Significant discrepancy between Dr. Simmons and Dr. Rahal evaluations

[Slickers]

mickey you're taking that sentence out of its context. It was an extension of my comments that I think you need to take into account the success of the whole surgery when talking about what 'a repair' is which was in response to GNX's comments which focused mainly on the donor when talking about repair. Bring these things together and 'what's the point of minimal scarring but getting minimal growth?' is obviously just to emphasise the wider point.... what exactly is being 'repaired'? The donor or a poor HT?

 

For that reason it isn't to be confused with being a general comment that every FUE achieves minimal scarring but minimal growth, not even close, on either count.

 

In terms of my comment about the top 10 clinics in the world, I appreciate this is highly subjective. The 'jab' however was again rooted in the original argument. Which clinics do you consider do most repairs..... the best in the world right....? And more often than not when this question is asked, the same clinics get mentioned time and time again and the majority are FUT. Again I accept this is perhaps inviting comment but it was more just to imply a certain logic to the original point being debated, namely that of course FUT clinics do repairs too, several are even considered amongst the best in the world.

 

In terms of your last paragraph, he went to Armani. And I was never blaming FUE. On the contrary I was replying because the same generalisations were being applied to FUT and the criticism was more about the technique than who performed it which is ludicrous. It works both ways. No one should blame the techniques .... just the application. There is enough evidence to show that both are proven to be highly effective in the right hands and ineffective or downright destructive on the wrong hands.

[rev3]

just go to rahal and call it a day

[GNX1]

the discussion was not about poor growth. it was about poor healing from an ear to ear scar that can and often does stretch over time and is a roll of the dice if it will happen or not. poor growth after FUE has many variables but poor scaring from FUT is common and the reason many HT surgeons have to repair the scar by placing grafts there.

 

to try to turn this discussion into "Poor growth" via FUE vs. FUT has nothing to do with what was discussed. we were debating scaring not growth but because there is no refuting that FACT the debate somehow got turned into poor growth which is weak.

 

there has been plenty of people who have had poor growth from FUT just as there has from FUE but thats not what we were discussing so try to stay on point slicker.

 

and the example I asked for was repairing poor FUE scaring with FUT which you cant so you turned it into poor growth in the recipient area as "Repair".

 

anytime there is poor growth and a patient goes to another HT doctor he's not being repaired because he is now disfigured by a wide unsightly scar from ear to ear on the back of his head. the patients grafts simply didnt take for whatever reason and FUE has nothing with poor FUT scaring but ur well aware of that so there is no point debating this any further.

[Mickey85]

mickey you're taking that sentence out of its context. It was an extension of my comments that I think you need to take into account the success of the whole surgery when talking about what 'a repair' is which was in response to GNX's comments which focused mainly on the donor when talking about repair. Bring these things together and 'what's the point of minimal scarring but getting minimal growth?' is obviously just to emphasise the wider point.... what exactly is being 'repaired'? The donor or a poor HT?

 

For that reason it isn't to be confused with being a general comment that every FUE achieves minimal scarring but minimal growth, not even close, on either count.

 

In terms of my comment about the top 10 clinics in the world, I appreciate this is highly subjective. The 'jab' however was again rooted in the original argument. Which clinics do you consider do most repairs..... the best in the world right....? And more often than not when this question is asked, the same clinics get mentioned time and time again and the majority are FUT. Again I accept this is perhaps inviting comment but it was more just to imply a certain logic to the original point being debated, namely that of course FUT clinics do repairs too, several are even considered amongst the best in the world.

 

In terms of your last paragraph, he went to Armani. And I was never blaming FUE. On the contrary I was replying because the same generalisations were being applied to FUT and the criticism was more about the technique than who performed it which is ludicrous. It works both ways. No one should blame the techniques .... just the application. There is enough evidence to show that both are proven to be highly effective in the right hands and ineffective or downright destructive on the wrong hands.

 

thanks for clearing that up, i did take some things out of context. i think the best repair work comes from doctor who specialize in that field. doctors like umar, bisanga, mwamba, feriduni, lindsey etc. i think they take on more repair jobs than the bigger clinics. in fact i have not been impressed by the repairs of larger clinics. just because a doctor does great fut work, doesnt make him great at scar revision. just because a doctor gets great yield most of the time, doesnt mean he can work with scarred recipient area etc. sone larger clinics like h and w do do alot of good repair work but some other big clinics seem to either avoid it or not post up the results... just my opinion.