The pros/cons of FUE. Myths dispelled.

[Atticus]

Hey Mickey,

 

yeah, there some very non ethical doctors out. I had doc who wanted to do FUT me for a measly 600 graft around the temples and hairline. ? Can you image what would happened if I hadn't run acrosss this board and boned up on FUE/FUT? I just think FUT is barbaric if not absolutely necessary. In my opinion, FUE is the only way I would go even if a were a norwood 4 or 6.

 

Night

 

 

 

 

 

 

thanks Atticus some people may consider me biased because i really think fue is the better procedure for patients up to a norwood 4. i have issues with the invasive nature and severity of the fut technique as have personally had fut and suffer from alot of the disadvantages of it. i really disagree with its use in general but i acknowledge that a nw 6 or 7 ia most likely not going to get good coverage and densiry via fue and a nw5 is a bit too far unless an excellent surgeon and donor density are present.

 

dr wong says fut is so efficient and that is true in terms of time and how many grafts they can implant in one day but it is not efficient in terms of practicality in my opinion.

 

all that said and done i have tried to remain as honest and unbiased as anyone could be. i have listed cost as a disadvantage to fue even though it is not a flaw of thr procedure itself and many doctors charge the same for fue as the western doctors charge for fut. i have also invited and welcomed anyone to debunk any of the statements i have written.

[TUK]

I'm just curious...are the most reputable docs in the industry like Rahal and Feller doing primarily FUE these days or is FUT still performed regularly at their clinics? Also wonder why Hasson and Wong don't offer FUE yet.

[Mickey85]

I'm just curious...are the most reputable docs in the industry like Rahal and Feller doing primarily FUE these days or is FUT still performed regularly at their clinics? Also wonder why Hasson and Wong don't offer FUE yet.

 

fut for feller and rahal stillmake up the large majority of their work. rahal has been quoted as saying fue makes up 20 and 25% of his practice while i have never heard a figure from feller but i woukd think it would be less. i cant even remember the last feller fue result posted by a patient or the clinic.

 

as for why hasson and wong dont offer fue, they believe they get good enough results from fut(which is true) but there is a growing demand for fue and eventually fut will diminish as a viable method for hair transplantation and may only be relegated to larger sessions for norwood 6 and 7s. cosmetic surgery is always gravitating toward a less invasive technique. chemical peels and injections have become an alternative to face and browlifts. closed rhinoplasty is favored over open rhinoplasty in alot of cases etc. we have also witnessed composite clinics doing more fue and less fut or dedicating their clinic to fue exclusively like de reys, lorenzo, dr C. etc. some did it because they felt the procedure was more ethical or because patients demanded a procedure that was more refined, less invasive and had fewer downfalls.

[Mickey85]

Amazing thread! Thanks so much to everyone regardless of Team FUT, Team FUE, or neutral!

 

I was recently wondering about FUE and as luck would have it, alot of my questions were answered here. I had never even heard of body hair being successfully used...interesting.

 

i made this thread for people exactly like you. i noticed that alot of reps were pushing their doctors agenda and either exagerating benefits or pitfalls of a method or evading important facts altogether. some were blatantly creating fabrications which began manifesting into 'common knowledge' which is absurd. I'm not having that. I'm not having absolute fallacy being circulated just so it can line up a doctor and his reps pockets or so a clinic can exist for a few more years. not at the expense of already vunerable, naive and trusting patients or potential patients. i got sick of hearing 'it will be a tiny scar, i cant even find mine' or 'fue will leave you with no scarring' or 'fue is only good for minimal loss'.

 

i encourage you and everyone reading this to circulate the advantages and disadvantages in any way shape or form, on any forum or platform. you publicly have my express permission to do so. you dont even have to credit me for creating it as i care very little for personal glory or being an 'online celebrity' as i have not found one in the hair transplant industry that did not have an alignment or affiliation with a surgeon or several surgeons. the only honest ones remained faceless and are paying it forward with their knowledge, without monetary compensation. so share the list, translate it into foreign languages, ask questions, offer disadvantages and advantages. do not just 'go for it' because the surgeon has a good name and is highly regarded by peers and the community. the things i have been told and things i saw in private would have a handful of doctors exiled and their licences stripped. Armani was an obvious one but i believe more will follow.

 

Im just here to help out others publicly and privately so they dont make the same mistake as me and thousands of other patients by believing the hype, spin and smoke and mirrors the cosmetic industry flaunts without shame.

 

thanks so much for the compliments.

[Atticus]

This write up is great Mickey!!!

 

Atticus:cool:

 

 

 

 

i made this thread for people exactly like you. i noticed that alot of reps were pushing their doctors agenda and either exagerating benefits or pitfalls of a method or evading important facts altogether. some were blatantly creating fabrications which began manifesting into 'common knowledge' which is absurd. I'm not having that. I'm not having absolute fallacy being circulated just so it can line up a doctor and his reps pockets or so a clinic can exist for a few more years. not at the expense of already vunerable, naive and trusting patients or potential patients. i got sick of hearing 'it will be a tiny scar, i cant even find mine' or 'fue will leave you with no scarring' or 'fue is only good for minimal loss'.

 

i encourage you and everyone reading this to circulate the advantages and disadvantages in any way shape or form, on any forum or platform. you publicly have my express permission to do so. you dont even have to credit me for creating it as i care very little for personal glory or being an 'online celebrity' as i have not found one in the hair transplant industry that did not have an alignment or affiliation with a surgeon or several surgeons. the only honest ones remained faceless and are paying it forward with their knowledge, without monetary compensation. so share the list, translate it into foreign languages, ask questions, offer disadvantages and advantages. do not just 'go for it' because the surgeon has a good name and is highly regarded by peers and the community. the things i have been told and things i saw in private would have a handful of doctors exiled and their licences stripped. Armani was an obvious one but i believe more will follow.

 

Im just here to help out others publicly and privately so they dont make the same mistake as me and thousands of other patients by believing the hype, spin and smoke and mirrors the cosmetic industry flaunts without shame.

 

thanks so much for the compliments.

[Mickey85]

Thanks again to you all so much. It does help that there are people who are benefiting from what I have learnt through my mistakes. At least it is not all for nothing.

[Mickey85]

I have decided to implement some visual assistance to the applicable points. I hope it improves the list rather than hinders it. It is a work in progress and I will be adding, deleting, alternating pictures depending on if I find more suitable ones, better sized photos etc. It is not set in stone as of yet.

[Mickey85]

Have added "Head must be shaved for anything more than very small sessions" to the disadvantage list.

[GNX1]

 

Have added "Head must be shaved for anything more than very small sessions" to the disadvantage list.

thats not a disadvantage at all. shaving ones head prior to the HT allows the HT doctor to extract hairs that he knows are in the Anagen phase vs. guessing and therefore achieving better growth from active hairs vs. ones that are falling out.

[james84]

shaving the head is seen as a disadvantage for the patient!

 

I have to shave my head for the procedure and i hate the shaved look:(

[Mickey85]

thats not a disadvantage at all. shaving ones head prior to the HT allows the HT doctor to extract hairs in the that he knows are in the Anogen phase vs. guessing and therefore achieving better growth from active hairs vs. ones that are falling out.

 

You are totally and utterly correct, it is necessary for a good result, however there are patients that are put off by this and I do feel obligated to list it in the attempt to be truly unbiased.

[GNX1]

You are totally and utterly correct, it is necessary for a good result, however there are patients that are put off by this and I do feel obligated to list it in the attempt to be truly unbiased.

I hear what ur saying. but inconvenience imo does not equate to disadvantage.

 

the entire HT itself is an inconvenience but necessary to achive the desired result if one is looking for grafts to grow to restore their hair back which is the whole point of a HT.

 

numbing multible areas of the body vs. if BH's are taken (beard, chest, legs, etc....) is an inconvenience but certainly does not equate to a disadvantage.

 

I dont think it is appropriate to cross what may be an inconvenience to what may result as a disadvantage. bad scaring from FUT is a clear disadvantage not an inconvenience. stitches and lots of pain are disadvantages. the ability to only harvest grafts from one area of the body when performing FUT is a disadvantage over FUE being able to harvest grafts from anywhere. etc....

[Mickey85]

I hear what ur saying. but inconvience imo does not equate to disadvantage.

 

the entire HT itself is an inconvience but necessary to achive the desired result if one is looking for grafts to grow to restore their hair back which is the whole point of a HT.

 

numbing multible areas of the body vs. if BH's are taken (beard, chest, legs, etc....) is an inconvience but certainly does not equate to a disadvantage.

 

Again, all very true and well said. But it is an inconvenience that is not inherent in FUT. I don't think it is a huge deal to list it, the advantages still outnumber the disadvantages by a mile and it is not a fabrication. Some individuals like keeping the hair longer all round so they can comb over the scar and hairline whereas with FUE it is hard to keep the top really long to cover the recipient and the back and sides at a number 1 or 2, especially for older gentlemen as it may look unprofessional or funny.

[Raj Jayukdht]

Which bht is better to have on the scalp....chest or leg hair?

[GNX1]

Which bht is better to have on the scalp....chest or leg hair?

both will work but leg hairs will be in the telegon phase longer then chest hairs so it will take longer to see the grafts grow.

 

I think it really depends on what ur leg or chest hair characteristics are like. my leg hairs are thicker then my chest hairs so I would chose leg hairs over chest hairs personally and could care less if it took another 6 months to grow compared to how long my chest hairs would take.

 

id say most people's chest hairs are going to be thicker then their leg hairs on average tho. chest hair is the preferred BH to take by most HT surgeons.

[Raj Jayukdht]

I would say also my leg hair is more thicker than my chest hair.

 

Thanks GNX1.

[Bobman]

I believe that this is a very well explained Pros & Cons regarding FUE. Thank you.

[Mickey85]

I believe that this is a very well explained Pros & Cons regarding FUE. Thank you.

 

No no, thank you

[socates123]

Out of curiosity, what is the root cause for failure for a failed FUE/FUT procedure?

 

Failure is defined as non-growth of transplanted grafts.

[Mickey85]

Tech error whilst disecting the fut grafts and/or during the loading of the grafts. For fue it can happen during the punching of the graft, the extraction, disection and loading.

[socates123]

i would think that human error would be the major cause. To draw a parallel with any other transplant - it does have a time frame, needs to be removed with precision and needs to be inserted into the recipient area with skill as well. However, this is done with a team of skilled personnel led by the surgeon. Think about it, know the people who are part of the whole surgical process.

[Mickey85]

I personally think the actual tool a surgeon uses does affect the yield. Not all punches are made equal. Not all motorized tools are made equal either. Punches vary in sharpness, thickness of the walls etc. These factors do have a significant impact on how hard or easy it is to extract a follicle. Optimally, you want to extract the follicle with as little pressure and force as possible and with the fewest 'turns' of the punch whilst still making a clean cut and avoiding transection. Some people say a tool is only as good as the surgeon but I believe the tool itself can limit a surgeon's ability also. The skill of the surgeon and the proficiency of the tool work in synergy. I have seen more good results from surgeons that use a specific manual punch than I have surgeons who use a variety of motorized punches. This correlation is striking to me and is why I'm a fan of manual punches over the automated variants.

[JohnnyDrama]

Congrats Mickey, I see that HRN have just sent their newsletter with this thread as their topic! I hope you get your cut!

 

Top thread though, and very informative. I've referred to it several times over the past month or so in preparation for my decision on a HT. I came to the conclusion that the pros outweigh the cons and have 2000 FUE booked in a top clinic in August. Obviously I'll be hoping that this kind of research will stand in good stead, and that in 12-18 months time I'll be singing FUEs praises.

[Mickey85]

Congrats Mickey, I see that HRN have just sent their newsletter with this thread as their topic! I hope you get your cut!

 

Top thread though, and very informative. I've referred to it several times over the past month or so in preparation for my decision on a HT. I came to the conclusion that the pros outweigh the cons and have 2000 FUE booked in a top clinic in August. Obviously I'll be hoping that this kind of research will stand in good stead, and that in 12-18 months time I'll be singing FUEs praises.

 

Hehe I'm very grateful to Bill, Blake and Dave for allowing me to post my often controversial comments on this fine forum. They continually commend and encourage me to post things that warrant discussion, however influential it may be. I'm very proud of this thread especially since I added the pictures and hope many more patients can become educated about the finer but significant details between the two procedures to make a truly informed decision.

 

When you say "I hope you get your cut" am I in the running to win something or royalties? Hehehe

[MHRJohn]

Great article Mickey

 

Having done both methods at my clinic, I feel you did a very good job at weighing both options in a non-bias way.

We feel both are very good options but have found the graft viability is greater with the strip method; consequently the scaring is much better with the FUE.