Jump to content

Dr. Mwamba - 3509 FIT to Frontal Third and Crown, 8 month results


Recommended Posts

  • Regular Member

Hello from Dr. Mwamba's clinic in Bruxelles, Belgium! Here are the before and after pictures for a patient formerly on the verge of Class V.

 

We grafted 2739 FIT grafts to the hairline and frontal third and 770 FIT grafts to the crown for a total of 3509 grafts. At 8 months post-op, this patient can look forward to another 20-30% growth as the transplanted hairs continue to mature.

 

I will let the pictures speak for themselves, but if you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask icon_smile.gif

 

-----------------------------------

I am not a doctor. I am a surgical tech trained in hair transplant. My opinions are not necessarily those of Dr. Mwamba. My advice is not medical advice.

 

9251087413_D81BC7E7D0C8BA1B8C0513FFCE153909.jpg.thumb 8251087413_4A8F39B8353A76FC0B3E73AC5EE2085B.jpg.thumb 7251087413_09C52881D4E734508CE78339C1E274E3.jpg.thumb 6251087413_1672EF209902792D5001134E77B9C187.jpg.thumb 5251087413_749D06F55A37F9139D432F4F85DE07A8.jpg.thumb 4971039413_4361B4415E28FEAD240DD44543B4CA78.jpg.thumb

 

 

I am not a doctor. I am a surgical tech trained in hair transplant. My opinions are not necessarily those of Dr. Mwamba. My advice is not medical advice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JessicaWHTC,

 

MUCH Better before/after pictures. I especially that you added the immediately post op pictures as well.

 

I'd say all around, that this partciular patient had a very nice transformation for only 3509 grafts.

 

A few comments, and I hope you take them as constructive, even the criticism part.

 

I really like the natural look of the hairline. The hairline is a bit thinner, but is a vast improvement from his before condition, but certainly looks natural in my opinion. Do you have any close up shots of the hairline you can post?

 

My only criticism is that I'm not sure that I like how the grafts were placed in the crown. I admit, that I might need to see additional pictures of the crown, but from the immediately post-op picture and one of the after crown shots, it dDoesn't seem to have much of a natural "whirl" pattern. It also seems that the majority of the grafts were placed on the right side of the crown (looking at the back of his head) leaving a bit of a gap on the left side. It also looks slightly "pluggy", maybe due to the fact that the hair is transplanted in more of a straight pattern instead of a whirl. Or perhaps mini/micro or double follicular unit grafts were used in the crown? However, I admit that the appearance that I'm seeing may also be due to the fact that there simply hasn't been a lot of grafts placed in the crown to date. Does this patient intend on getting more work done, namely in the crown area? Certainly adding density would improve his crown appearance.

 

I DO realize, however, that the results are not complete yet at 8 months and typically the crown takes longer to grow in. My evaluation is made, however, based on looking at the immeditely post op pictures and the after shots.

 

Also:

 

Do you happen to have and/or can provide detailed hair counts along with the graft counts?

 

Thanks,

 

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Regular Member

I also remember this patient. To give more information of the crown pattern and gap. Dr. Mwamba does make sites that conform to a natural whirl as he usually draws the pattern before hand if the patient has no hair for reference of the previous whirl. If I remember correctly, the patient's main focus was the frontal 1/3. The crown was of lesser importance,and chose to use a light speckled pattern for a lesser amount of grafts. I do not see any plugginess. The hairline is good. These grafts are single follicular units. I would ask that if possible, to try to use wet shots and/or dry shots befores and afters, and not mix them up because it shows even higher levels of improvement when in uniform. Some people get confused when they see a wet before and then a dry after angle shot for whatever reason.

 

However, sometimes these pictures are not available.'

Thomas Ortiz

Thomas Ortiz, BS

Hair Technologist

James Harris, MD

 

Previous experience with Rose, MD Mwamba,MD, Devroye, MD, Bridges, MD, Cooley, MD, Bisanga, MD, (Bosley/MHR/PAI/Nuhart brief work to understand corporate hair restoration concepts), Cole, MD.

 

Experience in Procedure: FUT/FUE/Fi_T/Repair Cases/MUT.

I offer unbiased information. I am not compensated to post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill,

You are right we didn't dense pack his hair line.The patient wanted to have hairs everywhere with a limit budget.And he wanted high density in the hair line.I recommended him to focus in frontal zone with an average density in the hair line around 40 FU/cm2.It will save some grafts that we put in the crown to break down the balding appearance.And I put him on propecia +rogaine.

The results came out and the patients is pleased with the front ;but we noticed a few gaps in the crown that I addressed last month in Brussels.

I did around 800 unshaven FIT which bring the total amount in the crown around 1500 grafts.We will keep following him and hopefully he will be OK for a while.

Thank you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Regular Member

Hi, Tommy! Hope you are doing well, and that docs worldwide are taking advantage of your skills and expertise. The more we can spread good techniques and superior patient care, the sooner we can see the end of bad, pluggy hair jobs and scarring.

 

------------------------------

 

Bill,

 

You have a great eye, and you are so well educated on hair transplants! Awesome!

 

The whirl in the crown is hard to see in the immediate post op picture because it is more about the angle at which the site is made, rather than the overall pattern. I have added a pic with arrows showing the direction that the grafts are angled, thus the direction that they will grow. The dot is the center of the whirl. Beware the clinic that transplants crowns in straight rows! The idea is to mimic what growth pattern occurs already in nature. Dr. Mwamba uses the patient's own hair patterns to determine the route that he will take.

 

The patient wanted to focus on the front. This was his main area of concern. Once we achieved his number one goal, we moved to goal number two, which was just a sprinkling of coverage to the crown. Because funds and donor hair supply are limited, Dr. Mwamba wanted to make the biggest impact with the fewest amount of grafts. In the crown, it is not about where the hair is placed, but the coverage that it will lend to the overall crown. With a clockwise whirl, most of the coverage comes from the patient's right side, so that is where we placed the majority of the grafts.

 

The left side of the crown had hair that was offering some coverage, but they were fine, somewhat miniaturized, and susceptible to future hair loss, which has occurred here. A second pass would definitely give him great coverage in the crown, but keep in mind that this patient is headed for advanced class V. He will lose more crown hair. By adding minimal coverage at this time in his life, we can avoid obligating him to future surgeries. In other words, it will still look natural and good as his hair loss progresses.

 

Hope that helps, Bill. Great observations and in all the right places!

 

-----------------------------------

I am not a doctor. I am a surgical tech trained in hair transplant. My opinions are not necessarily those of Dr. Mwamba. My advice is not medical advice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you all for the feedback...this definiately helps.

 

I agree that it is difficult, at least, in this particular post op picture to see the angles of the hair, and truly the whirl is created with angling of the hairs appropriately. Obviously, as "Dr" said (can I assume this is Dr. Mwamba? (welcome by the way), limited hairs were placed in the crown, and surely to improve the appearance more density will be needed. Makes sense. Does this patient have future plans for more work?

 

A few things additionally I'd like to see if you have these kinds of pictures (and this echos B Spot on another post):

 

1. What size instrument do you use to extract the hair follicles in the donor area?

 

2. Can you provide photos of any patient that shows the donor area shaved down closely (preferably 2 clip or less) so we can see what the scarring looks like. As B Spot said in the other post...some people are under the impression that FUE does not create a scar, which is indeed false...however, certainly scars CAN be minimal.

 

3. Can you provide detailed hair count breakdowns? How many single FUs, 2 haired FUs, 3 haired FUS, 4 haired FUs, etc? That would be helpful as well

 

Another question:

 

I have also heard the term "FIT" being thrown around by many clnics as opposed to "FUE". From being around here for quite some time (a large reason why I am highly educated regarding hair transplantation), there has been much controversy as to what FIT is, if it really exists separately from FUE or if it is just another fancy way of referring to FUE. So if someone from your clinic could at least share with us how YOU define it, this would be helpful. IMO, from what I've read, the use of the term "FIT" has been a way to market FUE in a different way, giving people the taste that it's somehow better, when in reality it's the same as FUE.

 

Again, I'm impressed with out the frontal zone came out - natural looking hairline and good density added into the front. The crown could definitely use more grafts, but I recognize that you only had so much to work with since your patient had a limited budget.

 

Thank you for posting. I'll be looking forward to your response.

 

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Regular Member

I knew this was going to come up and I knew I would be the one to break the ice on these subjects. Jess can u help part of this. She may have the pictures you are asking.

 

As for what FIT and FUE are, that is a tough issue to answer. FIT Doed exist. As far as the marketing strategies and what not, I don't care about that stuff. What is good for the patient, I care about that stuff.

 

FIT and FUE may/or may not be performed similarly or it may be performed differently. It depends on who is doing it. The terms follicular isolation and follicular unit are supposed to be conducted by a means of taking the grafts one by one in their natural grouping of the hairs.

 

Follicular unit/grafts are composed of 1,2,3,4,5,6, and rarely 7 hairs. So one should realize quickly that the graft size has a direct impact to the punch size. In other words, since everyone's hair characteristics are different, then the follicular units are different. I've seen patients with all 2's through out the donor area and have seen patients with all 4's, and 5's.

 

The punch size of FIT/FUE doctors all over the world is somewhere between 0.8-1.3mm.

 

When hairlines are needed, follicular units are dissected into singles, two's, etc. This is standard paractice. Doctors are different on how they count them.

Thomas Ortiz

Thomas Ortiz, BS

Hair Technologist

James Harris, MD

 

Previous experience with Rose, MD Mwamba,MD, Devroye, MD, Bridges, MD, Cooley, MD, Bisanga, MD, (Bosley/MHR/PAI/Nuhart brief work to understand corporate hair restoration concepts), Cole, MD.

 

Experience in Procedure: FUT/FUE/Fi_T/Repair Cases/MUT.

I offer unbiased information. I am not compensated to post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hairtech,

 

I appreciate your imput on this, however, I'm left with the same ambiguity.

 

The question: What is the difference between FUE and FIT was not addressed other than this answer:

 

"FIT and FUE may/or may not be performed similarly or it may be performed differently".

 

Then you further went on to describe Follicular Unit (I think you mean to add the word extraction here) and Follicular isolation as basically the same thing: "conducted by a means of taking the grafts one by one in their natural groupings of hairs". I agree...this is how I would define FUE (Follicular Unit Extraction).

 

So my question still remains...how does FIT differ from FUE?

 

Please understand...I'm not picking on you...it's just that everybody who attempts to differentiate these two methods, fall short and speak ambiguously.

 

You DID, however, answer well my question about the punch size used to extract FUs. I'd say .8-1.3mm depending on the number of hairs per graft is accurate as an average. Of course, knowing this, I'm curious to know what Dr. Mwamba's clinic uses and if we can see pictures of the scarring post op after scar maturity.

 

I'm also waiting to hear what "Independent Clinical Consultant" means. Independent most likely means you are not affiliated with a clinic of any kind...but if that's true, then what do you offer during your consultations? And remind me again how you are affiliated with Dr. Mwamba? It appears you worked for him at some point? is that right? Just trying to get everything straight.

 

I look forward to your answers.

 

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Regular Member

Dr Mwamba and I attend the same church from time to time. I do not work for Dr. John P Cole. I now work for several physicians.

 

If anyone know me, "hairtech", I am not one to NOT say what I want to say. So if you try to corner me, it doesn't work for me. If you want the truth, then you will get the truth. If you think, FIT exists because someone is trying to derive financial means for themselves, then who is me to stop that? Look at the Woods technique.

 

Check this out. What if some selfish slob brings an old technology to an industry that needs a change... Then let's say the same slob(and enslaved employees) becomes very good at that technique. Then why cannot that be who they are? Who cares? The technique of FIT is mentioned by not only the originating doctor but three other doctors that I know of.

 

FUE was coined by no one in the U.S. FIT was coined in the US. The Woods technique was coined in Australia.

 

What is your point? I don't care about marketing strategies... just care about helping patients for free. I don't care about you or whoever... making money or being paid to post. And I won't ask you.

Thomas Ortiz

Thomas Ortiz, BS

Hair Technologist

James Harris, MD

 

Previous experience with Rose, MD Mwamba,MD, Devroye, MD, Bridges, MD, Cooley, MD, Bisanga, MD, (Bosley/MHR/PAI/Nuhart brief work to understand corporate hair restoration concepts), Cole, MD.

 

Experience in Procedure: FUT/FUE/Fi_T/Repair Cases/MUT.

I offer unbiased information. I am not compensated to post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Regular Member

I feel a little differently about the difference between FIT and FUE.

 

The basic, generic descriptions are the same. It is a hair transplant method that is defined by the removal of a single follicular unit from the donor area followed by the transplant of that follicle to the recipient site.

 

The difference lies in the details, standards, techniques, instrumentation, and practice. The doctors who use the FIT techniqe agree on certain standards. They isolate and target flaws in hair transplantation and work together to solve these problems through the invention of new instrumentation, procedural standards, and patient care.

 

It can be a simple agreement, for example, we will not place multiple-hair units on the frontal hair line because it doesn't occur in nature that way and thus has an unnatural appearance.

 

Some agreements are more complex, for example, when a patient seeks our help with characteristics x, y, and z, we will agree to discourage surgical options a, b, and c due to increased risk of scarring, poor yeild, or complications that can arrise as the patient's hair loss continues through out his life. However, we will offer alternative options l, p, and q to meet his/her needs.

 

Some agreements are greatly in depth and involve patent-pending techniques and equipment. These are intellectual property and are protected by law. Some aspects are not legal to divulge to the general public, thus the ambiguity around certain issues.

 

Also, keep in mind that lot of the standards of FIT are centered around what the surgeon WILL not do, rather than what he CANNOT do. Standards are developed by taking a critical analysis of results, even if the results are the best that can be achieved at the time. For example, in the early 90's the goal was to get hair to grow in a bald area. Now it is much more involved. It must have a certain percentage of yield, graft survival, natural pattern, appearance, elimination of the "pluggy" effect, good donor healing, concern for the patient's future loss, etc, etc. You've been on the forums, so you are aware of the many criteria that are involved in judging a transplant "good" or "bad".

 

Even with FUE, there are some distinctions. How many times have you heard "good FUE surgeons" and "bad FUE surgeons"? FIT is defined and seperated in the same manner, but the differences are more defined in their practice and standards.

 

It's still ambiguous, I know! But if you can ask more specifically, I can tell you the approach that FIT takes.

 

---------------------------------------

I am not a doctor. I am a surgical tech trained in hair transplant. My opinions are not necessarily those of Dr. Mwamba. My advice is not medical advice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Regular Member

Exactly! And if am to remain unbiased, I cannot stat that more perfectly.

 

One thing though Jessy,

 

"...It can be a simple agreement, for example, we will not place multiple-hair units on the frontal hair line because it doesn't occur in nature that way and thus has an unnatural appearance."

 

I agree with this statement, but that has nothing to do with FIT. And I have seen other docs, care about this like you and Mwamba. It is probably strange for you to hear this but even some of the larger corporations are now attempting to place grafts naturally.

 

 

"...Also, keep in mind that lot of the standards of FIT are centered around what the surgeon WILL not do, rather than what he CANNOT do. Standards are developed by taking a critical analysis of results, even if the results are the best that can be achieved at the time. For example, in the early 90's the goal was to get hair to grow in a bald area. Now it is much more involved. It must have a certain percentage of yield, graft survival, natural pattern, appearance, elimination of the "pluggy" effect, good donor healing, concern for the patient's future loss, etc, etc. You've been on the forums, so you are aware of the many criteria that are involved in judging a transplant "good" or "bad"..."

 

I know other doctors that are as dedicated to their procedure as you are stating. And I myself have been surprised about why there is not much talk about those docs.

I am glad you bring this up because so many times people speak about the negativities and try to make certain doctors out to be selfish pigs who don't care about the patient, employees, and only care about making money for themselves, and never sharing to help others.

Thomas Ortiz

Thomas Ortiz, BS

Hair Technologist

James Harris, MD

 

Previous experience with Rose, MD Mwamba,MD, Devroye, MD, Bridges, MD, Cooley, MD, Bisanga, MD, (Bosley/MHR/PAI/Nuhart brief work to understand corporate hair restoration concepts), Cole, MD.

 

Experience in Procedure: FUT/FUE/Fi_T/Repair Cases/MUT.

I offer unbiased information. I am not compensated to post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Regular Member

Yes. Some of the standards that exist amoung FIT surgeons are shared by other surgeons in the field.

 

Many surgeons agree that 2 and 3 hair grafts don't belong on the hairline. Unfortunately, some still find it acceptable, and some are taking a while to come around.

 

Its all about extablishing general standards, procedures, and instrumentation. Not every standard is unique to FIT only. It is just important to discuss with your surgeon the details of your hair, goals, and future plans. It is equally important for the surgeon to give the patient the best possible options for their individual case, unrestricted by the doctor's abilities.

 

If the best option for a patient is a procedure that the surgeon doesn't perform, then the surgeon should give the patient a referal to another surgeon who does offer that technique.

 

-----------------------

I am not a doctor. I am a surgical tech trained in hair transplant. My opinions are not necessarily those of Dr. Mwamba. My advice is not medical advice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will address you both separately, but feel free to read the entire message:

 

hairtech,

 

Regarding your first post...I have no idea what you were indeed trying to say...but you completely steered around my question. Either for some reason you feel personally attacked that I quoted you and called your statement ambiguous and are too busy defending yourself OR you don't know the difference. OR, there is no difference.

 

If you missed this, allow me to make this clear...I am NOT attacking or cornering you. If you feel cornered...it could be for a number of reasons...but they are from within you and not from me.

 

I believe my question was pretty simple. Forget marketing strategies...I brought that up because so far that's the ONLY thing that I've seen regarding FIT. Since nobody can define the difference between FUE and FIT, tacking a new name onto something has obvious marketing strategy...whether for good or bad.

 

So again...

 

What is the difference between FIT and FUE? Certainly we all agree that there are different variations between clinics of how one might perform FUE and how one might perform Strip, for example. But clearly one can discuss the differences between Strip and FUE very clearly because there are clear distinctions that are always true. But what about FUE and FIT? I think if we can't come up with standard distinctions between FUE and FIT, then we have to conclude that FIT is just another variation of FUE, and since FUE in itself has variations between clinics, we have to therefore conclude that FIT IS FUE.

 

I'm not nearly as interested in the origin of who coined the term FIT nor why it was coined in the first place. I'm interested why various clinics use the term FIT and then can't actually define how it's different than FUE.

 

Jessica,

 

I appreciate your attempt to answer the question. Truly your response was more thorough...however, as you admitted at the end, it's still ambiguous.

 

Let's look at the key components of what you said:

 

"The difference lies in the details, standards, techniques, instrumentation, and practice...."

 

Great...now please define how FIT and FUE differ in all of these categories. Since there are obviously variations within both the FIT technique and variations within the FUE technique...what standard distinctions can you make between FUE and FIT that warrant calling FIT something different than FUE? I recognize that it's not just your clinic that uses this technique...but since you brought it up, I ask you the question. I've asked it in other parts of the forum as well...so far, no good answers.

 

"The doctors who use the FIT techniqe agree on certain standards."

 

What are those standards?

 

"They isolate and target flaws in hair transplantation and work together to solve these problems through the invention of new instrumentation, procedural standards, and patient care."

 

Excellent...this sums up hair transplantation is general, but doesn't do anything to differentiate two supposed different techniques.

 

What scares me is...many clinics throw out the term FIT (Follicular Isolation Technique) and then can't define it or state how it is different than FUE in a specific way.

 

If I asked the question...how would you differentiate Strip vs FUE, we could come up with several standard differentiators across the board. Sure there are variations of FUE and variations of Strip...but there are clear distinctions that can be made between them.

 

Anyway...what you are saying about hair transplantation in general is all correct...but there is still no clear answer to my question icon_wink.gif.

 

Anyway...I really am not trying to pick a fight with either of you...but since you throw a term around that I never use, I have to ask how it's defined. Because even the educated people of this community, when they hear FIT think of FUE...and that's it. Some might go as far as to call it a glorified FUE (but I don't believe that's accurate from what I've read). The problem is people begin to believe that somehow this FIT technique is better than FUE. But since nobody can differentiate the two...it turns out to look like a marketing tactic to draw people in because somehow they believe it's better.

 

Just my thoughts...

 

I am interested in other member feedback on this as well.

 

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its all about extablishing general standards, procedures, and instrumentation. Not every standard is unique to FIT only. It is just important to discuss with your surgeon the details of your hair, goals, and future plans. It is equally important for the surgeon to give the patient the best possible options for their individual case, unrestricted by the doctor's abilities.

 

Jessica,

 

I agree...but though not every standard is unique to FIT only...so far, there have been NO standard that has been defined that is unique to FIT...that is my point. That is the answer I'm looking for. I am not attempting to discredit that FIT exists...but if it really IS different than FUE, surely somebody has to be able to say something unique about it that does NOT apply to FUE.

 

Take care icon_smile.gif

 

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Regular Member

Right.

 

FIT is a variation of FUE.

 

Neither is better than the other. Some approaches are more appropriate for the patient's goals. There is not always one surgeon or clinic that is best for the patient, but a variety of choices.

 

Sorry I didn't answer your question at first. I didn't know that the terms FIT and FUE had been so inappropriately used. Interesting.

 

---------------------------------

I am not a doctor. I am a surgical tech trained in hair transplant. My opinions are not necessarily those of Dr. Mwamba. My advice is not medical advice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Regular Member

Right.

 

FIT is a variation of FUE.

 

Neither is better than the other. Some approaches are more appropriate for the patient's goals. There is not always one surgeon or clinic that is best for the patient, but a variety of choices.

I am not a doctor. I am a surgical tech trained in hair transplant. My opinions are not necessarily those of Dr. Mwamba. My advice is not medical advice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jessica,

 

And there's the answer I was looking for...which confirms what I've been saying all along. Since FUE has variations within themselves, FIT is nothing but a "named" variation of FUE which has no specific classifications of it's own, seemingly.

 

I appreciate your answer icon_wink.gif. I look forward to your continued involvement in this community.

 

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Regular Member
There is not always one surgeon or clinic that is best for the patient, but a variety of choices.

 

And that is where I would like to help. To bring light to those who think that only one doctor cares and has the only technique that works best. And thank you clarifying the FIT/FUE thing. It was out of my unbiased nature.

Thomas Ortiz

Thomas Ortiz, BS

Hair Technologist

James Harris, MD

 

Previous experience with Rose, MD Mwamba,MD, Devroye, MD, Bridges, MD, Cooley, MD, Bisanga, MD, (Bosley/MHR/PAI/Nuhart brief work to understand corporate hair restoration concepts), Cole, MD.

 

Experience in Procedure: FUT/FUE/Fi_T/Repair Cases/MUT.

I offer unbiased information. I am not compensated to post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hairtech,

 

You just love the word unbiased don't you? I too am unbiased...we can be unbiased together :P

 

I agree that it's about choices and that choices are a good thing. It's important to understand and be able to differentiate the techniques, no their risks, limitations, and benefits...and that is where this community comes in. I'm glad to hear you want to be a part of it.

 

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

The principal diference is the instruments used. Regarding the instruments that we use to extract grafts in the donor site, we customized our punch according to the patient's hair characteristics. We have different tools with varied punches and we used them according to the donor caracteristics.

 

A graft has a different number of hairs. You can have 1, 2, 3 or 4 hairs in one graft. Each graft has a different diameter. That's why we customize our punch according to patient's hairs characteristics.

 

We are choosing a punch a little bit bigger than the graft we take so we make sure to get it entirely. With big punches, you will have a larger amout of hairs. In fact, for the same amount of grafts, you will displace more hairs, therefore more volume, therefore better coverage.

 

What about the scarring? Scar depends on everyone skin characteristics more than in punch size. The skin is elastic; after extraction those holes will shrink and it minimizes the scar size. This is a natural function of our body. You have tiny differences that could not be visible to a naked eye. icon_wink.gif

 

We must agree that any cut of your skin will end with some kind of scarring. The smaller the aggression, the better the scar. So, small punchs should definitely give less scar tissue. However, what we are looking at in hair transplant surgery is the non visibility to a naked eye of the scar.

 

Two things make the scar visible: its size and the hypopigmentation. The second one is far more important than the first. Because it creates more contrast with the surrounding skin. Hypo pigmentation or white scar is due to inflammatory cells that destroy the melanocytes and it depends a lot on skin characteristics and individual tendency to react to a trauma.

 

Here an interesting link Dr. Cole wrote recently:

 

Size Comparison Hair Transplant Study

 

http://www.forhair.com/hairtransplant/topic1455.html?highlight=fue

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fithair,

 

Welcome to our community.

 

I agree with just about everything you said. I believe that the patient's hair characteristics play a significant role in the entire hair transplantation process from donor scarring, to tools needed, and to the overall appearance of coverage and density. of course, pigmentation of the skin is also important as you pointed out.

 

All that to say however, I do not believe that follicular unit extraction or isolation tools can justify a "difference" in the name of a technique. Follicular Unit Extraction (FUE) is the same technique as Follicular Isolation Technique (FIT). Otherwise, anytime tools change - a new name would have to be developed. Dr. Feller's "The Feller Punch" extraction tool would justfiy him renaming the FUE technique to something totally different. Keep in mind, I have no problem with a clinic using one term or the other, as long as its being made clear to the patient that they are the same thing.

 

I have found however, that those ethical hair restoration physicians that are diligently working with FUE/FIT have become quite good at it and producing high growth yields due to their careful handling of the follicular unit grafts at extraction (or isolation) and insertion into recipient sites.

 

Best wishes,

 

Bill

 

P.S. So everyone is clear, do you work for Dr. Cole and/or Dr. Mwamba? Please provide some clarity in your signature. Thanks in advance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for the welcome and you fast reply.

 

I agree..more important than the name of the tecnique are the results. Dr. Cole is considered one the the leaders in the hair transplant industry. He has developed many techniques in order to insure consistent quality results. It is important that doctors have a wide variety of techniques and tools in order to achieve consistent results regardless of the donor area characteristics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fithair,

 

I agree. The results are what matter. However what I don't like is the fact that some clinics sell FIT as a superior FUE. Those educated in hair transplantation can see that this is a marketing tactic to draw in potential patients.

 

I trust that Dr. Cole uses FIT and FUE interchangably - less there is an ethnical question since it is the same technique as I've described above.

 

You are welcome to post in our community as long as you follow the rules according to our terms of service

 

As I emailed you privately, please list in your signature whether or not you are compensated in anyway by Dr. Cole or Dr. Mwamba.

 

Thank you.

 

Best wishes,

 

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Senior Member

Definite improvement. Looks great. Keep posting more pics and soon FUE will have some more credibility.

 

NN

NN

 

Dr.Cole,1989. ??graftcount

Dr. Ron Shapiro. Aug., 2007

Total graft count 2862

Total hairs 5495

1hairs--916

2hairs--1349

3hairs--507

4hairs--90

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...