FUE pointless at this time?

[homer]

Before you all cry blasphemy, hear me out. my point is that at the minute it is very expensive twice the price i have been told of the strip method, alongside this it is very time consuming so not many FUs harvested in any one session. This means that for people who are extensively bald this would not be feasible as it would be too expensive and time consuming. On the other hand for people who are not that bald it may be a more feasible option, however in this case should they be really getting a HT? In my opinion then i would say that this option would only be really worthwhile for someone who needs a small session and is very unlikely to recede further or someone with a lot of cash. You are free to disagree, as i know many of you will, arfy pserhaps?

[homer]

Before you all cry blasphemy, hear me out. my point is that at the minute it is very expensive twice the price i have been told of the strip method, alongside this it is very time consuming so not many FUs harvested in any one session. This means that for people who are extensively bald this would not be feasible as it would be too expensive and time consuming. On the other hand for people who are not that bald it may be a more feasible option, however in this case should they be really getting a HT? In my opinion then i would say that this option would only be really worthwhile for someone who needs a small session and is very unlikely to recede further or someone with a lot of cash. You are free to disagree, as i know many of you will, arfy pserhaps?

[Guest]

Homer,

 

You certainly raise interesting issues. I do NOT think this idea of yours is 'blasphemy,' but at the same time I also do NOT think that just because FUE is more expensive and time consuming than strip excision it is 'pointless.' A case can be made for either technique, depending on a particular client's needs and resources (both physical and financial).

 

Notice I say 'client,' rather than 'patient.' For, although when under a doctor's care you are a patient, at the end of the day when we talk about hair transplants we're talking about cosmetic surgery.

 

COSMETIC surgery. So you're a CLIENT, a CUSTOMER, just as you are when you go into a video store and buy a DVD. Certainly no different than Michael Jackson going in for a nose-job (a humbling thought! ).

 

A hair transplant is an OPTION, a DESIRE to have your hair transplanted; it is NOT a life-saving surgery, such as an ORGAN transplant. And let's avoid digressing into semantic asides about whether or not a follicle is, in fact, an organ; even if a follicle is technically an organ of the body, you don't need it like you need other organs, say, your heart or liver.

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again: losing your hair is NOT pathological, that is, related to an unhealthy condition. Men and women in perfect health lose hair all the time; and, as you probably know, even men who never go bald lose hair every day -- theirs is just replaced (lucky sons-and-daughters-of-bitches!).

 

My point is simple -- you do not NEED hair transplant surgery to save your life; you WANT a hair transplant to augment your LOOKS, to save your SOCIAL life, perhaps. But let's face it: an HT is no more VITAL than breast implant surgery.

 

So, that being the case, if you CHOOSE to have an OPTIONAL hair transpant (kind of redundant but I'm just trying to stress my point), then what ARE your looks (your physical resources) and what are your financial resources?

 

If, looks-wise, you have lost a ton of hair and need megasessions, then perhaps more hair can be more quickly/efficiently harvested through a strip excision procedure. PERHAPS. I don't KNOW this to be true. Certainly, however, strip surgery will cost you less money than FUE surgery. So, those being your conditions, strip excision might be the answer for your DESIRE to have an HT.

 

But what if you're not totally bald on top, or even a Norwood 3/3a like I am? What if you have definitely lost SOME hair and would simply like to slow down the LOOK of loss, turn back the clock five years (knowing you'll lose more hair later anyway)? In a democratic society, is it not your right to have COSMETIC surgery to augment your hairline?

 

Hey, in California, especially L.A. where I'm from, it's not only your right, it's a patriotic duty! Hahahahahahaha!

 

Anyway, my point is just that if ALL you want is 500 to 1000 FUs planted close together up front (and I know, Arfy, that aesthetically you hate that "hedge of hair") then perhaps FUE surgery IS better for you. After all, you DON'T require megasessions, and if you would like to avoid scarring, well, FUE is the way to go. You can still shave your head! (But then you're bald by CHOICE, not by default.)

 

That is, if you've got the dough. If you do, then why not go for a method that may be more expensive but that may work better for you? Also, at least from my point of view, money shouldn't be the deciding factor. Better I should wait ten years to save for expensive FUE and also, by the way, wait for my thinning to max out so I know exactly what I'm faced with (as opposed to getting an HT at age 12), than to go with a cheap but potentially crap method for what I need.

 

Ultimately, this is not about whether or not to choose radiation therapy or chemotherapy for lung cancer; this is about how best to artificially look better -- silicon or saline implants, girls?

 

We want an HT to be natural-LOOKING, but let's not kid ourselves. This is as fake as genetic engineering -- which is to say, it's possible, even "natural," but it does not occur by itself naturally. It's cosmetic surgery, and we should not be discounting one method over another as "pointless" based on our own vested interests (not saying you have any Homer) or personal circumstances. Different strokes for different folks. What matters is whether the doc is ethical and the cosmetic surgery has the desired results -- a good, natural LOOK.

 

If you disagree with me, I suppose you would like to call FUE a "F--king Useless Exercise."

 

Let's be glad we have the choices we do and concentrate on more important issues.

 

Cheers

[Guest]

homer,

i have to agree with Pic. FUE is not pointless. it is however, not a good option for people that have lost a lot of hair.

 

i've been doing some research on FUE. mainly on this forum. i went back to last year and read some of the stuff about Dr. Woods controversy. (i'm not finishing researching it all just yet though). though i came across this website of Dr. Woods:

 

http://www.4hair.com.au/default.asp?MenuID=218&RefMenuID=164&Category=

 

man, his FU Extraction is pretty darn awesome! no scar at all! and it's my understanding that there is very little shock loss?

 

Now the deal is (from what i understand) that some HT docs are starting to perform FUE. i say good for them. people shouldn't knock them for wanting to learn it. here is one of the arguments: "Well, why do these docs have to practice on patients?" to me, the more FUEs they perform the better they will get at it.

 

myself, i'll just wait till some of these new FUE docs have years (instead of months) of experience under their belts.

[Guest]

Don't forget that non-invasive nature of FUE makes it perfect for touch-up sessions in case your hair recedes a little after you had your first HT. You don't want to have a strip of your skin removed just to have another 500 grafts transplanted to make your hairline look better - FUE makes this possible. I agree with you that people with lots of hair to transplant (2000 and up) should probably go the strip route, at least for now.

 

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic''. Arthur C. Clarke

[uncjim]

FUE certainly may be the sole choice for people with poor scalp elasticity, which may severely limit the width of a strip. This lack of elasticity could occur naturally or due to previous strip surgeries.

[Guest]

i've just now started researching dr. Jones website.

 

is there anyone out there that has had an FUE HT from him?

[homer]

you mention DR Jones, well from what i have researched he doesn t perform the FUE extraction technique as people understand it. He uses the FIT technique which seems to be a modified version of the punch extraction technique of old. He also says he needs to collaberate with Dr woods to improve his technique. So at this time i would not rate him as one of the top docs using the FUE tecnique, IMO.

[CasinoKid]

Homer

 

I had fit done with with dr. coleThats HIS version of fue NOT dr. jones.

 

Just wanted to correct you

[arfy]

No offense Homer, but you are confused.

 

If I were you, I would continue to research, without making any critical decisions. It seems too early for you to be deciding things one way or the other, because you don't have the facts together. Stop "judging" and give yourself plenty of time before you start making decisions.<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>He also says he needs to collaberate with Dr woods to improve his technique. So at this time i would not rate him as one of the top docs using the FUE tecnique, IMO.

ALL of the FUE docs could learn from Dr. Woods. If you use that as a criteria, NONE of the FUE doctors are worth going to. Take some deep breaths and slow down.