FUE prevents a future FUT?

[chrisdav]

I am interested to know who are the elite fue doctors that have been referred to.

[England]

Duplicate Post

Edited February 28, 2012 by England
Removed due to duplicate

[England]

Chris, I listed them but my post was censored. One of them I'm not allowed to mention, the other two were Feriduni and Bisanga.

 

As I already stated - both lean towards FUT - but both say yields are only slightly less, and both confirmed that the zone of extraction is widened and can in some people mean more grafts can be extracted with FUE. Both have excellent track records of achieving excellent yields with both, too.

 

Baldwhisky - honestly, I think your numbers are incorrect.

 

1 - The rich people would have to go to one of the 30 doctors for 'one doctor to stand out', So lets cut your odds by a factor of 30.

2 - The rich people would have to agree to have their pictures displayed. Lets cut your odds by a factor of 10? I reckon only 10% of very rich people would want to be made a public example, if that.

3 - The people you mention would have to choose FUE over FUT when considering the time too. This reduces your example by another factor of 10 (most rich people would prefer a single operation and 15 months to 2 operations over 4 years).

 

That's already 3 factors off the top of my head which reduce the odds you stated by a factor of 3000.

 

Lets put some sensible numbers around this.

 

You say that 1% of the men consider a hair transplant, that's 30 million people. Yet extrapolated worldwide, the number of hair restoration procedures in 2010 was approximately 279,381, 88.5% of which were FUT procedures (again, this is conservative because as the grafts increase, the % who select FUT increases too). This means that only 1% of the people considering a transplant have one at all, in any given year. By your own logic, lets say that 1% of them are rich enough to afford the large FUE. This leaves 279381*0.115*0.01 people, which is just 321 people. Lets then factor in the fact that probably 90% of those who get hair transplants don't need the massive 10,000 operations (it's actually probably closer to 95%). This leaves us with 3.21 people. How many hair replacement surgeons are there in the world? Again, lets use your numbers - you say an average surgeon can do 150 per year. If we take the 279,381, this means roughly 1862 doctors (assuming they are all fully booked all the time), of which 30 are 'top' doctors. This leaves 30/1862 * 3.21 people who go to a top doctor, which gives us 0.05 people . You might say that the top doctors attract more patients, but if this were true, the other surgeons wouldn't be fully booked so there would be more of them, so it all adds up the same either way

 

So, we're now left with 0.05 people who will have a HT, need a megasession, are rich enough to afford FUE, selected FUE over FUT, and went to one of the top 30 doctors.

 

This leaves 0.0061 patient per 'top doctor' per year, who wants and can afford an FUE megasession.

 

Then lets factor in the fact that only 10% of those want their pictures and story published on the internet. You can see how this leaves 0.00061 patients per 'top doctor' per year who have the FUE megasessions, as a conservative maximum.

 

Hair Transplant Statistics, Hair Restoration Surgery Info | Bernstein Medical - Center for Hair Restoration

[BaldWhisky]

Chris, I listed them but my post was censored. One of them I'm not allowed to mention, the other two were Feriduni and Bisanga.

 

As I already stated - both lean towards FUT - but both say yields are only slightly less, and both confirmed that the zone of extraction is widened and can in some people mean more grafts can be extracted with FUE. Both have excellent track records of achieving excellent yields with both, too.

 

Baldwhisky - honestly, I think your numbers are incorrect.

 

1 - The rich people would have to go to one of the 30 doctors for 'one doctor to stand out', So lets cut your odds by a factor of 30.

2 - The rich people would have to agree to have their pictures displayed. Lets cut your odds by a factor of 10? I reckon only 10% of very rich people would want to be made a public example, if that.

3 - The people you mention would have to choose FUE over FUT when considering the time too. This reduces your example by another factor of 10 (most rich people would prefer a single operation and 15 months to 2 operations over 4 years).

 

That's already 3 factors off the top of my head which reduce the odds you stated by a factor of 3000.

 

Lets put some sensible numbers around this.

 

You say that 1% of the men consider a hair transplant, that's 30 million people. Yet extrapolated worldwide, the number of hair restoration procedures in 2010 was approximately 279,381, 88.5% of which were FUT procedures (again, this is conservative because as the grafts increase, the % who select FUT increases too). This means that only 1% of the people considering a transplant have one at all, in any given year. By your own logic, lets say that 1% of them are rich enough to afford the large FUE. This leaves 279381*0.115*0.01 people, which is just 321 people. Lets then factor in the fact that probably 90% of those who get hair transplants don't need the massive 10,000 operations (it's actually probably closer to 95%). This leaves us with 3.21 people. How many hair replacement surgeons are there in the world? Again, lets use your numbers - you say an average surgeon can do 150 per year. If we take the 279,381, this means roughly 1862 doctors (assuming they are all fully booked all the time), of which 30 are 'top' doctors. This leaves 30/1862 * 3.21 people who go to a top doctor, which gives us 0.05 people . You might say that the top doctors attract more patients, but if this were true, the other surgeons wouldn't be fully booked so there would be more of them, so it all adds up the same either way

 

So, we're now left with 0.05 people who will have a HT, need a megasession, are rich enough to afford FUE, selected FUE over FUT, and went to one of the top 30 doctors.

 

This leaves 0.0061 patient per 'top doctor' per year, who wants and can afford an FUE megasession.

 

Then lets factor in the fact that only 10% of those want their pictures and story published on the internet. You can see how this leaves 0.00061 patients per 'top doctor' per year who have the FUE megasessions, as a conservative maximum.

 

Hair Transplant Statistics, Hair Restoration Surgery Info | Bernstein Medical - Center for Hair Restoration

 

 

Sorry I find it difficult to follow you logic so can't respond to all of it, but to follow your suggestion to cut the odds down to one doctor:

That doctor needs to fill 150spots (my guess)

By your numbers there are performed 32200 FUEs

There is no douct that these 32200 people could afford an FUE as they had one performed.

So if they can afford an FUE.

247,381 could afford an FUT. They had one.

 

How you get from there, to conclude that there isn't enough people in the world that can afford and want an FUE I don't get. Guess we just have to agree to disagree.

I'm far from rich but there were all kinds of other reasons that I deceded for FUT over FUE. Not to sound overly arrogant, but 30-40grand isn't that much money for many mature men.

[England]

Sorry I find it difficult to follow you logic so can't respond to all of it, but to follow your suggestion to cut the odds down to one doctor:

That doctor needs to fill 150spots (my guess)

By your numbers there are performed 32200 FUEs

There is no douct that these 32200 people could afford an FUE as they had one performed.

So if they can afford an FUE.

247,381 could afford an FUT. They had one.

 

How you get from there, to conclude that there isn't enough people in the world that can afford and want an FUE I don't get. Guess we just have to agree to disagree.

I'm far from rich but there were all kinds of other reasons that I deceded for FUT over FUE. Not to sound overly arrogant, but 30-40grand isn't that much money for many mature men.

 

Hey Baldy,

 

Rather than me writing another rant, I'm just gonna take a step back, and remind myself what we are actually discussing! :confused:

 

I am claiming that if FUE wasn't more expensive than FUT - more FUE megasessions would happen, and so the 'best' FUE megasession examples would become better (just because there were more of them).

 

Do you disagree with this?

 

Just to be sure: do you believe that there are lots of FUE megasessions happening with the top doctors, or not?

 

Cheers

[BaldWhisky]

Hey Baldy,

 

Rather than me writing another rant, I'm just gonna take a step back, and remind myself what we are actually discussing! :confused:

 

I am claiming that if FUE wasn't more expensive than FUT - more FUE megasessions would happen, and so the 'best' FUE megasession examples would become better (just because there were more of them).

 

Do you disagree with this?

 

Just to be sure: do you believe that there are lots of FUE megasessions happening with the top doctors, or not?

 

Cheers

 

Well that’s pretty hypothetical at the moment but taking that into account I don’t doubt you are correct; at the same price more mega sessions would have happened and you would have seen more examples of good ones. Both because more of them were performed but also because there would have been more experience in performing them.

You would see more good results but it would take years of development before you saw 11.5 good mega FUEs for every 88.5 good large FUT you see.

[England]

Well that’s pretty hypothetical at the moment but taking that into account I don’t doubt you are correct; at the same price more mega sessions would have happened and you would have seen more examples of good ones. Both because more of them were performed but also because there would have been more experience in performing them.

You would see more good results but it would take years of development before you saw 11.5 good mega FUEs for every 88.5 good large FUT you see.

 

I think we agree on this

[bonkerstonker]

England i'm not been funny but it's just commonsense if fue was cheaper their would be a small rise in fue megasession because it's more affordable like anything else that goes down in price that's just business but the examples wouldn't improve and their wouldn't be that many more people taking fue simply because it would still take days in surgery and would still give you moth eaten donor it's likely most people would max out with strip then turn to big fue megasessions if needs be, even Dr Feller who i and many others regard as one of the best fue surgeons in the world has said on this forum that fue growth and yield isn't as good as strip i really don't understand why you've got this thought it compares well.

 

Andy was originally concerned about the healing and ugly duck phase so he could get back to work and i having had both strip and fue agree fue is a lot better for that than strip by a long way, also short hair cuts but that's all it's good for.

Edited February 28, 2012 by bonkerstonker

[Jotronic]

England,

 

You can only compare by looking at 'top 5' if the same number of surgeries are FUT and FUE. I already explained to you that most clinics who offer FUE also offer FUT, so each practice booking '5 days a week' isn't relevant at all.

 

I can see that you misunderstood my comparison but I suspect this is due to your bias to the two clinics you are considering for your procedure. I said take the top 5 strip clinics and the top 5 FUE clinics. I did not say take the top five FUE clinics that perform strip as well. To narrow this further, just take the last 100 surgeries, strip and FUE, and compare them. I believe you will find further fault even with this comparison but regardless I'm sure it won't be done.

 

I completely disagree with this. If there's one thing I've learned simply by living and knowing people - the majority of people can't afford to spend 30-40k on their hair. To disregard this is a factor is... unsympathetic to the situation many patients find themselves in, in my view

 

I did not say the majority, I said many men. There is a big difference and please do not say that I am unsympathetic to the situation that many patients are in. I was one of them. I know what I'm talking about. I know for a fact that MANY men would seriously consider putting themselves in the poor house to have their hair back. I know this because I've spoken to them. I've spoken to men that have mortgaged their homes, TWICE, to get enough money for their hair. The stories go on.

 

Firstly, I didn't say that 6,000 to 10,000 grafts are 'routinely and commonly possible' by FUE- so I don't know where that came from. That isn't even the case for strip. What I said, to be clear, is that some top doctors have told me that more grafts can be extracted in FUE in some patients, due to a larger available 'safe zone'.

 

Actually you did say that. You said... "I have consulted with numerous top surgeons, many of whom have confirmed to me that given any one patient - it is possible to extract a higher number of grafts via FUE (without cosmetic problems). This is because FUE can be taken from 'safe zones' which ordinary strip cannot reach (such as further wide).

 

You didn't say specifically 6000 to 10,000 grafts but when I have already mentioned, and it is generally accepted, that strip will allow for an average of 6500 to 9000 grafts over X number of procedures, and you make the statement above about "given any one patient" more grafts are available then it stands to reason you are saying that more than 6000 to 10,000 grafts are available via FUE. This is pretty clear. Maybe I'm mistaken but this is what it looks like to me.

 

Secondly - The top FUE doctors in question, as you said, are fully booked for months in advance, so why would they feel the need to prove anything at their own expense, which they haven't even claimed (as I said above)?

 

FUE only? Five days a week?

 

Thirdly - Since you're claiming FUE is so much worse, feel free to prove this or evidence it in any way in a double-blind study with a world class FUE doc. They have portfolios of results showing the success they have achieved, and first hand experience performing both FUE and FUT. Do H&W perform FUE?

 

Where did I say it was "so much worse"? You made some claims, I called you out on it. FUE is fine for some cases but it does not offer the same yield as strip every time and it certainly does not offer more grafts (assuming equal skill by the docs). Again, the only advantage is that you can cut your hair shorter. That's it. Period. If all else were equal across the board (total numbers, yield, price) everyone would be doing FUE and no one would be doing strip.

 

Sorry, but again, I completely disagree with this. Mathematically, if you lose 3,000 grafts, whether that's with FUE or FUT - you still have 3,000 fewer grafts at the back of your head, with which to cover the same area. Unless your head has shrunk during the surgery - that means you will see the same loss in density in both. The only counter argument to this is if strip raises the bottom of the back of your hair, meaning that it has a lower area to cover, is this the case? The reduced density at the back of your head doesn't get resolved by 'temporary tension' subsiding - because the tension only subsides when the skin becomes accustomed to being stretched, not because the hairs become any more dense.

 

Let me explain it a different way. If you look at how hair grows in the donor zone you will see that the direction of the hair allows for a shingling effect. If you remove a few thousand grafts via FUE you lose some of this shingling effect because each graft removed is now an empty space, ergo, less hair to shingle on top of other hair.

 

There is however a reduction of density due to strip but it is much more subtle than with FUE and is not a one to one comparison. For example, if you take a 30 X 1.25 strip and assume approximately 80 FU per cm2 you will get the 3000 graft number you mentioned earlier. Once this strip is removed the closure makes the two sides of the wound move half as much as the total width of the strip. In other words, the upper and lower edge need only be pulled .625 cm or just over 3/5 of a cm. The amount of stretching to close the wound is minimal and does not even affect other areas of the donor scalp. The reduction of density is visibly imperceptible to anyone around you. Take my donor scalp for example. I've had four strips with Dr. Wong for a total of 9360 grafts. Before Dr. Wong, and the reason why I first went to him, was because of my previous two procedures where I had about 800 mini-grafts taken, also via strip. Dr. Wong and I calculated that I have had well over 6cm of donor tissue removed from my donor zone. If strip and FUE were to reduce the density in the same way then a NW 6.5 like myself would easily be able to have 10,000 grafts via FUE. My hair characteristics are medium to slightly fine, straight and of average density.

 

Here is a #3 buzz cut, former NW6.5, 10,000 ish grafts via strip. Note that my laxity is exceptionally resilient but laxity is irrelevant based on your points.

 

 

 

 

Is my donor zone less dense now then it was before I first started down the surgical path? Of course it is but it is not to a point where it is perceptible to anyone around. Could this be done if I had undergone FUE? Not. A. Chance.

 

Capping for me, is the main disadvantage of FUE. It's when the doctor attempts to extract a graft unsuccessfully (typically by slicing the top off), which can leave the graft damaged, or with a reduced number of hairs. This decreases your donor without giving you increased hair in the recipient area.

 

Thank you. I had not heard that term before. It makes sense and I actually might use it.

 

The doctors in question are both FUE and FUT experts - so I respect their opinion on the comparison the most, given that they routinely perform both. That being said, they do suggest FUT is slightly more advisable in certain situations - due to the reasons I stated (less volatility - potentially higher yield, no capping, quicker, less expensive). To clarify - in my post I explained what advantages strip does and doesn't have, I didn't reach any conclusion that FUE is always better, or even better at all

 

Have you spoken to Dr. Feller? He's been doing FUE longer than almost anyone and does a damn fine strip surgery as well. I doubt there is anyone that knows more, shares more and is more honest about FUE than Dr. Feller. I guess I misunderstood the whole point of what you were saying. I was under the impression that you WERE saying that FUE is always better due to your claim that FUE can get more grafts than strip and that the yield is the same. You did say that you were told this by reputable doctors but now you are saying you have not reached any conclusions. Ok. I accept that.

 

I hope you can understand my points, England. FUE is fine for those that want it but they need to understand the differences and the inherent limitations. Publicly, doctors will not say, patient for patient, that FUE will have the same yield and offer more grafts compared to strip. They will say "some" patients can have these benefits or they will skirt around the issue somehow. If all the benefits of FUE that you mentioned were actually true then why would those doctors not eliminate strip altogether, charge less money for FUE, and let the increase in business offset the slightly lower fees being charged? As Spex says, and I agree with this for the most part, patients want FUE, but not all patients can have FUE and cost is not one of the reasons why.

 

I'm tired and have work to do. I wish you well.

[England]

Hi Jotronic - I'll try to keep this one short(er)

 

I said take the top 5 strip clinics and the top 5 FUE clinics. I did not say take the top five FUE clinics that perform strip as well.

 

Problem is, the best FUE clinics do perform FUT as well. And vice versa (mostly)

 

To narrow this further, just take the last 100 surgeries, strip and FUE, and compare them. I believe you will find further fault even with this comparison but regardless I'm sure it won't be done.

 

Actually, this comparison would be perfect, assuming you only looked at both from the top doctors. I do agree that FUE is more specialised so needs talent. If you looked at the last 100 surgeries from top doctors, my personal opinion would be that there isn't much between them.

 

I did not say the majority, I said many men. There is a big difference and please do not say that I am unsympathetic to the situation that many patients are in. I was one of them. I know what I'm talking about. ....I've spoken to men that have mortgaged their homes, TWICE, to get enough money for their hair. The stories go on.

 

For what I was saying to be true, all I need is for a significant proportion of men to be turned off FUE by the cost (or time), thereby reducing the number of FUE surgeries, and therefore lessening the 'best' ones (just statistically). The fact that some men have had to mortgage their homes to afford strip is perfect evidence of this. Ask them could they have afforded 3x the amount?

 

Actually you did say that. You said... "I have consulted with numerous top surgeons, many of whom have confirmed to me that given any one patient - it is possible to extract a higher number of grafts via FUE (without cosmetic problems). This is because FUE can be taken from 'safe zones' which ordinary strip cannot reach (such as further wide).

 

OK, some of the confusion may be that I said 'given any one patient' - poorly worded but I didn't mean 'everyone' by this. I meant in the specific circumstances of some patients, I have clarified this quite a few times in subsequent posts that it's 'some' patients from which more FUE grafts can be extracted. As you said, I definitely did not claim any numbers of grafts are 'routinely available'.

 

FUE only? Five days a week?

 

 

As I said, the top FUE surgeons happen to do FUT too. Most of the top FUT surgeons do FUE too as well. The top top ones who do both seem to have different claims on which one is more effective and how much more - I guess it depends on their talent / technique

 

Where did I say it was "so much worse"? You made some claims, I called you out on it. FUE is fine for some cases but it does not offer the same yield as strip every time and it certainly does not offer more grafts (assuming equal skill by the docs).

 

I was making a very modest claim that in some cases, more grafts can be extracted with FUE than strip, and that the yield of FUE can be nearly as good. I stand by this, due to the widened safe zone and evidence of FUE cases that I've seen. It's often assumed by people that you can get more with strip, and that the results are better - so I was challenging that assumption. You are making the claim, for example, that your surgery could never have been done with FUE - but how do you know? Did you try? For you to be so sure, FUE would have to be 'so much worse'. Where are all these failed FUE's from the top doctors? And I really do mean top doctors because I agree with you if you go below this level.

 

If all else were equal across the board (total numbers, yield, price) everyone would be doing FUE and no one would be doing strip.

 

I agree, this is kind of my point, so long as we add 'time' into it. Unfortunately, FUE is more expensive, and does take longer, so most people particularly those who need megasessions prefer strip. I argue time and money are huge factors in this, and that FUE can (in the right hands) produce as good results (imperceptible difference to strip).

 

Let me explain it a different way. If you look at how hair grows in the donor zone you will see that the direction of the hair allows for a shingling effect. If you remove a few thousand grafts via FUE you lose some of this shingling effect because each graft removed is now an empty space, ergo, less hair to shingle on top of other hair.

 

 

I agree with this, and I think the top FUE surgeons do exactly this with how they select their grafts. It's why their FUE is so much better than lesser doctors (who end up with the Moth effect - I guess the equivalent of the gaping strip scars from poor FUT doctors) - they select grafts in a sporadic pattern which can be covered utilising the shingling effect. In strip, the same size gap which is created by removing hairs (it's exactly the same sized area of skin which no longer has hair) is automatically spread evenly over the back of the head, by stretching the skin. In FUE, this relies on the doctors ability to spread the grafts out over the area in a balanced an even way. In this respect, the strip is like a perfectly distributed FUE, and of course no FUE doctor can ever be perfect. But some get close, in my opinion.

 

If strip and FUE were to reduce the density in the same way then a NW 6.5 like myself would easily be able to have 10,000 grafts via FUE. My hair characteristics are medium to slightly fine, straight and of average density....

 

Could this be done if I had undergone FUE? Not. A. Chance.

 

Honestly, I think maybe? I have a density of 80, have fine hair, and have already had a strip of 1,500-2,000 taken out.. and I've been told very conservatively that I have 6-8,000 grafts left for FUE - probably more. I've seen other estimates of even higher numbers (up to 12,000) on other patients. I haven't seen many results of said 'megasession' FUE's - but by the same token I haven't seen any failed ones (from top doctors).

 

Have you spoken to Dr. Feller? He's been doing FUE longer than almost anyone and does a damn fine strip surgery as well. I doubt there is anyone that knows more, shares more and is more honest about FUE than Dr. Feller.

 

I know Dr Feller does not believe FUE achieves as good a yield as FUT. I do think this varies by doctor though, I don't think any one doctor can make a general rule that applies to all. The doctor who I can't mention is at the other extreme of that and claims FUE is better. Feriduni and Bisanga both state FUE yield is slightly lower on average - but I think they are extremely talented and are able to get nearly as good as strip yields with FUE.

 

I guess I misunderstood the whole point of what you were saying. I was under the impression that you WERE saying that FUE is always better due to your claim that FUE can get more grafts than strip and that the yield is the same. You did say that you were told this by reputable doctors but now you are saying you have not reached any conclusions. Ok. I accept that.

 

I never said the yield is the same, or that the doctors claimed that (I admitted that most top doctors say the yield can be slightly lower) - I said 'nearly' or 'as good to the naked eye'. I was just questioning the assumption that an FUE megasession would look so bad. Until I see one performed by a top doctor, I don't like to claim that it's not possible. I'm asking all of these questions because I want to get a feel for just how much lower the yield is for FUE, and to make sure I've worked out all the advantages and disadvantages. I personally only need a 2,400 FUE but I want to make sure I'm not making a mistake - so I am challenging assumptions, including my own - to get to a comfort level. For me personally, I have all but decided on FUE. I wouldn't say that I am 'biased' towards FUE, I would say that I chose FUE after researching it and concluding that a possibly not perceptible reduction in yield is a small price to pay for being able to cut my hair short in the future if hair loss ever becomes too much for hair transplants.

 

I hope you can understand my points, England. FUE is fine for those that want it but they need to understand the differences and the inherent limitations. Publicly, doctors will not say, patient for patient, that FUE will have the same yield and offer more grafts compared to strip. They will say "some" patients can have these benefits or they will skirt around the issue somehow. If all the benefits of FUE that you mentioned were actually true then why would those doctors not eliminate strip altogether, charge less money for FUE, and let the increase in business offset the slightly lower fees being charged? As Spex says, and I agree with this for the most part, patients want FUE, but not all patients can have FUE and cost is not one of the reasons why.

 

I'm tired and have work to do. I wish you well.

 

I think your points are fair - although I do think we need more evidence of megasession FUE's not being possible before we can jump to that conclusion. I agree that no reputable doctor yet claims that FUE will offer the same yield, both Feriduni and Bisanga were very clear that FUE yield can be slightly lower - I think the key question is how much lower. I think this varies depending on the doctor, and in the right hands FUE is a more attractive option.

 

I don't think they could eliminate strip if FUE is as good - because it will always take more time and so they will always be able to do less of them and so will always need to charge more. This might push them out of the market for many guys and so wouldn't be in the interests of their bottom line. I do, however, think that FUE will increase as more and more doctors gain the expertise required to achieve similar results to strip with it.

 

Do you have any pictures or links to failed FUE megasessions, from top doctors?

 

Cheers

[chrisdav]

England, There is a certain clinic that goes by the name of a famous designer fashion brand.

 

There are more than enough horror stories linked to him regarding large fue sessions that have failed miserably and there are plenty of patients to confirm this.

 

He did have some good results, but the consistency was terrible.

 

Some of the allegations towards that company are extremely sinister.

 

The other doctor you are referring to, trained the two doctors you have stated, so of course they will be bias towards his views.

 

I find it hard to believe that you are questioning someone, who is extremely knowledgeable and has worked for arguably the best hair transplant clinic in the world for several years.

 

You have basically one doctors view, who trained two others who obviously agree, against an overwhelming majority.

Edited February 29, 2012 by chrisdav

[England]

England, There is a certain clinic that goes by the name of a famous designer fashion brand.

 

There are more than enough horror stories linked to him regarding large fue sessions that have failed miserably and there are plenty of patients to confirm this.

 

He did have some good results, but the consistency was terrible.

 

Some of the allegations towards that company are extremely sinister.

 

The other doctor you are referring to, trained the two doctors you have stated, so of course they will be bias towards his views.

 

I find it hard to believe that you are questioning someone, who is extremely knowledgeable and has worked for arguably the best hair transplant clinic in the world for several years.

 

You have basically one doctors view, who trained two others who obviously agree, against an overwhelming majority.

 

Chris, with all due respect, we're having a reasonable discussion about the advantages and disadvantages of FUE. I believe that the people I am talking with aren't offended - it's a natural discussion to have. It turns out that for the most part we agree anyway. Part of the reason they are here is to have discussions like this. I don't know how you describe what I'm saying as 'against an overwhelming majority' - I've quite clearly said on a number of occasions now that I am not claiming FUE is better than FUT.

 

The fashion designer doctor is not what I would describe as a 'top doctor' - for precisely the reasons you describe, if anything he has a bad reputation, so he doesn't count.

 

The doctor I can't mention did train Bisanga, but not Feriduni. Just because he trained him doesn't mean they necessarily share his opinion. I don't think I've seen any bad FUE results from any of those 3, either.

 

There aren't many megasession FUE results available, mainly due to cost and time reasons, in my opinion, but when done by the top docs they can achieve fantastic results.

Edited February 29, 2012 by Unregistered
Removed link. Forum which linked it stated it was FUE but I can't confirm

[chrisdav]

This is one example, which I admit looks good.

 

However, I would like to see this patient in the flesh and with better pictures under harsher lighting.

 

Hasson and Wong take their videos/pictures under the harshest lighting and you will always get the best view of a transplant in the flesh.

 

Spex has even said he has met a number of patients in the flesh, who have had larger fue sessions and was unimpressed.

 

Hair restoration clinics need a technique which suits the vast majority, not a minority who have preferable characteristics.

 

Armani does count because he has obtained some excellent results with mega fue, but believes everyone is a candidate and this has ultimately led to this army of unhappy patients.

 

People cannot afford to mess about with their limited finite donor supply knowing that it may/may not work.

 

Hair surgery is expensive enough as it is, let alone the added pressure the strike rate may be significantly reduced.

 

Would you rather have a 95% chance or 65/70% chance of success?

 

All that will then happen with the patient is that they will need to spend more money, on top of the previous amount already spent, to repair and then transplant over areas which now could potentially be damaged, making it more difficult to obtain this yield and then leaving less hair to gain the same coverage.

 

They only benefit of fue is the scarring, and even now, the scarring of strip has improved so much, it's like the edge of a pack of cards.

 

I think they can achieve fantastic results but not for everyone.

Edited February 29, 2012 by chrisdav