FUE qestion

[Mikey79]

Hasnt been here in about 3 years. I saw the new "machine" neograft. is it really new, how long has it been in use and do folks still need to take prophecia after being treated.

 

The main reason why I never went thru it back in 2009 is b/c I found out that you need to take prophecia otherwice the HT may be worthless, then I came across too many forums where many guys have a potency problem after using the prophecia.

[aaron1234]

If you want to keep your native hair (and perhaps maintain high quality donor hair) then you should stay on propecia for life.

 

And also, stay away from the neograft FUE machine for life as well. You don't want R2-D2 doing your transplant.

[Mikey79]

thank you. your hair looks great man!!

 

well its not automated, its done by a person, the machine is just a punch with a sucking mechanism

[aaron1234]

thank you. your hair looks great man!!

 

Thanks bud! Appreciate it.

 

well its not automated, its done by a person, the machine is just a punch with a sucking mechanism

 

True. But I have yet to see a successful set of before and afters using the device.

[Mikey79]

but man so many HT, unreal. How much did it all cost you, must be around $20k

 

the scar is kinda bad huh

[aaron1234]

I heal slow and my scars tend to stretch. A scar revision is planned for the near future. I'll be good. Thx!

[scar5]

FUE is best suited to small seasons.

 

seasons = sessions

 

The notion that strip 'suits' big and FUE suits small HT requirements is contentious, and getting more contentious with every passing day, week and year that FUE gets better and docs and technicians get better at doing it. Still it is one of the reasons why strip is still in business, as doctors, reps and sales staff work to maintain the prevailing myth that a patient needing 3000 grafts should naturally choose strip, because strip does, 'the real heavy work' or the 'big jobs'. A slow and steady approach with FUE works just as well and leaves the patient with the possibility of quitting meds, hopping off the HT bandwagon later in life. An option not to be sniffed at. Now this does not contradict what Spex is saying here, because he can choose the option of saying he meant a small session equals one day 800 grafts instead of one day 8000. But it should be remembered that technically a big FUE job is possible if it spread over a number of days. More importantly, a number of small FUE jobs spread over a couple of years is just as good, probably better. With no scar stretching to worry about is an excellent idea IMO. The problem is that clinics and docs in particular usually prefer doing strip as the principal mode of business.

[aaron1234]

With no scar stretching to worry about is an excellent idea IMO.

 

True, no possible scar stretching with FUE - rather possible donor thinning with mega FUE sessions. Pick your poison I guess. To each his own.

[scar5]

Neograft was designed to extract and place hairs but it is- if my impression is not wrong - being used only as an extraction device.

 

 

rather possible donor thinning with mega FUE sessions..

 

Donor thinning is not only possible it is desirable!

An FUE donor zone which is excellently and undetectably 'thinned out' helps the illusion because the contrast between the native zone and the recipient zone is lessened. But I'm aware you didn't mean that, as you said, 'poison'.

 

So the danger here is of course that it is arbitrarily thinned out, maybe in nasty patches, and this is a concern. Machines which extract really quickly like Neograft might tempt, the human element can get carried away. It is not a slur on the machine itself. the machine has enough of its own problems such as;

 

a) convincing people that grafts don't get battered and dried out in it's tubes

b) How it orientates a graft when it feeds it into the recipient slit

c) How grafts' and their precious bulbs cannot be seen by the staff/doc

d) If it only ends up as expensive vacuum machine, it is a waste of money

 

I have been 'over-harvested' myself. I think extraction patterns are a science/art them selves and have improved since when I had it. I had an army of techs do the damage on me, and to be quite honest, the problem this presents is simply incomparable to the cosmetic dilemma I have with strip scars a dying crown and virtually no donor.

 

And it is another reason a slow and steady FUE approach, i.e. six small sessions over say three to four years, is better than one. I might add, if FUE is really rubbish, and people like me really have all been sucked in, then it's a travesty - another for the HT industry to proudly wear - like reductions 70s and 80s. But this is NOT an excuse to say, 'Calm down, FUE is good for SMALL sessions" It is either rubbish or it is not!

Edited August 31, 2011 by scar5

[aaron1234]

Donor thinning is not only possible it is desirable!

An FUE donor zone which is excellently and undetectably 'thinned out' helps the illusion because the contrast between the native zone and the recipient zone is lessened.

 

That is true but it also depends on the texture of the patients hair. If it is coarse then you are absolutely correct that FUE can serve as an equalizer between the top and back/sides. But if you have thin textured hair to begin with then this should not be considered a reason to go FUE - even if you have other valid reasons to do so.

 

Machines which extract really quickly like Neograft might tempt, the human element can get carried away. It is not a slur on the machine itself. the machine has enough of its own problems such as;

 

a) convincing people that grafts don't get battered and dried out in it's tubes

b) How it orientates a graft when it feeds it into the recipient slit

c) How grafts' and their precious bulbs cannot be seen by the staff/doc

d) If it only ends up as expensive vacuum machine, it is a waste of money

 

All great points as to why avoid a neograft procedure.

[orlhair1]

I definitely would not view donor thinning as desirable. I am not opposed to FUE by any means.....I think it is a great procedure for some but not all situations. Donor thinning by large FUE sessions has consequences for future HTs if they are needed and anyone considering a large FUE session should consider that in making their decision.

[hairthere]

Well just look at all the great FUE megasessions that Armani produced.... Come on, Dr. Feller, one of the top HT docs and pioneers of fue surgery in the world does not perform fue megasessions. There's a reason fue is so expensive and why so few clinics offer it.

 

Yes, a strip scar can be awful for some people. But if you need a megasession and you go to a top doctor it is still the best option for HT surgery.

Edited August 31, 2011 by hairthere

[orlhair1]

I agree. The reality is that today in the hands of a skilled surgeon, the scar is going to heal to a very thin line that allows hair to be cut pretty short. If somone wants to keep their hair buzzed really short and needs a ton of grafts, the can certainly consider 2 or 3 separate FUE surgeries. Anyone who thinks that is not a lot of trauma to the scalp is mistaken.....it is just different. Many of the people considering these big sessions via FUE are young and have decades of progressive hairloss potentially ahead of them that they need to plan for. That is why most of the top clinics use strip for larger sessions and FUE for smaller sessions.

[scar5]

Scar5, hope u are well. Thanks for correcting me sessions not seasons - (my predictive spelling)

 

 

Can you please provide us all with 20 successful fully grown out FUE cases of 3000+ grafts fully documented via solely the FUE method.

 

Cheers

Spex

 

If only Dr. Feller decided to do 3000+ cases, and not tell his patients that FUE is only suited to small sessions, (and charge so much for FUE ) then you would have the documentation right before your eyes! By the way, I recommend telling the patients to do four sessions (taking the approach of Steve from BHR clinic) and staggering them over three years. I think Dr. Feller would produce absolutely stellar results. It might take time, but let's get the ball rolling. Meantime, we can say to all those pundits, 'Come on, prove it!!! Show me the results!! " My first HT surgeon used to say that when follicular unit transplantation came out. He'd yell, 'show me the density". We of course can look at clinics that have 3000+ results but we can't mention them. And..I might add, Spex, we need FUE only clinics to be members of the coalition, I'm sure you would agree.

 

On a personal level, I don't blame Dr. Feller for doing FUE this way. I can see why docs - I would argue - appropriate it. 'It has it's place'.

 

You can take a look at youtube, there are a few, but for the time being, strip has the power and can point the finger at FUE and say, 'So?where? Show me?" See.

 

Or hair, I am baffled by your logic, although I most definitely agree with your assessment that clinics tell young patients to get strip first on account of further loss. Further loss points to meds, long term meds. If these meds hold out well and good. If they don't these young dudes might be in a bald spot of bother (sorry) in the coming years a buzz might be appropriate. If you get my drift.

[hairthere]

scar5, I used to wonder why doctors charged so much more for fue surgery. Then I observed one in progress and it made total sense as did the reason fue megasessions are so darned risky...

 

I agree that your approach of smaller sessions over a period of time can work. However, that requires a lot of patience on the patients' part. I had no problem getting a strip scar--the whole reason I underwent HT surgery was so that I didn't have to shave my head.

[aaron1234]

I agree that your approach of smaller sessions over a period of time can work. However, that requires a lot of patience on the patients' part. I had no problem getting a strip scar--the whole reason I underwent HT surgery was so that I didn't have to shave my head.

 

Absolutely.

 

And Spex, you must share that graph from your Maximum Hair series that shows a collection of dots metaphorically displaying the difference between FUE and Strip. To me, that's been the most compelling argument for strip over FUE for larger sessions.

[hairthere]

One more point to note: not all patients are candidates for FUE surgery.

[scar5]

..I observed one in progress and it made total sense as did the reason fue megasessions are so darned risky...

 

I totally agree! FUE mega sessions are risky!

FUE is excruciatingly tiresome for a surgeon. No wonder they hate it!

 

This adds up to FUE suits SMALL sessions. For whom? The clinics and the doctors.

It is not a technical problem with FUE itself, it is the mode it is delivered.

So we have the delivery format that produces the dilemma.

Docs get tired and don't want exposure to risk.

 

Techs aren't allowed by law to do much of the docs work in most states of the US (including extractions) There are dodgy machines. All kinds of nasty variables lurk in the world of FUE. But we must cut through it and get to the bottom of it. Else we will be at the mercy of these hackneyed generalizations.

 

In 2000, 2000 grafts was considered a very big strip. 3000? Ridiculous to some. Risky. But clinic economics could adjust. More techs = bigger sessions. But FUE hits a ceiling very quickly, because more techs means either, extraction carnage or no more speed. Besides, what kind of sane person wants to sit crouched over your skull twisting a little tool, getting RSI, all day?

 

When it comes to 10,000 I have no idea, which gets more grafts. I suspect strip. I suspect strip has better yield and can get more grafts in total. But I'm not really sure. I am sure of what I say, when I say a balding man doesn't need to be told he needs an ear-to-ear scar for life, locking him into the HT/meds road for life.

 

Smal, slow and steady FUE is a real possibility, and plenty of grafts can be got.

 

FUE candidate? Strip candidate? Nonsense!! We - I mean a virgin scalp - are ALL candidates for both - and the docs know it.

[hairthere]

"Docs get tired and don't want exposure to risk."

 

The skill level it takes to remove a graft via FUE is nothing like cutting and separating grafts in a strip. The trauma a graft undergoes during fue is also totally different. This is not a surgery that just any HT surgeon can perform.

 

Dr. Feller has spoken extensively about why not all patients are FUE candidates. I believe physiology has something to do with it. Perhaps he can chime in here.