Update on FUE Procedure

[Michael Vories, MD]

Using implanter pens does not prevent dense packing. Using the stick and place method of placing grafts, it has been shown that grafts can be placed as high as 80 grafts/cm2. This degree of density should be used with caution, and donor/ recipient ratios should be respected.

[nathaniel]

"Ultra refined" follicular unit grafting refers to smaller blades, incisions and grafts, providing physicians and their staff the ability to densely pack grafts closer together while minimizing trauma to the scalp.

 

Bill, I read this page previously, but it still leaves me a bit confused to be honest. Dr. Vories states that with implanter pens grafts can be placed as high as 80 grafts/cm2 - when appropriate. But you specifically state that "Ultra refined" follicular unit grafting refers to smaller BLADES.

1) Can you please clarify? Also, Dr. Vories has stated that pens protect grafts better than forceps during implanting, yet again your statement suggests that smaller BLADES cause less trauma to the scalp.

2) Do pens protect grafts better than forceps during implantation but at the cost of greater trauma to the scalp?

3) Can one achieve "Coalition status" using pens?

 

Honestly, Bill, I don't mean to be disrespectful in any way, but it almost seems - again, I am relatively new in these forums - that "Coalition status" is more dependent upon the use of small blades rather than actual consistently stellar outcomes, regardless of the tool used. Maybe I'm misinterpreting the word "Blades", but I've been sifting through the threads of these forums for awhile now, and the title "Coalition Doctor" is still unclear to me. Perhaps your page can be tweaked for clarification if I (and presumably others) have misunderstood it?

 

Finally, I understand that both "Recommended" doctors and "Coalition" doctors pay a fee to be included in these forums as a "Recommended" or "Coalition" doctor - and I understand why, that's fine; I also understand that merely paying a fee does not automatically result in a title of "Recommended" or "Coalition" status and that physicians have to meet certain criteria - all good as well.

4) Is the financial cost to doctors for the title "Coalition doctor" greater than the financial cost for "Recommended doctor"? Or do doctors pay the same fees regardless of their status as a "Coalition Doctor" or "Recommended Doctor"?

 

Thanks!

 

- Nathaniel

[Bill - Seemiller]

Nathanial,

 

Bill, I read this page previously, but it still leaves me a bit confused to be honest. Dr. Vories states that with implanter pens grafts can be placed as high as 80 grafts/cm2 - when appropriate. But you specifically state that "Ultra refined" follicular unit grafting refers to smaller BLADES.

 

You are being too literal. Perhaps we should change the word "blades" to "cutting instruments", which is more accurate. Ultimately, those using smaller instruments, creating smaller grafts and transplanting higher densities while minimizing trauma to the scalp can be referred to as using ultra refined techniques.

 

1) Can you please clarify? Also, Dr. Vories has stated that pens protect grafts better than forceps during implanting, yet again your statement suggests that smaller BLADES cause less trauma to the scalp.

 

Replace the word "blades" with cutting instruments. Implanter pens include a cutting instrument and as long as they are small and refined (typically ranging from .6mm to 1.0mm depending on the size of the follicular unit), the technique can be considered "ultra refined".

 

2) Do pens protect grafts better than forceps during implantation but at the cost of greater trauma to the scalp?

 

You are too concerned with trying to find the one technique and tool that's superior to all others. There's no objective data supporting a superior tool, technique or method. Thus, it's up to patients to determine which physicians meet our demanding criteria based on their procedure and results.

 

For some, implanter pens may be more optimal and for others, using forceps may be. Implanter pens can protect the grafts but are more tedious and time comsuming to load. That said, many physicians transplant grafts with forcepts quite optimally without damaging the grafts. It really is a matter of preference and which set of tools a physician chooses to implement and master.

 

3) Can one achieve "Coalition status" using pens?

 

Of course, as long as their technique is refined and they have the ability to produce large, densely packed sessions when appropriate for the patient.

 

Honestly, Bill, I don't mean to be disrespectful in any way, but it almost seems - again, I am relatively new in these forums - that "Coalition status" is more dependent upon the use of small blades rather than actual consistently stellar outcomes, regardless of the tool used. Maybe I'm misinterpreting the word "Blades", but I've been sifting through the threads of these forums for awhile now, and the title "Coalition Doctor" is still unclear to me.

 

Ultimately, physicians who regularly produce large, densely packed sessions of ultra refined follicular unit hair transplantation (whether via strip or FUE regardless of which tools they use) when appropriate for the patient are elligible to be considered for the Coalition.

 

I recommend reading our criteria for the Coalition by clicking here.

 

Perhaps your page can be tweaked for clarification if I (and presumably others) have misunderstood it?

 

We are certainly open to making anything clearer. Thus, if you have any specific suggestions, please send me a private message.

 

Finally, I understand that both "Recommended" doctors and "Coalition" doctors pay a fee to be included in these forums as a "Recommended" or "Coalition" doctor - and I understand why, that's fine; I also understand that merely paying a fee does not automatically result in a title of "Recommended" or "Coalition" status and that physicians have to meet certain criteria - all good as well.

 

4) Is the financial cost to doctors for the title "Coalition doctor" greater than the financial cost for "Recommended doctor"? Or do doctors pay the same fees regardless of their status as a "Coalition Doctor" or "Recommended Doctor"?

 

Coalition members pay a slightly increased sponsorship fee for passing more rigourous standards and being prominently featured on the popular Hair Loss Learning Center.

 

Best wishes,

 

Bill

[nathaniel]

Using implanter pens does not prevent dense packing. Using the stick and place method of placing grafts, it has been shown that grafts can be placed as high as 80 grafts/cm2. This degree of density should be used with caution, and donor/ recipient ratios should be respected.

 

Thank you for replying, Dr. Vories.

 

1) If 80 grafts/cm2 is the upper limit for dense packing and then only when used with caution, what is the typical grafts/cm2 that can be implanted safely with pens when dense packing?

 

Also, please feel free to chime in on my questions to Bill in the previous post.

 

Finally, earlier in this thread I asked that you clarify if you break grafts down by hair numbers for the patient and also how you disperse 1, 2, and 3 unit grafts and possibly 4 of larger grafts in the scalp. Could you please provide a description? Recently Dr. Feriduni described for me how he dispersed such grafts in the scalp, and I found it very interesting. Here are my original questions on the topic, slightly edited for flow in reposting:

 

3) Do you keep track of graft breakdowns, and if so would you please include in your posted examples?

4) Similarly, can you illustrate how you distribute these grafts throughout the scalp (for example, in Mickey85's post diagraming FU placement only 1s are used in the front of the scalp - is that your approach as well?). A similar example of graft distribution is on Shapiro Medical Group's website, and i find it interesting that Dr. Wesley seems not to have used any grafts larger than 3's, whereas Shapiro's diagram includes grafts as large as 4's.

5) Speaking of which, what is the largest graft size you implant?

 

Dr. Feriduni recently replied in another post to similar questions I posed, and I found his reply very interesting with regards to how he distributed different graft sizes across the scalp. He also clarified for me that he only uses pens for eyebrows and only uses blades on the scalp.

 

Thank you for taking time to answer my questions!

 

- Nathaniel

[nathaniel]

Replace the word "blades" with cutting instruments. Implanter pens include a cutting instrument and as long as they are small and refined (typically ranging from .6mm to 1.0mm depending on the size of the follicular unit), the technique can be considered "ultra refined".

 

Thank you for clarifying! Though I have looked at pictures of the Hans Implanter, I tend to visualize the "cutting instrument" as a needle (whether rightly or wrongly), and in my mind a needle is not a blade. So, yes, the terminology was a source of significant confusion.

 

- Nathaniel

[Bill - Seemiller]

Nathanial,

 

Needles and blades are distinct but they are indeed two distinct types of cutting instruments. Those who use small cutting instruments (which can even include punches when extracting follicular units during an FUE procedure) and densely packing follicular units when appropriate for the patient can be said to be using "ultra refined" techniques.

 

Best,

 

Bill

[Michael Vories, MD]

The Hans Implanter Pen uses a needle as the cutting instrument. Every patient is individual when it comes to graft density. Hair caliber, degree of hair loss, patient goals for coverage, and financial limitations are all concerns when planning graft density. But the use of implanter pens is not a barrier to high density grafting.

 

It should be mentioned (this could be a thread itself), that the increased cost of FUE per graft is one of the significant reasons for the lack of high density results posted on this forum by USA physicians. As FUE costs become financially competitive with strip excision costs, then graft numbers will increase over time, and will be reflected in the results. Time will tell.

 

One of the great teaching points at the recent FUE conference in Spain was the different OR grids that are being used to keep track of hair counts as well as graft counts. This is ongoing for us, I currently operate a foot counter to keep track of graft counts, but to keep hair counts we are trying out a simple coulter counter. We specifically target single hair grafts for hairline and temporal point work, but for past patients we have not kept track of further separation. Thanks again for the chance to further answer these important and focused questions.

[nathaniel]

Bill,

 

Again I have reviewed the criteria for physicians to obtain "Coalition" status.

 

Ultimately, those using smaller instruments, creating smaller grafts and transplanting higher densities while minimizing trauma to the scalp can be referred to as using ultra refined techniques.

 

Is this not all member physicians of the Hair Restoration Network, whether of "Recommended" or "Coalition" status?

 

Are there physicians of the Hair Restoration Network with only "Recommended" status who are performing hair surgery with larger "cutting instruments" of 1 mm or greater?

 

From your link: Coalition of Independent Hair Restoration Physicians - Membership Standards

 

While many surgeons now perform standard follicular unit grafting, only a minority have risen to the challenge of using very tiny incisions and grafts to achieve ultra refined results.

 

This is where I get confused. How is "Standard follicular unit grafting" different from "Ultra Refined Unit Grafting"? And which "Recommended" physicians of the Hair Restoration Network only do "Standard follicular unit grafting" - (meaning using larger cutting instruments of 1 mm or greater I presume)?

 

Thanks! Nathaniel

[Bill - Seemiller]

Nathanial,

 

Is this not all member physicians of the Hair Restoration Network, whether of "Recommended" or "Coalition" status?

 

Recommended physicians are not required to perform larger sessions and dense pack. View our standards for recommendation versus the Coalition by clicking here.

 

Are there physicians of the Hair Restoration Network with only "Recommended" status who are performing hair surgery with larger "cutting instruments" of 1 mm or greater?

 

As a general rule, most surgeons make incisions between .6mm and 1.1mm depending on the size of the follicular unit, hair caliber, race, etc. There are times when physicans will use smaller or larger tools depending on a patient's characteristics.

 

This is where I get confused. How is "Standard follicular unit grafting" different from "Ultra Refined Unit Grafting"? And which "Recommended" physicians of the Hair Restoration Network only do "Standard follicular unit grafting" - (meaning using larger cutting instruments of 1 mm or greater I presume)?

 

We have no exact cut-off point to differentiate between ultra refined and standard follicular unit grafting. However, there is an obvious aesthetic difference when viewing postoperative photos from surgeons who consistently use smaller cutting instruments versus those who don't. Those who use slighlty larger tools or create "chubby grafts" (grafts with more surrounding tisue) tend to lack the ability to dense pack follicular units as closely together and have to make slighlty larger incisions. Often times, more than one procedure is necessary in a given area to create the kind of density a patient wants.

 

Best,

 

Bill

[nathaniel]

We have no exact cut-off point to differentiate between ultra refined and standard follicular unit grafting. However, there is an obvious aesthetic difference when viewing postoperative photos from surgeons who consistently use smaller cutting instruments versus those who don't. Those who use slighlty larger tools or create "chubby grafts" (grafts with more surrounding tisue) tend to lack the ability to dense pack follicular units as closely together and have to make slighlty larger incisions. Often times, more than one procedure is necessary in a given area to create the kind of density a patient wants.

 

Bill,

 

1) For clarification, it is the tool used that creates "chubby" grafts - yes or no?

2) If yes, do Hans Implanter Pens create "chubby" grafts? I'm assuming the answer is "no" based on Dr. Vories statement:

the use of implanter pens is not a barrier to high density grafting

3) It's quite confusing, actually. I thought blades and pen needles were used to create the recipient incision site - not the graft. Grafts are either prepared under microscopic dissection or at the time of extraction in the case of FUE...?

 

We specifically target single hair grafts for hairline and temporal point work

 

 

Dr. Vories,

 

1) Can you explain how you "target" single hair grafts for hairline and temporal point work?

2) Do you mean you use only singles in the hairline and temporal point work, or do you merely aim to include singles with doubles, triples, or quadruples in the hairline and temporal point work?

3) If you use only singles in the hairline and temporal point work, how far back do you go before you transition to doubles, triples, or quadruples? For example, would you use a quadruple 3 millimeters behind the hairline as in the case of a Norwood 1 or only in the vertex as in the case of a Norwood 5?

 

Recently I've been intrigued by how the degree of hair loss may govern the distribution of 1's, 2's, 3's, 4's, etc. across the scalp. For example, I initially found the diagram on Shapiro Medical Group to be very illuminating; later, however, I realized that the same diagram had limited application for a Norwood 1 or 2 patient.

 

Thank you!

 

- Nathaniel

Edited July 23, 2013 by nathaniel
edit quotation brackets for clarity

[Michael Vories, MD]

When working on hairlines, temporal points, and eyebrows, my surgical technician is sorting grafts, we always separate out at least 300 single haired grafts for the hairline and temporal points. The single hair grafts are always loaded in the red stripe (0.8 mm) implanter pens, so I know when placing that this is a single hair graft and can go in the anterior hairline. These single hair grafts usually make up the first 0.5 cm of the anterior hairline, and then two hair and three hair grafts are transitioned into the frontal forelock.

 

Implanter pens are not involved in the creation of grafts. Generally, the size of the extraction punch determines the size of the graft, but this can be misleading with the NeoGraft machine. The most important advantage of the machine is also the one that is most cited as its disadvantage- the vacuum assistance. If used inappropriately, vacuum assistance can certainly lead to desiccation (drying) of the grafts. But this same vacuum assistance allows minimal depth insertion, which leads to less transection.

 

(Although transection, as discussed in the recent FUE conference, is actually necessary in large FUE cases)

 

In essence, the punch only is inserted to a depth of 2-3 mm, and "grips" the follicular unit. The punch then drags the graft out of the dermis, and the distal two-thirds of the graft consists of the dermal papilla(s). So the punch size determines the upper third of the graft, but not the bottom two thirds. This is important in that the size of the punch should not determine the ability to densely pack, since the bottom two thirds of the graft is not determined by the size of the punch.

 

Hope this answers these questions!

[nathaniel]

Generally, the size of the extraction punch determines the size of the graft, but this can be misleading with the NeoGraft machine.

 

So the punch size determines the upper third of the graft, but not the bottom two thirds. This is important in that the size of the punch should not determine the ability to densely pack, since the bottom two thirds of the graft is not determined by the size of the punch.

 

Hope this answers these questions!

 

Actually, I'm even more confused...

 

Let me paraphrase what I think I am understanding you to say, but please correct me if I'm mistaken:

 

1) The Neograft only punches out the upper 1/3 of the graft; the bottom 2/3 of the graft is dragged out - with the assistance of vacuum suction? Does the physician physically pull on the graft in any way to drag out the bottom 2/3?

 

2)

The punch size determines the upper third of the graft, but not the bottom two thirds

- Which is larger, then, the upper 1/3 or bottom 2/3?

 

3)

the size of the punch should not determine the ability to densely pack, since the bottom two thirds of the graft is not determined by the size of the punch

- it sounds to me like you are saying the dragged out bottom 2/3 is smaller than the punched out upper 1/3, and that SMALLER bottom 2/3 of the graft enables dense packing regardless of the larger upper 1/3 of the graft - is this correct?

 

3) Does the size of the the punched out graft - whether upper 1/3 or bottom 2/3 - relate to whether a follicular unit is a single, double, triple, etc., and is it the upper 1/3 or bottom 2/3 that determines this? Or do you only sort out singles, doubles, triples, etc., after harvesting the grafts and, if so, is this done with a microscope or simply by visually "eyeballing" the grafts?

 

4) How do you correctly identify follicular units as singles, doubles, triples, etc., when some extracted grafts will be in the dormant phase?

 

5) Lastly - can you or other physicians tell immediately when a graft has been transected at the moment of transection - especially if you are using some type of automated FUE? I just read this thread on Dr. Bisanga's ability to respond to the "feel" of grafts during the extraction process:

 

http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/140154-new-hair-transplant-instrument-dr-harris-revolutionizes-fue-3.html

 

Thank you for replying!

[aWidowsPeek]

Someone needs to say it...Nathaniel your a real pain in the ass i'm sure Dr. Vories has better things to do then answer your 1000 questions a day. Quit bothering the poor man.

[nathaniel]

Someone needs to say it...Nathaniel your a real pain in the ass i'm sure Dr. Vories has better things to do then answer your 1000 questions a day. Quit bothering the poor man.

 

Hi, aWidowsPeek -

 

Thanks for your input. If you are not interested in this thread I would suggest not following it.

 

For clarification, Dr. Vories is not the only physician of whom i have asked questions regarding hair restoration techniques. He is, however, one of the few physicians who lives within a reasonable driving distance of where I live. He is also the only HRN recommended physician who uses Neograft - of which I and others on this forum have some concerns; nonetheless I am trying to be objective about Neograft and learn as much as possible. I also have concerns about other techniques, from ARTAS to strip, and as such I continue to post questions in various threads in an effort to become more educated.

 

I should add that there are several other physicians within driving distance with whom I have also communicated. This is not to say that distance will govern my final decision in selecting a physician to treat my hair loss; however I cannot say that distance is not a consideration.

 

I would like to add that I believe that there are a quite a few people who appreciate the question-answer format of the HRN forum whereby even casual readers can sit back and learn from other people's questions and responses; and I believe that the questions not only contribute to that process but, as in this particular thread with Dr. Vories, allow the physician to demonstrate his/her knowledge and ability in the field of hair restoration.

 

In the end, however, no one else is paying for my treatment or subjecting their physical being to surgery on my behalf, and so I make no apologies for my due diligence.

 

Sincerely,

 

Nathaniel

[Mickey85]

Someone needs to say it...Nathaniel your a real pain in the ass i'm sure Dr. Vories has better things to do then answer your 1000 questions a day. Quit bothering the poor man.

 

??? The guy is just asking some intelligent questions and is curious to how Vories conducts his procedures, he is not harming anyone.

[fueonly]

does dr vories does beard and body hair to scalp

[Bill - Seemiller]

Nathanial,

 

While aWidowsPeek may have been a bit harsh, the answers to some of your questions are easily found by browsing the content on our website and/or by using the "search" feature of our forum.

 

Note that I'm not strictly referring to this topic as I've noticed this behavior on just about every topic you participate in.

 

I don't have a problem with you asking intelligent questions, but it's rare that you are satisfied with any answer you receive and at times, I've seen you be fairly critical.

 

We do encourage you to do your due diligence, but in addition to asking questions, I suggest reading content that already contain answers to many of your questions.

 

Best wishes,

 

Bill

[fueonly]

bill can you please help me how to start a new thread. I am requesting you this third time. If you can can you please help me

[TakingThePlunge]

fueonly,

 

All you need to do to start your own thread is navigate to the appropriate sub-forum such as "Hair Restoration Questions and Answers" and click the New Thread" button on the upper left side of the page.

[fueonly]

thanks david for your reply

i tried i think i will try again for new thread

[Michael Vories, MD]

No worries. Questions and answers are what the forum is all about! My point is that the main function of the negative pressure is to grab the grafts, and then I can drag them out. This is really no different than with manual extraction, in which inverted forceps pull the grafts out.

 

I do not believe that minimal depth incisions allow for dense packing anymore or less than other methods, just that there is less transection (in my hands) with minimal depth incisions.

 

In most extractions I can detect whether any transections occur, but not every time. Because of this, my surgical tech inspects all grafts for transections as she sorts them.

 

Thanks again for the questions.

Edited July 26, 2013 by Vories

[nathaniel]

Thank you, Dr. Vories, for responding again to my questions. The thought of undergoing hair surgery is, to be perfectly honest, rather scary to say the least.

 

My point is that the main function of the negative pressure is to grab the grafts, and then I can drag them out. This is really no different than with manual extraction, in which inverted forceps pull the grafts out.

 

I think I see a difference between what my previous perception of the Neograft suction function was and the way you are currently describing it. Previously I had the impression that the suction component of the Neograft essentially "vacuumed up" quite forcefully the graft with no physical assistance from the operator; however, now as I read your response I understand that the operator, with the assistance of suction, is still responsible for carefully dragging the graft out - this in turn allows you to "feel" if a graft has been transected. That is quite a difference in perception, and I appreciate your clarification.

 

 

I do not believe that minimal depth incisions allow for dense packing anymore or less than other methods, just that there is less transection (in my hands) with minimal depth incisions.

 

I think I previously misunderstood you when referring to punch size - I assumed you were talking about the diameter of the punch, hence the question pertaining to punch size and single, double, triple, etc. grafts. Now, however, I think you are referring to depth when referring to punch size. Therefore, permit me to copy and paste from my previous posting as I think I was confusing the meaning of "punch size"

 

The punch size determines the upper third of the graft, but not the bottom two thirds

 

the size of the punch should not determine the ability to densely pack, since the bottom two thirds of the graft is not determined by the size of the punch

 

With this in mind, I would like to rephrase a couple of questions from my previous post.

 

 

1) Does the size/diameter of the the punched out graft relate to whether a follicular unit is a single, double, triple, etc.?

 

2) Do you target singles, doubles, triples BEFORE punching them out? Or do you first harvest grafts without thought to singles, doubles, triples and only AFTER harvesting the grafts sort them as singles, doubles, triples, etc. If sorting after harvesting is this done with a microscope or simply by visually "eyeballing" the grafts?

 

3) How do you correctly identify follicular units as singles, doubles, triples, etc., when some extracted grafts will be in the dormant phase?

 

Thank you again for replying.

 

- Nathaniel

[Michael Vories, MD]

The bottom two thirds of the graft is dependent on it being a single, double, triple, etc. The upper one third is dependent on the size punch (we try to stay with 0.8 mm punches).

 

I do target specific follicular units while extracting, depending on the case. For hairline and temporal point work, I target more singles, for vertex work, I target more triples to increase the absolute hair count.

 

We do not account for follicles in telogen cycle. There percentages of telogen follicles is small enough that I do not believe it results in an aesthetic difference.

[nathaniel]

Ok, thank you for clarification, Dr. Vories! I do appreciate it as having a better understanding of method and technique really does provide me with greater reassurance and confidence in the potential for a successful hair transplant.

 

With this in mind I would like to ask a bit more about tech assistants' roles in surgery. I've seen different terms to describe assistants, even by you: nurse, physician extender, surgical tech, for example, are terms I believe you have used.

 

1) Do these terms reflect different levels of education? I have a bit of a concern about someone having only 2 years of technical training after high school being involved in surgery - though I really don't know anything about medical training, that's just my perception based on literally nothing, and I don't wish to offend medical technicians! But it is my body we're talking about here, and I want to understand their qualifications.

 

Moreover, specifically with regards to Neograft I have seen many people comment on Neograft techs flying in to assist or even do surgeries (I'm thinking of the video I saw of Dr. Hall in another thread); and also in yet another thread Dr. Lindsey commented on "fly in" techs.

 

2) Do you use now or have you used in the past "fly in" Neograft techs or other company techs to assist in surgeries? How do you screen for qualifications?

 

I've been told that "fly in" techs/nurses are quite common in all kinds of surgeries, not just hair transplants, but I don't really understand how it all works honestly.

 

Thank you!

 

Nathaniel

[Michael Vories, MD]

Our clinic structure is very simple. As the physician, I extract and place all grafts. We have never used outside techs for our FUE procedure, although we have on many occasions hosted both physicians and technicians to view our procedure.

 

We do use one surgical technician to count and collate grafts during the extraction phase, and to load implanter pens during the placing phase. This technician is certified in BLS (as I am in ACLS) should an emergency occur.

 

Technicians who rove from clinic to clinic to essentially perform the entire FUE procedure is a central issue among physicians like myself who exclusively perform hair surgery.

 

It is our opinion (The ISHRS has a position statement to this effect) that a physician who has little to no experience in hair surgery is not in a position to "supervise" these technicians. In case of a problem during surgery the legal term that is used is "Let the master answer." From this a number of questions arise. Who is really in "charge" of the procedure? Who will take responsibility a year after surgery if there is a poor outcome? Who is responsible that the correct number of grafts billed for are transplanted?

 

Going further with this discussion, bringing in these technicians also increases the cost of surgery to the patient, since all travel costs (flights, hotel, food, etc.) has to be paid by the patient through high per graft costs. In the US, as long as FUE per graft is substantially higher than FUT (FUSS) cases, then there will always be relatively poor FUE results compared to FUT. This is not because FUT is a "better" procedure than FUE, but simply because most patients can only afford so much. Where is the incentive for a patient to pay for a 1500 graft FUE case when they can have a 3000 graft FUT case for the same price?

 

We address this by trying to make our FUE procedure similar in cost to a FUT procedure to take comparative costs out of the equation.

 

Bringing in outside technicians to perform a procedure that the physician is not capable of performing is bad medicine, bad business, and gives hair surgery a black eye it does not need.