Difference between going FUE-->Strip as opposed to Strip-->FUE?

[Gubter]

If we put the money cost aside - does anyone have an estimation of how many, if any, more grafts one would be able to get from the donor by first maxing out on STRIP and then getting the rest via FUE as opposed to first maxing out on FUE and afterwards if neccessary going the STRIP route?

 

The advantage of this would be that someone who has only done FUE will still have the option of buzzing the hair if it turns out that one cannot get acceptable coverage in the end as the hair loss progresses. That leaves the option of backing out from HT.

 

Whilst the STRIP-->FUE route might be cheaper and quicker, it will not give you that option.

 

But people keep saying that FUE yield is not as good as strip yield, so how big of a difference do you experienced users reckon the different routes will have?

[chrisdav]

There is a lot of debate on this subject but I would read both sides of the arguement and make your own decision.

 

You can probably find numerous threads on this if you search the net.

 

This link is quite helpful from Shapiro with clear bullet points.

 

Follicular Unit Extraction (FUE)

[bonkerstonker]

To be fair all this is just common sense it's best to go strip fue or you can do what i did and have fue in a slightly lower part of the scalp then strip above it you can see roughly what i did from the picture of my scar that i posted for you in the thread you made about scar sizes.

[Sparky]

If you definitely want to go this route, then I would say strip first because the strip won't have had fue's taken from it before hand.

 

All depends on your NW level I suppose.

[s2thoudriver]

Just have FUE for now until cloning is readily available (should be within the next 12 months).

 

No need to have FUT any more really, so avoid the ear to ear scar. All the debate about FUT vs FUE is down to surgeons preferred method or experience in certain techniques.

 

People say that yield is better with FUT due to less follicles being damaged as with the FUE process, but the grafts still have to be extracted from the strip, so the yield is only ever as good as the skills of the person doing the dissection.

[Cant decide]

Cloning will not be readily available in 12 months (Not even close).

 

I wish that were true.....

[Mickey85]

Just have FUE for now until cloning is readily available (should be within the next 12 months).

 

No need to have FUT any more really, so avoid the ear to ear scar. All the debate about FUT vs FUE is down to surgeons preferred method or experience in certain techniques.

 

People say that yield is better with FUT due to less follicles being damaged as with the FUE process, but the grafts still have to be extracted from the strip, so the yield is only ever as good as the skills of the person doing the dissection.

 

 

FUT grafts are dissected under powerful microscopes, decreasing the chance of transection(might not eliminate it though). The ARTAS system is meant to help with minimizing transection of grafts extracted via FUE.

 

I don't believe the yield of most clinic's FUE results are on par with the yield of the same clinic's FUT results. I say most because there are a select few whom I believe achieve close to 100% yield via FUE. Most do not though.

[s2thoudriver]

Hi Mickey85

 

I would gladly sacrifice 5-10 % yield loss for the sake of having a large scar across the back of my head. However, if the donor is limited, the surgeon has years of FUT experience and the patient don't mind living with the scar, then FUT is proven to get results.

 

The clinic i had my FUE done at told me they stopped doing FUT years ago and quickly became as good as FUT with the evolution of FUE tools and techniques.

[BadBeat]

Just have FUE for now until cloning is readily available (should be within the next 12 months).

 

No need to have FUT any more really, so avoid the ear to ear scar. All the debate about FUT vs FUE is down to surgeons preferred method or experience in certain techniques.

 

People say that yield is better with FUT due to less follicles being damaged as with the FUE process, but the grafts still have to be extracted from the strip, so the yield is only ever as good as the skills of the person doing the dissection.

 

Why do you say this? Please provide concrete evidence.

[Mickey85]

Hi Mickey85

 

I would gladly sacrifice 5-10 % yield loss for the sake of having a large scar across the back of my head. However, if the donor is limited, the surgeon has years of FUT experience and the patient don't mind living with the scar, then FUT is proven to get results.

 

The clinic i had my FUE done at told me they stopped doing FUT years ago and quickly became as good as FUT with the evolution of FUE tools and techniques.

 

5-10% yield loss via FUE would be very acceptable. Some cases I have seen have been 30% or more. These were from the same clinics that publicly stated their FUE yield was as good as their FUT yield too. My thoughts after seeing the results were "That is 2,000 grafts?!". Of course I have thought that same of some FUT work as well but to a lesser extent.

 

I'm not against FUE at all, I think Dr. Lorenzo's work is absolutely amazing and rivals some of the best FUT surgeons work. However most other clinic's FUE work does not match their own or other clinic's FUT work...

 

I don't really see a problem with going with exhausting the FUE route first and then if needed, resorting to strip last. I'm weary of FUE mega-sessions though(2,500 or above). I would rather multiple sessions of 1,500-2,000 grafts.

[s2thoudriver]

Hi Badbeat

 

I was told whilst out in Turkey that human hair has already been cloned and implanted into patients. They are now monitoring and reviewing the results over a sustained period to ensure there is no rejection.

 

This, i was informed by the owner of the company i used for my FUE work. He even advised me not to have too much done at this stage as it's worth waiting for cloning.

 

He then went on to tell me about the stem cell research facility over the road from the hospital (impressive place) and the trials that are currently taking place.

 

I have asked him for more information very recently, but he is out of the country on holiday at the moment. As soon as he is back, i shall quiz him some more to find out where they are up to.

 

That's all i know so far, so you now know as much as me

[PupDaddy]

Three facts of life tend to compromise FUE results compared with FUT results when performed by equally competent surgeons: 1) More transection of follicles with FUE, which effects yield, 2) less "chubiness" of grafts excised via FUE, which effects follicle viability (yield) as well as maturation of follicles that do grow (hair quality), 3) fewer 2 and 3-hair grafts (especially 3's) can be excised via FUE unless a larger punch is used (thereby creating more visible punctate scarring, somewhat defeating the primary benefit of FUE), which can compromise density.

 

I'm pretty sure these facts are why Spex, who represents top docs who perform both FUT and FUE and has seen hundreds of cases, says that cosmetic results of FUE generally are not up to par with results of FUT given the same hair loss and ht doctor competence. I personally think that because of the facts listed above, FUE is still best suited for patients with staight to moderately wavy hair suffering moderate, frontal hairloss. This is not to say that some patients who don't fit this category can't sometimes get a good-to-great cosmetic result via FUE, but the challenges inherent with FUE discussed above make it less likely and should certainly be considered. I also agree that smaller FUE sessions, separated by 8 - 12 months, provide a greater chance of an acceptable cosmetic result rivaling what can be achieved in one session for the same total number of grafts via FUT.

[sharan9895]

But in Case of FUE there are scars too.... Shaving Down to Grade 0 would Draw Attention

[s2thoudriver]

Well i must be a lucky one then as my FUE 'scars' are practically undetectable. I'd have to razor mine down to the skin to be able to see anything and even then then you'd have to be close up to see any tiny marks.

 

For me, it certainly beats an definitive line round the back of the head, which is one of the reasons why i waited years for techniques other than FUT. I can't imagine the heartache people suffer when they had FUT done to correct their hair and ended up with a bad scar, really feel for them.

 

That said, good surgeons can do the work with less scarring these days and if the hair is being kept long, it's not such an issue.

 

Rob

[Dr. William Lindsey]

IF you are going to do both...I'd strip first, 2 or 3 times, then FUE what's left. There will be less scar tissue for the strip dissectors and less for the FUE surgeon. If you FUE first, then strip, the density will be lower and there will be a fair amount of scar tissue below the surface of the skin...but around the roots of the remaining strip hairs, which hinders strip dissection. I've seen this on a few occasions.

 

And someone was correct in stating that Strip is only as good as the dissectors working on the grafts. I strongly agree with that.

 

I'll also go out on a limb and say cloning won't be available practically for more than 20 years. I'm occasionally wrong on things like this so take it for the amount you paid to hear this prediction...nothing.

 

Lastly, before folks say that is just a hair guy not wanting to give up money or something...I feel it will increase business as someone will have to place those hairs in a natural pattern and if there were an unlimited supply of cloned hairs, we could solve almost any hair problem.

 

It will come, probably along the timeline of nuclear fusion as a source of power. 2050 or so. If I'm wrong, come by my office and I'll buy you a slice of pizza and let you tell me how much I missed it by.

 

Dr. Lindsey McLean VA