Dr Bluford Stough and Mixed graft sessions VS all follicular unit grafting.

[Guest]

Has anyone ever had any work done by Dr Bluford Stough from Hot Springs, Arkansas? If so, would you please share experience. His son is recommended on this site. I have had positive experience with Dr Stough. He does not advertise and he has a very large business. Many Thanks

 

Note - I edited the above title to reflect the fact that this thread evolves into a good debate on the merits of "mixed" graft sessions VS all "follicular unit" sessions. Pat

 

[This message was edited by Pat - Publisher of this site on January 15, 2002 at 06:49 AM.]

[Guest]

Has anyone ever had any work done by Dr Bluford Stough from Hot Springs, Arkansas? If so, would you please share experience. His son is recommended on this site. I have had positive experience with Dr Stough. He does not advertise and he has a very large business. Many Thanks

 

Note - I edited the above title to reflect the fact that this thread evolves into a good debate on the merits of "mixed" graft sessions VS all "follicular unit" sessions. Pat

 

[This message was edited by Pat - Publisher of this site on January 15, 2002 at 06:49 AM.]

[Guest]

My comment on Dow Stough MD, son of Bluford Stough

MD, is that there are better HT docs. Been there.

[Guest]

Blufford Stough is one of the first to revitalize hair surgery proceedures. Can't say much for his son because they are at odds with thier philosophies on how hair transplants should be done. Blufford does not advertise at all and has people waiting in line to see him. He has also trained 100's of docotors. He is not an adovocate of FUT. Reason because it does not create density and his "multifarious technique" where he uses different types of grafts produce much better densisty than FUT. He was one of the first pioneers in hair transplants and his prices are very resonable and he is very matter of fact about discusing these issues with you. He is has earned his credentials and he is a very impressive doctor.

[arfy]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> he uses different types of grafts produce much better densisty than FUT.

I will say it again and again until I am blue in the face: Density is not a limitation of Follicular Unit grafts, it is a limitation of all hair transplants in general. There is a limited amount of donor hair, and every patient has to decide between "density of coverage" (how close together the grafts are placed) and how big of an area they want to cover. There is not enough donor hair for "both" (high density AND "full coverage")!

 

Follicular Units, when done properly, are the most natural looking grafts, and do not need to be "concealed" by other grafts or remaining hair, like Micros and Minis do. Follicular Units will never look pluggy like Micros and Minis, and if your transplant looks pluggy, you are screwed. I don't care how much "density" you supposedly have, a pluggy-looking result will not make anyone happy.

 

Read the article "The Logic of Follicular Units" in the Research Library section of this website, to see how it was proven mathematically that using Minigrafts can never result in "more density", only in bigger gaps between grafts (in other words, "less area covered".)

[Guest]

Having had some work done about 10 years ago when the FU process was not around, I will have to agree with arfy.

 

"I don't care how much "density" you supposedly have, a pluggy-looking result will not make anyone happy."

 

I've had that result for 10 years now and I'm tired of people looking at my head instead of my eyes when in a discussion.

 

So, I'm getting it fixed this February with FU's. I just wish I would have done it sooner in life.

 

Wish me luck.

[Guest]

Stough's technique is termed the "multifarious graft technique", here he uses a variety of different grafts to achieve density with each patient. He does employ FU but only where needed. To understand what he does call him up and ask for a brochure (501) is the area code. Also to futher understand his view points, Dr Walter Unger does a pretty good job on his web site. Why spend all this money if you can't get your hair back with density. These doctors are doing it and they are just going about thier business. I think Unger's site is:walterunger.com. Dr Tessler is another docter who gets the density factor done. There is no plugginess or whatever other negative elements in their work. It is all first class and they believe in smaller sessions. Why go FUT when it makes you look like a plucked chicken who needs more feathers. These guys give you all the feathers you need. Half of all this stuff is illussion anyway if you have insuficient donner hair. Please remember these doctors are from the old school but they did learn new tricks and they are good!

[arfy]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Please remember these doctors are from the old school but they did learn new tricks and they are good!

It sounds like what they've learned is really just a new line of sales patter, that doesn't make a bit of sense. Gee Airtrans, how come you didn't address a single point I made, comparing FUs (the "state-of-the-art graft") to Minigrafts (15 years old and counting)?

 

Even Dr. Unger admits that Minigrafts look pluggy, but he says most patients "won't mind" a little plugginess, because they're supposedly "saving money". HA! (That's also another myth I'd like to shoot down).

 

A hair transplant that looks even SLIGHTLY pluggy is worthless! And that's what you get with Minigrafts! They're the same as the old "plugs" only smaller. Minigrafts should really be called "MINI-PLUGS".

 

I was listening to Spencer Kobren's radio show last night (the Bald Truth), and according to Spencer, Dr. Unger is now doing large sessions of Follicular Unit grafts. I guess eventually old dogs CAN learn new tricks. It looks like Dr. Unger's website is now "outdated", just like Minigrafts and Micrografts are!

 

PS: Good Luck Midnight. The REAL patients know the score here, Airtrans.

 

[This message was edited by arfy on January 14, 2002 at 05:10 PM.]

[Guest]

For what it's worth I have learned that Unger is very good friends with Shapiro, so at least the 'old dog' is learning new tricks from an excellent master.

 

Though Arfy you seem to have made up your mind.

 

I am booked for a procedure with Shapiro in 3 weeks.

[Guest]

Arfy,

 

Read the conclusion on Dr Shipero's article on FUT vs mini grafts. More or less the quote is, if done by a skilled surgeon, you can't tell the difference. Who in the heck is going around looking at your scalp with a microscope anyway. I don't have plugginess and I look damn good. Put is this way, you can't tell I have ever had transplants and it looks 100% natural and density is there. I don't comment with on your stuff because you are so controversal and sour. My transplants are done and life goes on why dwell on this stuff. I had it, it was done and I look and feel great. End of discussion. Bottom Line, a 100% follicular unit transplant doesn't produce desired results. Getting a top notch surgeon who knows how to mix various grafts and produce naturaliness and density, now that is an real artist especially when the price is low and affordable. I wish you well and hope one day your problem is solved. You got a bad wrap but heck don't take it out on the rest of the world. You scare the shit out of some of these first time hair people. Post your pictures, they say a picture is worth a lot of words. If you are as bad as you say, that should shake a few minds into second thoughts. Kindest Regards, Airtrans

[arfy]

I believe Dr. Shapiro says that under certain conditions, in the hands of certain doctors, Minigrafts can sometimes be "nearly as good" as Follicular Units. To me, that is not much of an endorsement. In my opinion, Dr. Shapiro was trying to be diplomatic when he said that. It's a nice way of saying "they're pretty much never as good". And many other top doctors wouldn't even be that generous with their opinion. If Dr. Shapiro endorses Minigrafts, like you seem to claim here, how come he doesn't use them in his own practice? <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Who in the heck is going around looking at your scalp with a microscope anyway.

I think a hair transplant should look great, even if it's windy or if your hair is wet. Minigrafts will not look as good as Follicular Units under these conditions, because they need to be CONCEALED by other grafts, or by "natural" hair. You don't need a microscope to see that Minigrafts are inferior, just a set of eyes. If I pay ten or twenty grand for a hair transplant, I want it to look great from every angle, in every circumstance. For example, what if you are on a date with a woman. She shouldn't get too close, if you have Minigrafts? Or should a guy tell her "Don't touch the hair", so she won't see that it looks a bit pluggy?

 

If you are happy with your results, I congratulate you. I'm not disputing that. Maybe you should post your results. What you find excellent might not be satisfactory to other people, because we all have different standards. Some people might not be bothered by some degree of plugginess. I find ANY plugginess totally unacceptable, especially because there are better "un-pluggy" alternatives available to all of us. (Follicular Unit grafts). If you want to focus our discussion on me personally, by calling me sour, that is understandable. Because the facts are definitely not on your side here, so it is best for you not to focus too much on them. Read the article "The Best Procedure" on your left, to learn about Follicular Unit grafts, and why they give superior results in the hands of a skilled surgeon.

 

[This message was edited by arfy on January 14, 2002 at 10:09 PM.]

[arfy]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Blufford Stough is one of the first to revitalize hair surgery proceedures. Can't say much for his son because they are at odds with thier philosophies on how hair transplants should be done.

Airtrans, are you saying that Bluford Stough's son, Dr. Dow Stough, disagrees with his own father's philosophy about mixing big and small grafts? If Bluford's "nefarious" techniques are so hot, why won't his own son use them?

 

According to this website here, Dow Stough uses only Follicular Unit grafts. He is on the "recommended list" here. Bluford Stough uses a mix of big and small grafts, and is NOT on the recommended list. Hmmm... Interesting! I wonder why Dow Stough doesn't use big grafts like his Dad? Or maybe the better question is "why won't Bluford Stough modernize his techniques?"

 

[This message was edited by arfy on January 14, 2002 at 10:11 PM.]

[Guest]

Arfy,

 

Who ever said your viewpoints were correct. It is easy to convence a heard. All they have to do is follow. When you are a leader it can be lonely. Yes I to had a rather hard time believing the values of father and son could be so different but here is a web site that does nothing but endorse FUT. Personally I say away from the yuppie opinions and go for the iconclastic views. In my opinion, which is worth about 2 cents, I went with Blufford after much investigation and research. You are sold on FUT and the so called natural look. I am sold on a full set of hair that looks natural. What would you rather have if you were a woman in need of larger breats. The larger ones that feel unnatural or smaller ones that feel natural. I would go for the larger ones. Why, they are more appealing and estectically pleasing to both sexes. I feel the same way with Blufford. The mans credential speek for themselves. You need send for his material. I respectfully disagree with your viewpoints that a doctor should be taboo becasue he does not endorse 100 percent FUT. Your goal is to keep others from having a bad experience in all of this transplant mess which is what happen to you. You are crossing the line and not analyzing this thing correctly. Look at Dr Martin Tessler site. He makes it a little simpler and has great results. One of the points Stough makes is that lower graft sessions produce much better results. I believe in this point becasue mega sessions are popular because everybody wants instants results. We live in a gratification society. When you sit in a chair for three of four sessions this is work not instant gratification. Even your respected Dr Superio (sp) said that a skilled surgion can do slit grafts, mini's etc. and you couldn't tell the difference between that an follocular grafts if done skifully. Bluffod Stough got the hightet awards possible, inovated many things in hair transplants. His son does not do just hair transplants but he sure enjoys the limelight. His son does not have half the volume of clinets as his father. Hmmmmm How can that be......

[arfy]

Is someone playing a practical joke on me? LOL! And you said I was sour! Airtrans, you are too funny! The best part is that you are making a great argument, only it's actually against your point of view. Your breast implant analogy is a hoot!

 

I looked at Dr Tessler's website like you suggested, and it is less than impressive. I wonder why there are no close-ups of the hairlines, or any close-ups at all? Those patients' photos are supposed to be Dr. Tessler's "best", and based on the photos on his site, I'm definitely not impressed. But maybe his website is out of date (his site says he mixes graft sizes, and that scalp reductions can be okay. These are definitely old and outdated techniques!). However, Pat recently added Dr. Tessler to his "list". Here's what Pat says about Dr. Tessler:<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Their procedure has continually evolved and they now do very state-of-the-art follicular unit hair transplantation.

 

Airtrans, even the doctors you are using to support your viewpoint, don't agree with you anymore!

[Guest]

Arfy,

 

Since you are so smart what is my viewpoint? You could argue with a totum pole! My main point so you don't have to have a brain anurism trying to figure it out is a person can achieve very nice density in having a hair transplant. Take into consideration that we have to advocate that illusion is part of the density factor. I do not support the 100 % follicular argument because I think it is a joke to achieve results, it is labor intensive and this is a hair transplant not a cornia transplant. In my opinon you are one dimentional in your viewpoints and you keep this site active because you put so much energy into it. My Question is Why. Because you want to save one person grief of a bad transplant. Humbug! A person who is a vicious as you ought to be in Afganistan solving some of that stuff which really might make a difference. You need to become a hair transplant doctor and get on with it. You love the subject why don't you do it?

[Pat - Community Publisher]

As a mega session follicular unit poster boy - I know you can have the best of both worlds with a FUT - uncompromising quality through out and density.

 

Yes, a person as bald as I was (5a) will have a thin look after their first session. But it will look perfectly natural, whether or not they do more transplants. A person then has the option of doing more sessions - not to create naturalness or mask mini grafts - but to add fullness and density.

 

Unfortunately, the same can normally not be said of "mixed" sessions in which the results of the first and perhaps second session can not "stand on their own". Such awkward intermediary stages can be avoided.

 

Now I have seen patients in person at the hair transplant conferences who had mixed procedures that looked very good in normal viewing.

 

But their results often required numerous surgeries before they were finally "completed".

 

And yes, Dr. Tessler's clinic is now doing follicular unit work and their current web site is out dated. That is why I have not linked to it. They expect their new web site (with current info and photos on their procedure) to be online soon. However, for excellent photos of their work see their recommendation/contact page on this site for the state of Michigan.

 

Thanks for the above debate. A good debate about the merits of various procedures rather than political bickering is a welcome relief.

 

Pat

 

Thanks for reading this post. But it's your posts that make this discussion group real and vital. Please jump into the discussion. Just pick a topic and click the reply button.

[Guest]

Arfy,

I have seen both docs. Although Dow is recommended and Blu is not, I would never go to Dow. His father gets natural looking results and

gets much pleasure in his product. Maybe Blu does

not need to be recommended on this site?? IMHO Dow needs better skills....Been there.