Observation About MINIGRAFTS

[Guest]

OK, I know that the state of art is follicular units.

 

I will 99% insist on an all FU procedure.

 

However, the body of HT research AND results photos suggest that minigrgafts may actually have their place in HT. For instance, has anyone wondered why the "repair" pics look so good? They actually seem to have more density and "texture" than the all-FU procedures.

 

Research on grafting "chuubby" vs. skinny grafts shows that the chuubby grafts give a greater yield because there are latent hair follicles in the graft. Wouldnt it be reasonable that MINI grafts provide significantly more DENSITY because fewer hairs are damaged when grafts are cut? The photo results seem to suggest this is the case.

 

I can think of at least one picture where some guy had 400+ minigrafts in the late 90's, went back and had an all-FU "repair" procedure on the hairline, and ends up looking better than 80% of the all-FU pictures.

 

Perhaps this is only in photos -- maybe the minis are easy to detect in person???

 

Has anyone else made this observation? Is it possible that more hairs are damaged using FU procedures with strip extrraction? Perhaps the FUE technique is not damaging much more hair than strip techniques?

 

Is there any reason to believe that a FUE technique will transect more hairs than "skinny" FU grafts?

[Guest]

OK, I know that the state of art is follicular units.

 

I will 99% insist on an all FU procedure.

 

However, the body of HT research AND results photos suggest that minigrgafts may actually have their place in HT. For instance, has anyone wondered why the "repair" pics look so good? They actually seem to have more density and "texture" than the all-FU procedures.

 

Research on grafting "chuubby" vs. skinny grafts shows that the chuubby grafts give a greater yield because there are latent hair follicles in the graft. Wouldnt it be reasonable that MINI grafts provide significantly more DENSITY because fewer hairs are damaged when grafts are cut? The photo results seem to suggest this is the case.

 

I can think of at least one picture where some guy had 400+ minigrafts in the late 90's, went back and had an all-FU "repair" procedure on the hairline, and ends up looking better than 80% of the all-FU pictures.

 

Perhaps this is only in photos -- maybe the minis are easy to detect in person???

 

Has anyone else made this observation? Is it possible that more hairs are damaged using FU procedures with strip extrraction? Perhaps the FUE technique is not damaging much more hair than strip techniques?

 

Is there any reason to believe that a FUE technique will transect more hairs than "skinny" FU grafts?

[Guest]

FUE transection rate, at least in my case was 5%, I'm sure it's much higher with strip, plus transected strip grafts cannot be reused at a later date.

 

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

[Son of a Plug]

I see your point where MAYBE FU and minis mixed together may appear more dense in SOME cases. Don't forget that these are repair patients that spent many years, tears, and $$$ battling a botch job. We are talking several HTs more than the typical patient who now only needs maybe two FU mega-sessions and one touch-up HT (this is considering they have used top HT Docs from beginning to end).

 

I feel the big dinger with minis is that even if you went thru the battle described above, you still need to worry about when you reach your 50's, 60's, and beyond when you'll likely lose more non transplanted hairs and possibly be left with those "chubby grafts" you described above standing out looking awkward and out of place.

 

When you reach your 60's it's likely your entire head will have thinned more to include the donor area no matter what pills you pop.

 

I'd rather stick with all FU and later in life have an evenly dispersed and maturely thinned head of hair rather than worry about possibly having "plugs" standing out of a less dense head of hair.

[uncjim]

The previous posts describe my situation perfectly. There is no question that the work I had done previously adds to the density that I see today. This is especially true along the left hairline.

 

If I had a choice though, I would have preferred all FU (a couple of megasessions and some touch up) because, in the end, that is the closest to "mother nature" one can get.

[ttaco]

Sharp, maybe it was me you were referring to - I had 400 micros and minis (although most were minis, probably 300) and had an FU procedure to restore the hairline. Yes, my hair does look dense, although less so from a top view than a straight on view. But I agree with what someone said in a post above, that as time goes on and I lose more hair, I still will have to deal with the minis in the mid scalp showing their ugly heads. At that point I will probably have to have them extracted and re-implanted as dissected FU's, or have another all FU procedure just behind them to camouflage them. One other thing I want to point out ... while I am happy with how my hairline looks now, and I'm sure absolutely no one can spot my old ugly looking minigraft hairline ... I know it's there. If my bright bathroom lights are on, I can still see kind of see it. It doesn't bother me necessarily, but it would be nice peace of mind knowing they were gone, as in re-implanted as FU's, more as mother nature would have it.

 

Results of my 1424 FU transplant procedure on 8/16/02 can be viewed at...

http://community.webshots.com/user/ttaco

[Guest]

Sharp, maybe it was me you were referring to - I had 400 micros and minis (although most were minis, probably 300) and had an FU procedure to restore the hairline. Yes, my hair does look dense, although less so from a top view than a straight on view. But I agree with what someone said in a post above, that as time goes on and I lose more hair, I still will have to deal with the minis in the mid scalp showing their ugly heads. At that point I will probably have to have them extracted and re-implanted as dissected FU's, or have another all FU procedure just behind them to camouflage them. One other thing I want to point out ... while I am happy with how my hairline looks now, and I'm sure absolutely no one can spot my old ugly looking minigraft hairline ... I know it's there. If my bright bathroom lights are on, I can still see kind of see it. It doesn't bother me necessarily, but it would be nice peace of mind knowing they were gone, as in re-implanted as FU's, more as mother nature would have it.

 

Results of my 1424 FU transplant procedure on 8/16/02 can be viewed at...

http://community.webshots.com/user/ttaco

 

ttaco,

 

Yes, your results are very good and I thought made a case for using minigrafts in conjunction with FUs. Anyway, thanks for the insight on having minigrafts.

 

Hey, I just noticed youre in MD. I live in Annapolis.

[ttaco]

Yes, I live in Olney and work in Laurel. If you ever want to see the fu's and minigrafts in person, just let me know. ttm27@hotmail.com.

 

Results of my 1424 FU transplant procedure on 8/16/02 can be viewed at...

http://community.webshots.com/user/ttaco

[arfy]

A couple of points about FUs vs. Minis that were not raised in this thread...

 

- the larger chance of pitting and cobblestone problems with Minigrafts, where these issues are usually not a problem with true microscopically-dissected FU grafts. Scalp surface problems can be difficult to fix and are best avoided. Even if your transplanted hair looks okay, if you have pits and bumps on your scalp surface, it can ruin your appearance.

 

- the Minigraft is an inefficient use of the donor area. It's a waste of your precious donor supply. Hopefully everyone knows by now that it is impossible to fully restore all of your hair with a transplant, and what a good transplant does is provide an illusion of coverage. The most efficient use of your precious donor hair is to divide the grafts into the smallest natural unit of measure (the true FU, NOT a Minigraft which can be multiple FUs). Patients need to find a balance between density and area of coverage, and ultra dense grafts are a waste of limited resources.

 

- excess tissue in a Minigraft can compress during healing, leading to a tufty (pluggy) look. The graft can actually have greater density than what is found in a normal scalp. Don't think this is a positive thing, it is not. The goal is to mimic nature. Those pluggy Minigrafts would have been better used if they had been split up into FUs instead. Graft compression is not an issue with FU grafts because excess tissue is trimmed, and each graft should only contain a single follicular unit.

 

- Minigrafts need to be hidden. Who can defend a graft that needs to be concealed, in order to look good? If you are able to keep your hair perfectly styled 24 hours a day, and don't worry about the wind, the rain, swimming, "bed head" etc, then maybe Minigrafts looking pluggy is not an issue. However I think nobody really wants grafts that need to be hidden. Forget about "density" for a moment... if your transplant does not look completely natural under all conditions it is worthless, in my opinion. Minigrafts do not look natural!!! A hair transplant that looks like a hair transplant is a waste of your money and limited donor hair. Minigrafts are detectable in most patients, far more often than FUs.

 

I have been reading up aboutr transplants for a while and I have never seen a convincing argument for the use of Minigrafts. I am always willing to learn so if there is one, lets discuss it. The "chubby graft" issue is not a factor, because a Minigraft is more than chubby, it is combining multiple FUs into the same graft. Combining FUs is not necesssary to make a chubby graft, these are two separate issues.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> For instance, has anyone wondered why the "repair" pics look so good? They actually seem to have more density and "texture" than the all-FU procedures.

I don't understand or agree with this comment at all. I have never ever seen a true repair patient who looked as good as he might have, if he only could have done it right the first time.

[Guest]

Arfy, that post is one of your bests. I 1000% agree with your comments!!!!

 

Excellent post.

[ttaco]

Arfy,

 

I agree with you too. I wish I didn't have the minigrafts, but at least they are camouflaged very well now. I don't have any in my hairline or crown, which is the 2 most noticeable areas.

 

There is no point in getting minis when you can get FU's. At some point I may have the remaining minis dissected and re-imlanted as FU's, but that will take considerable $. I may do it gradually over time via FIT/FUE. At leats now my new hairline will help conceal the work.

 

Results of my 1424 FU transplant procedure on 8/16/02 can be viewed at...

http://community.webshots.com/user/ttaco