Jump to content
Mickey85

The ultimate manual versus motorized FUE thread

Recommended Posts

I would like to make a comment about a topic that I see is repeated on many posts.

 

I see that the preference of a 'motorised or manual punch' is mentioned as 'motorised or manual work'. I don't agree with the latter phrasing, as in reality both methods are manual. This means that in both techniques the surgeon uses his own hand movements to do graft extractions. The only difference is that the rotation force is created by the motor in the motorised FUE. All other variables are controlled with the hand. In fact, as a result of not having to use hand force to rotate the punch, the surgeon using the motorised punch has the luxury to use his strength and fine tuning on other variables such as depth control, angle and speed, which is more difficult when using significant force to penetrate the skin. Whether these gains I mentioned give an advantage to the motorised punch or not could be discussed for a long time, but my point is not to claim an advantage over one method. It is to clarify the misconception of the motorised punch FUE being perceived as motorised work, which should be used to define robotic FUE instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zyzz,

 

They are very similar devices. The lion implanter simply features a few upgrades actually designed - in part- by Dr. Lorenzo himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zyzz,

 

They are very similar devices. The lion implanter simply features a few upgrades actually designed - in part- by Dr. Lorenzo himself.

 

Always so knowledgeable and informative Blake :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suggest a change in the terms used for FUE techniques:

 

1. The two types of FUE are robotic FUE and manual FUE

 

2. Manual FUE can be either done using a manual punch or a motorised punch.

 

The important nuance is that when we say motorised FUE, this makes it sound as if using a motorised punch, is FUE done by a machine, whereas it is actually done by the surgeons hand, just like when using a manual punch. Instead of saying motorised FUE, we should say manual FUE using a motorised punch and manual FUE using a manual punch. Shortening this, we should say motorised punch or manual punch, not motorised FUE or manual FUE.

 

This correction that accepts both types of punches are actually used for manual FUE, may lead us back to the discussion of whether using a manual punch or a motorised punch allows the surgeon to control better the important parameters such as vibration, alignment, angle, direction, depth and speed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. The two types of FUE are robotic FUE and manual FUE

 

2. Manual FUE can be either done using a manual punch or a motorised punch.

 

I think we should breakdown like below. Much more clear. There is more to it like technician vs doctors extractions, dull versus sharp punch. But it's a great start for newbies.

 

Hand-held

Neograft

Manual

Motorized

 

Robotic

Artas

 

Amature

Artas

Neograft

 

Professional

Manual

Motorized

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would also add a third:

 

Amature

Dull punch (most start with Harris safe)

 

Professional

Sharp punch (more skill needed)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From experience, I now believe that surgery that is completely manual is the only way to go for FUE.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sean,

While I don’t entirely disagree, I’m afraid that when we base things slowly on our experiences, we have tunnel vision.   Regrettably, that prevents us from seeing the facts and how other people experience things.   The reality is, Motorized FUE is a slight bit easier but as a result, it’s easy or at least easier for hair restoration surgeons or their technicians to get a little lazy. This is amplified even more with devices like the Neograft and maybe even the Artas Hair Restoration System.   Surgeons who work manual FUE equipment have to stay on their toes and work harder and no doubt it takes more time, skill and experience to get it right. 

Personally, I truly admire those hair transplant surgeons who perform FUE with manual devices and constantly get superior results. It shows how skilled experience they really are.   That said, as long as hair transplant surgeons to use powered or automated FUE devices to extract follicular units don’t get lazy or sloppy, they too can produce superior results.  

 The end of the day, it always does come down to the surgeon, their skill and experience. The tool or device a surgeon uses should assist in making the job a bit easier, but it should never make a surgeon lazy because it will affect the results.  

 I just thought I would add my two cents on this. 

Best wishes, 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×