers in this forum. But like mentioned before as well, you do not help you case by being so one sided and, sorry, arrogant.

To make it simpler, I highlighted some of you statements:

1. Your theory of the three forces is simple physics and the trauma of the donor (Under the skin) is easy to understand as well. The problem: You do show few (nicely said) data to back it up and which makes it still a theory not a fact. Personally I believe you are right, though. Question is: How big is this effect?

2. This could be a reason, but there can be a lot of other reasons why no other clinic joins the discussions. Also in other discussion few clinics are as active as you. And if fear of being attacked is the reason…you are one of the most aggressive attackers.

3. Again, you reason is very valuable, but it is no fact. The data is very poor. Do not misunderstand me. Again, personally I believe you are right.

4. All data shown in the other thread lead to the conclusion that FUE is getting more and more popular. Your 99 to 100 or even 999 to 1000 has not been backuped by anything. Also, there are many reason to perform FUT even if the results would be very close. Available grafts, hair type etc.

5. There are a lot of (great) FUE results here and on their own websites from FUT and FUE clinics.

6. Hasn’t Dr. X chosen the FUE only route? I think I have seen a Video in the net about strip scar and why FUE is superior. Again, I am not saying he is right. Also, if both methods go hand in hand, why giving up on strip? You logic is flawed.

7. In my country the most well known clinics perform FUT, even for very small cases. Actually with terrible results and poor skill level. Hairloss websites in my country recommend to go elsewhere (even for FUT), and my country is world class in other medical departments (and many other fields). Doesn’t make sense, but it is what it is.

8. Like I said. You are a major reason for this dogfight.

 

Once again, I appreciate what you are doing. But as a hairloss sufferer I wish you argumentation would not be so one sided. Then I could not only trust more in what you say, but also a real discussion could arise like:

- How big is the difference in yield etc.

- Especially compared to the dissection of grafts by the strip itself

- Is there a mathematical break even for either method at a certain amount of grafts

- Does fast extraction really cause more trauma then slow extraction?

- Which hair type and pattern benefits more from FUT or vice versa

- Why are there still poor FUT results even from world class clinics? What is this X-Factor?

Sorry again for my poor English as I am not a native speaker. This makes it difficult to be as precise in my words as I want to.

I am only being one sided because that's what the facts and experience dictate. If you do not perform the surgery then you can't understand the realities that these facts are based on. People, such as yourself, see this as "arrogant". I am not an egalitarian. Doctors know more than laymen. That's just how it is. This reality rubs some people the wrong way so they lash out and call me arrogant. But this doesn't change the truth.

The numbers you are looking for do exist. The popularly accepted growth yield for FUE is 75%. I believe it is lower because these figures do not include the number of grafts killed during the extraction attempt. The number only relate sto the grafts that were actually removed SEEMINGLY intact.

There are tons of data out there that support the failure or retardation of growth of FUE grafts vs. FUT grafts. Just look at the results posted on this site alone. Also look at the results those doctors who are capable of performing both choose to present on their websites and this site. They are overwhelmingly FUT results for a reason.

Sure, there are poor FUT doctors and poor FUE doctors. But that doesn't make the procedures equivalent. A poor FUT will likely grow better than a poor FUE. And if X factor negatively affects FUT then you can bet your last dollar it affects FUE to the same extent or worse.

We do not need to set up studies to know with scientific certainty that a graft that has been compressed, twisted, and literally RIPPED from the skin will grow poorly compared to one that has not. We do not need to perform physiological tests on a graft that has been skeletonized to know it is not going to grow as well as one with all the necessary tissue still wrapped around it.

Despite the obviousness of it all, the scientific method was applied to quantify and qualify the damage inflicted on FUE grafts during extraction. It was called the FOX test and it showed that fully 80% of grafts are damaged during extraction. I believe the number is actually higher because even grafts that LOOK intact are not. Amazingly, however, as the internet hype of FUE ratcheted up the FOX test became conveniently forgotten.

The acceptance of FUE has been anything but scientific.

The proof is in the pudding. When photos of "successful" FUE procedures are presented as "evidence" that FUE works as well as FUT I say on it's face this claim is misleading. If you show only people who won at Casinos and ignore those who lost their shirts one would come to the conclusion that most people win in Vegas. But of course it isn't true.

Every patient, and I mean every human being, has a right to the procedure that offers them the best chance of growth in the recipient area. Offering FUE to the exclusion of FUT denies them this right.

I believe it is highly unethical to offer FUE to the exclusion of FUT in almost all cases. It is just wrong. But people are making money doing it so you don't hear much fuss about it. I, for one, will not accept making money this way. I want to do it right or not at all. Many of my colleagues, unfortunately, do not feel the same way.

One cannot produce a skeletonized graft via FUE and ethically reinsert it into that persons scalp while all along knowing had the procedure been performed as an FUT instead that graft would not have been skeletonized at all.

JeanLucBergman said:

Classic clueless HLS2015 comment. Telling someone to use body hair BUT NOT FUE.

 

Surely daddies favourite ivy league lawyer would know what mutually exclusive is?

 

By the way I read your failed Rahal result and understand why you hate FUE now. Because you got FUE with an untrained tech using a MOTORISED EXTRACTION TOOL. Not all FUE is equal, and you made a bad choice by choosing a name over experience and method. Probably why you went to an Ivy league, and why they didn't even teach you first year logic properly.

 

"Dw guys, if you all come out retarded and ever lose an argument JUST TELL THEM YOU WENT TO HARVARD!!!"

Jean,

Your posts are very malicious and the tone is uncalled for.

HLS2015 is correct. You are incorrect.

JeanLuc

 

Good grief man what quantitative evidence is out there on FUE hair yields by this European doctors ? Qualitative photos are really SO subjective regarding yield and result. Do you know how few docs even list the vital stats on graft counts broken down at time of extraction on this site ? Minimal. Some of those Europeans doxsndo it well but man photos are just not a good way to evaluate, sorry. There are few clinics willing to post an "average" result. Pictures rarely show punctate scars, transacted grafts, potential donor area deforestation with FUE. How do photos shows subdermal scarring that may compromise a further round of FUE? They don't. It would take a hands on approach by an experienced hair transplant surgeon. Or what about the well documented phenomenon of Spanish /Italian stronger density? How does that affect the results ? Are the Spanish FUE docs playing with a stacked field by virtue of their practice location? See how complicated it is ? It's is nor as easy as you make it out to be to assess results. You are not qualified to do so.

Davis, your post is dead on. Really well written. Good to see someone is using their brain and thinking things through.

I never said Dr.Hasson was an expert in FUE. And the inference that was made by Doug was the survival rate was similar but in that same example he said the patient would have more grafts in a lifetime if he went FUT.

 

Dr. Feller, questions don't mean I disagree with you. I would strip and then FUE at the end.

 

I'm not attacking you so not sure why you are so hostile.

Andy,

No hostility at all.

And I fully agree with you to go for strip then FUE. That's exactly how it should be. We are on the same page.

I'm glad doug said patients would have more grafts in a lifetime if they go for FUT. You didn't include that in the original quote.

I don't think this discussion can be resolved without Feller explaining how Doctors such as Erdogan, Ferudini and Lupanzula put out FUE results consistently better than his own. It's all well and good to cite made up numbers and arrogantly spout "Well I'm a doctor!" but so are the Europeans putting out better work than yours with FUE and for a cheaper price than your FUE.

 

I'm not looking to be insulting or offensive, I think Feller has done great service to HT in the US as a practitioner of the art but also to educate patients and I very much enjoy his Youtube videos. The problem is that the appeal to authority fallacy is a bad argument to begin with, but when other doctors make conflicting claims AND have RESULTS to back up that FUE yields can be consistently just as good then you have a serious issue.

 

And that is the serious elephant in the room. Why are there MORE Erdogan results on the internet (all FUE) and on average I would consider them to be more aesthetically pleasing, and even more consistent. I've seen bad Feller results, I haven't seen bad Erdogan results, and there are more of them.

 

And it comes down to that, HT skill comes down to results and a natural, aesthetically pleasing result with minimal turmoil to the donor area. Without a doubt and I'm sure others here agree there are European FUE doctors doing a job just as good as Feller.

 

And still, Feller is scared to mention these doctors by name. Much appreciated that H+W are prepared to come out to praise and learn from EUROPEAN masters, not mediocre long time US FUE surgeons like Feller and Rassman.

Jean, you are offensive. And you mean to be.

I do not appeal to authority, I am the authority.

You are just a loud layman who simply doesn't know what he doesn't know. You embarrass yourself and confuse well meaning people.

You really should stop assuming to speak for the doctors who perform the actual surgeries. They didn't ask you to. You have no idea of how many procedures they are performing nor what their success and failure ratio is.

You also should stop trying to suppress the views and posts of those you don't agree with. I've already had at least one your phony posts deleted by the moderator. But by all means keep commenting on my Youtube videos, you boost their rankings.

To the posters here: I have consulted with a ton of the "top" physicians here. First, a bunch who tried the ARTAS machine refuse to use it anymore and they do so because the results are not close to expected. These top docs have conscious but if ARTAS worked well I am sure many would continue to use it. It does not work well. Stay away.

 

EVERY one of those docs admitted privately that strip is still the best to ensure results. All offer FUE and use a variety of methods depending on the doc (e.g. manual punch, drill, even innovative beneath the scalp extractions from the "bottom up"). There is ongoing research as to how many grafts can be safely extractedl before compromising density, how to regenerate grafts, etc etc, All agreed for those needing major grafts (oh maybe between 3500-,8000) then strip in a good docs hand is still the best bet.

 

I've had the strip removed multiple times. It is intimidating. But it was the right thing to do for my case. If I need a small case to top off areas yeah sure maybe I'd risk losing some grafts via FUE--but I know it won't be as good as strip. And I've got pristine areas above and below the scar to explore if needed via FUE or MFUE. Now would I like to be able to cut my hair shorter and not expose the scar? Sure! But I would never have gotten the grafts I needed with FUE---as told to me by multiple docs.

Amen.

I never once said that I think ARTAS the company or the machine is good. I'm not sure where that came from.

 

I know and most people know on this forum that most ARTAS machines that are owned by respected clinics are collecting dust.

 

All I was trying to say was if you have someone that supports your clinic or gets paid by your clinic saying that ARTAS is the gold standard doesn't that just go against everything your clinic stands for.

 

Philosophy might have been the wrong word but I believe Doug from Hasson and Wong has said that FUE and FUT yields are very similar now a days.

 

This is one of the best FUT clinics with an outstanding reputation promoting FUE.

 

Are they wrong? A lot of people on this forum turn to Hasson and Wong for advice, surgery and perspective.

 

Again I'm not attacking you , I'm just asking questions to become better informed like most people on this forum.

I can't speak for what other people say or why they say it. Nor does it matter. The facts are the facts. FUE causes more trauma to the grafts and therefore do not grow as well as their FUT counterparts.

Dr. Hasson firmly understands this and has always agreed with this reality. If he has changed his position on this he certainly never shared his reasons with me or anyone else that I know of. It would be nice if he shared his revelations with the public. That would make for a great forum topic.

What I do reject is the reasoning that because Dr. Hasson (or anyone else) is an excellent and world class leader in FUT that this somehow makes him an expert on FUE. It doesn't.

Nor did Dr. Hasson or Doug make this claim for themselves. The inference was entirely made up by anonymous online lay posters.

"I do take issue with non-doctors performing the scoring (cutting) part of any surgical procedure. In the United States it is illegal and considered an inappropriate delegation of surgical responsibility. Even an RN and a PA-very highly trained, licensed, and competent medical professionals- cannot perform the scoring (cutting) around the graft as they may not act as the Primary surgeon. They may Assist in the scoring, but it must be the attending surgeon who actually has his hands on the cutting tool. If the primary surgeon leaves the room, then the RN or PA becomes the primary surgeon and that is simply illegal. "

 

Dr Feller, even though all three are Canadian surgeons, are you thereby also inferring that you take exception to Dr Hasson, Dr Rahal, and Dr Wong who all delegate portions/all of the scoring to a non-doctor during FUE? They also do leave the room during this process, and from reports, don't have their hands on the cutting tool at all times. That's a big statement to make regarding three incredibly respected surgeons no?

It's not a "big statement" it is what it is. I take exception to anyone who delegates surgery to unlicensed unqualified personnel. It doesn't matter who they are. You as the public should as well.

Didn't he also had poor FUT performed elsewhere and also a small touch-up FUE with Feriduni after having FUT (or FUE?) with you?

Yes, he did. I did the bulk of his repair using manual FUE.