NeoGraft Hair Transplant Machine for FUE Discussion Continued

[Bill - Seemiller]

Mickey,

 

The good news is that you did not go through a NeoGraft procedure. ARTAS is significantly better than NeoGraft in terms of yield

 

Being well versed in FUE, I'm surprised you would make the above statement. While the NeoGraft and ARTAS device do come with their own unique sets of advantages and disadvantages, they are just extraction devices used by physicians to extract follicuylar units. There is no such thing as a "NeoGraft Procedure", even though NeoGraft tried to promote their device that way.

 

Also, I don't recall seeing any scientific analysis showing that ARTAS produces "significantly better than NeoGraft in terms of yield". Besides, wouldn't you agree that the skill and experience of the surgeon significantly impacts the kind of yield one can achieve with a certain device? Do you think a new physician using the Versi handle and Lions / Hans implanter can yield the same kind of results as Dr. Jose Lorenzo just because their using the same tool?

 

That said, I have seem some excellent results from physicians who use both the NeoGraft and the ARTAS but in the hands of an unskilled surgeon and inexperienced staff, either device could yield poor results.

 

Best wishes,

 

Bill

[Mickey85]

Mickey,

 

 

 

Being well versed in FUE, I'm surprised you would make the above statement. While the NeoGraft and ARTAS device do come with their own unique sets of advantages and disadvantages, they are just extraction devices used by physicians to extract follicuylar units. There is no such thing as a "NeoGraft Procedure", even though NeoGraft tried to promote their device that way.

 

Also, I don't recall seeing any scientific analysis showing that ARTAS produces "significantly better than NeoGraft in terms of yield". Besides, wouldn't you agree that the skill and experience of the surgeon significantly impacts the kind of yield one can achieve with a certain device? Do you think a new physician using the Versi handle and Lions / Hans implanter can yield the same kind of results as Dr. Jose Lorenzo just because their using the same tool?

 

That said, I have seem some excellent results from physicians who use both the NeoGraft and the ARTAS but in the hands of an unskilled surgeon and inexperienced staff, either device could yield poor results.

 

Best wishes,

 

Bill

 

Hey Bill,

 

I see you bring up that it is the surgeon who makes the result and not the tool itself. I respectfully disagree. I should have said "In my opinion" at the beginning and I apologize for not doing so but I do believe that a tool can limit a surgeon's abilities. The way the Neograft machine works places too much stress on the follicle(in my opinion). You have the extraction phase of the machine which is relatively safe, not obvious cause of harm there. But then you have the suction phase where the device rips out the follicle at a high speed(whilst the bottom is still joint to the inner tissue of the scalp) in some cases getting slipped inbetween the scalp and suction inlet which could shear the protective tissue of the graft. Also the grafts are then expelled into a container which is constantly flushed with air until the container is removed and grafts are obtained which can dry out the grafts. I do not agree with the Neograft device one iota but that is just my opinion on the matter. You know me Bill, just because something pertains to FUE, I don't have to be positive about it. I'm not forcing anyone to this notion however and they are free to come to any conclusion they wish about the Neograft device, they should observe and do their research however. The ARTAS avoids both the fast suction and the constant flow of air onto the grafts. I don't agree with all things ARTAS either but I personally would prefer it over the Neograft device. I shouldn't have said it has a significantly better yield rate though, that was just based on the inherent factors that the Neograft has that the ARTAS doesn't. I will cop that one on the chin hehe.

 

A new physician who uses the Versi handle and Lion implanter would not get Lorenzo-like results by default, no. But there is a middle ground I believe. A surgeon can be limited by the inherent flaws in his or her devices. To believe otherwise would be defying logic. It is omitting all the inherent flaws and benefits of the device to just lump everything on surgeon skill. If a device is prone or at least increases the chance of transection, shearing etc of a follicle or causes it to try out(forget the term right now), then how is a surgeon to compensate for that? No matter how elite that surgeon is, a device that is more prone to damaging grafts will affect the result. I'm not specifically talking about the Neograft device, just saying a tool can limit a result of surgeon skill. Think back to the early FUE tools that were used in the early 2000s. Large punches, thick walls, crude design. No one uses those tools anymore. If a tool is a non-factor, then why were those early tools discarded?

 

Again I shouldn't have included the "yield" being significantly better than the Neograft device and I will cop that. But I do personally feel the ARTAS is superior by design. I don't believe it has 2% transection rate and still prefer manual punches.

[Bill - Seemiller]

Mickey,

 

I really don't see how you can disagree that the skill and experience of a surgeon matters more than which tool they use. Sure, tools are designed to give physicians certain advantages and by default, certain disadvantages accompany them. But at the end of the day, it's the physician who learns to master a technique and tool and yields the results, not the tool itself. In other words, a tool is never greater than it's master.

 

Realistically, physicians gravitate towards different tools and what works well in one physiian's hands isn't always optimal in another. Ultimately, a skilled and experienced physician finds which tool's advantages (in their hands) outweigh the disadvantages and master it. Alternatively, there are those very loyal to certain tools whether the end result yields well or not, which is unfortunate.

 

Regarding the NeoGraft, I'm aware of certain disadvantages that accompany it however, like any tools, surgeons who truly master the device have been able to overcome many of them and produce excellent results. Could improvements be made to the NeoGraft? Absolutely. But they can also be made to the ARTAS, other motorized devices and manual devices.

 

All the Best,

 

Bill

[Mickey85]

Mickey,

 

I really don't see how you can disagree that the skill and experience of a surgeon matters more than which tool they use. Sure, tools are designed to give physicians certain advantages and by default, certain disadvantages accompany them. But at the end of the day, it's the physician who learns to master a technique and tool and yields the results, not the tool itself. In other words, a tool is never greater than it's master.

 

Realistically, physicians gravitate towards different tools and what works well in one physiian's hands isn't always optimal in another. Ultimately, a skilled and experienced physician finds which tool's advantages (in their hands) outweigh the disadvantages and master it. Alternatively, there are those very loyal to certain tools whether the end result yields well or not, which is unfortunate.

 

Regarding the NeoGraft, I'm aware of certain disadvantages that accompany it however, like any tools, surgeons who truly master the device have been able to overcome many of them and produce excellent results. Could improvements be made to the NeoGraft? Absolutely. But they can also be made to the ARTAS, other motorized devices and manual devices.

 

All the Best,

 

Bill

 

Bill my friend, I never said a surgeon's skill is a moot point or stated that a tool defies the surgeon but that a tool can limit a surgeon's skill. The best combination would be a skilled surgeon using the best tools. There is a synergistic effect. A tool is never greater than its master but I do believe poor tools can hinder the surgeon.

[Bill - Seemiller]

Bill my friend, I never said a surgeon's skill is a moot point or stated that a tool defies the surgeon but that a tool can limit a surgeon's skill. The best combination would be a skilled surgeon using the best tools. There is a synergistic effect. A tool is never greater than its master but I do believe poor tools can hinder the surgeon.

 

I agree however, no tool is designed to be "poor", thus there are usually inherent advantages to every tool that can be amplified by a physician who's mastered it.

 

As a case in point, many manual tools were thought to have too many disadvantages so motorized devices were created. Ironically however, there is a growing trend back towards manual tools since many elite surgeons are producing world renowned results by usuing manual devices.

 

That said, some tools may have more inherent risks and disadvantages than others which are sometimes discovered after months/years of use.

 

So we're not in complete disagreement :-).

 

All the Best,

 

Bill

[Bill - Seemiller]

As a case to your point that some tools have inherent advantages over others - some have actually become standardized. I firmly believe that microscopes should be used for dissecting follicular units during strip surgery. There are studies showing an increase in yield when dissecting follicular units under microscopic dissection, thus, they've become a standard part of every FUSS (strip surgery) procedure.

 

At this time, there are no standardized tools/devices for FUE. It will be interesting to see if this ever happens.

 

Best,

 

Bill

[hairshopeing]

Bill, can u show some examples of successful Neo graft surgeries please, as iv been on this forum daily for about 2 years and can't remember one positive thread about Neo graft?? I'm not saying there aren't any, but I'd be interested to see some with results like Lorenzo, Feriduni, bisanga and alot of the Turkish drs are producing!!! My own observations believe that Neo graft isn't very successful but if I can be shown differently open for change!!

Thanks!!

[Mickey85]

I agree however, no tool is designed to be "poor", thus there are usually inherent advantages to every tool that can be amplified by a physician who's mastered it.

 

As a case in point, many manual tools were thought to have too many disadvantages so motorized devices were created. Ironically however, there is a growing trend back towards manual tools since many elite surgeons are producing world renowned results by usuing manual devices.

 

That said, some tools may have more inherent risks and disadvantages than others which are sometimes discovered after months/years of use.

 

So we're not in complete disagreement :-).

 

All the Best,

 

Bill

 

Not in complete disagreement at all buddy.

 

I just feel(my opinion) that there are flaws in the Neograft device such as the propensity or potential of desiccation as the grafts sit in the canister until they are collected and then put into a holding solution. The general method is that grafts are extracted out of the scalp and put into the holding solution within 30 seconds. Given that FUE grafts contain less protective tissue they cannot stay outside the body for as long and are prone to desiccation faster. It is not that they are just outside the body for longer but are put in a position where a constant flow of air is rush on them.

 

The second potential flaw I see(again my opinion) is the violent suction of the graft while it is still attached to the tissue. Conventional FUE sees the surgeon applying forceps and pressure to the area surrounding the graft as to elevate the tension on the graft itself. Other times they 'ease' the graft out via forceps and manipulation of the surrounding skin. This is vital to avoid tearing the protective tissue or even more importantly, the dermal papilla which is located at the very bottom of the graft(which is still connected to the scalp even after being punched). I feel the high velocity suction of the Neograft can strip the graft of its protective tissue and possibly damage the dermal papilla as it separates it from the scalp.

 

These are just my views on the Neograft though. I'm sorry to others if I derailed the thread.

[Doug Monty]

The good news is that you did not go through a NeoGraft procedure. ARTAS is significantly better than NeoGraft in terms of yield. ARTAS currently uses 1mm punches(although the .9mm punch is said to be available very soon?) and even with scarring(or missing follicles) you still should be able to shave down to a grade 1 or grade 2(I assume the former due to the small quantity of grafts taken). A grade zero would be unlikely however. You may be pleasantly surprised by the result but I do think you will need a subsequent procedure to cover more area but on the plus side you will have more hair on top. Chin up buddy, it is way too early to dwell and there are positives with you.

 

Micky you are so full of crap. You and the rest of the hacks and quacks on this web site who have bashed the NeoGraft because as a whole you all saw the NeoGraft as a threat to your small little pockets of existance.

 

Who and what do you think single handedly changed the landscape in the USA for FUE procedures - NeoGraft. Look where FUE was 5 years ago and who was doing it and where it was now. Look at the high profile docs who were pimping their little machines and where those machines are today.

 

With 100's of systems out in the field, and on-going patient and physician education. The general public has been made aware that there is a far superior medical procedure for FUE hair transplants - a NeoGraft procedure.

 

Additionally you can't compare graft quality, with NeoGraft with any other punch system. The grafts with NeoGraft are far superior. There is no difference in function between the safescribe and the artis, when the graft is lined up with the punch.

 

Put your thinking cap on and think about that.

 

Once scored the grafts still have to be poked prodded and you have to pull on the hair, causing additional damage and trauma to each and every graft. This is not in dispute.

 

Also with the safe scribe and artis, you have no idea if you are getting transection. With the NeoGraft you know each and every time what the graft quality is because you see each and every graft after harvest.

 

Bottom line is a NeoGraft procedure has always been the most advanced method for FUE hair transplants producing the best grafts with the best results.

 

I recently sat in the audience in Miami and listened to a golden follicle award winner bash NeoGraft as I watched him proudly show off his video of a strip procedure where he proudly uses a knife used to skin a deer to cut the grafts off of a strip. Massive trauma to the underside of the grafts and this guy was supposed to be an expert.

 

Fyi my avatar image is of 500 grafts harvested by a nurse who never did a hair transplant before. All perfect grafts

Edited July 14, 2013 by Doug Monty

[Mickey85]

Micky you are so full of crap. You and the rest of the hacks and quacks on this web site who have bashed the NeoGraft because as a whole you all saw the NeoGraft as a threat to your small little pockets of existance.

 

Who and what do you think single handedly changed the landscape in the USA for FUE procedures - NeoGraft. Look where FUE was 5 years ago and who was doing it and where it was now. Look at the high profile docs who were pimping their little machines and where those machines are today.

 

With 100's of systems out in the field, and on-going patient and physician education. The general public has been made aware that there is a far superior medical procedure for FUE hair transplants - a NeoGraft procedure.

 

Additionally you can't compare graft quality, with NeoGraft with any other punch system. The grafts with NeoGraft are far superior. There is no difference in function between the safescribe and the artis, when the graft is lined up with the punch.

 

Put your thinking cap on and think about that.

 

Once scored the grafts still have to be poked prodded and you have to pull on the hair, causing additional damage and trauma to each and every graft. This is not in dispute.

 

Also with the safe scribe and artis, you have no idea if you are getting transection. With the NeoGraft you know each and every time what the graft quality is because you see each and every graft after harvest.

 

Bottom line is a NeoGraft procedure has always been the most advanced method for FUE hair transplants producing the best grafts with the best results.

 

I recently sat in the audience in Miami and listened to a golden follicle award winner bash NeoGraft as I watched him proudly show off his video of a strip procedure where he proudly uses a knife used to skin a deer to cut the grafts off of a strip. Massive trauma to the underside of the grafts and this guy was supposed to be an expert.

 

Fyi my avatar image is of 500 grafts harvested by a nurse who never did a hair transplant before. All perfect grafts

 

Good lord, no wonder you work for NeoGraft. All the best to you sir.

[scar5]

You and the rest of the hacks and quacks on this web site.... All perfect grafts

 

Monty,

I am not informed or aware of the latest devices or treatments in relation to FUE as my donor is shot and i've lost the motivation, but it has always been my impression that Neograft doesn't work as advertised, because, at least as far as I understood, the idea was to extract and plant the graft too, but the machine so far, just extracts the grafts. Am I wrong about that?

 

i agree that Neograft became a kind of easy-target for the strip shops as a way of deriding the general legitimacy of FUE, when it was struggling to gain acceptance and then later, the negativity surrounding it encouraged the FUE-is-for-small-jobs mind set to road block FUE's progress on the back of doctors get tired argument. I think a lot of it came from the fact that the perception was out there, that it was not being used as advertised.

 

I found a cosmetic clinic using the predecessor of Neograft (something graft??, starts with 'D'?) making a business out of removing body hair for woman and for that it seemed well-suited.

 

I also believe that manual pinching is best, but is limited in life due to the destruction of the ligaments in the doctors' fingers, so therefore, I hope that machines will work out.

[Blake Bloxham]

Doug,

 

While you are more than entitled to your opinion, this type of aggressive behavior on the boards will not be tolerated. If you would like to debate the merits of FUE extraction devices, you are more than welcome to do so. However, telling people they are "full of crap" and calling the individuals associated with our site "hacks and quacks" will absolutely not be tolerated.

[TommyLucchese]

Micky you are so full of crap. You and the rest of the hacks and quacks on this web site who have bashed the NeoGraft because as a whole you all saw the NeoGraft as a threat to your small little pockets of existance.

 

Who and what do you think single handedly changed the landscape in the USA for FUE procedures - NeoGraft. Look where FUE was 5 years ago and who was doing it and where it was now. Look at the high profile docs who were pimping their little machines and where those machines are today.

 

With 100's of systems out in the field, and on-going patient and physician education. The general public has been made aware that there is a far superior medical procedure for FUE hair transplants - a NeoGraft procedure.

 

Additionally you can't compare graft quality, with NeoGraft with any other punch system. The grafts with NeoGraft are far superior. There is no difference in function between the safescribe and the artis, when the graft is lined up with the punch.

 

Put your thinking cap on and think about that.

 

Once scored the grafts still have to be poked prodded and you have to pull on the hair, causing additional damage and trauma to each and every graft. This is not in dispute.

 

Also with the safe scribe and artis, you have no idea if you are getting transection. With the NeoGraft you know each and every time what the graft quality is because you see each and every graft after harvest.

 

Bottom line is a NeoGraft procedure has always been the most advanced method for FUE hair transplants producing the best grafts with the best results.

 

I recently sat in the audience in Miami and listened to a golden follicle award winner bash NeoGraft as I watched him proudly show off his video of a strip procedure where he proudly uses a knife used to skin a deer to cut the grafts off of a strip. Massive trauma to the underside of the grafts and this guy was supposed to be an expert.

 

Fyi my avatar image is of 500 grafts harvested by a nurse who never did a hair transplant before. All perfect grafts

 

Mickey is a hack and quack who is on this forum to benefit himself financially?

 

Do your bosses know they have an employee doing such damage to their reputation by making absurd statements online? If you had any idea of Mickey's story or had even seen a few of his posts you'd know how foolish you made yourself sound.

[Doug Monty]

Doug,

 

While you are more than entitled to your opinion, this type of aggressive behavior on the boards will not be tolerated. If you would like to debate the merits of FUE extraction devices, you are more than welcome to do so. However, telling people they are "full of crap" and calling the individuals associated with our site "hacks and quacks" will absolutely not be tolerated.

 

Dear Pot,

 

Remind me to call kettle.

 

Thanks,

 

Black

[nathaniel]

Doug Monty,

 

Are you here officially representing Neograft? I have been asking openly in the forums here that Neograft representatives willingly field questions from forum members so that all forum members can learn more about the Neograft company, product, and practice.

 

If you are not here as an official representative, I still am interested in hearing more about your support of Neograft; at the same time, as a non-official representative any comments you make are highly suspect:

 

Fyi my avatar image is of 500 grafts harvested by a nurse who never did a hair transplant before. All perfect grafts

 

Can you provide documented support for this claim - preferably with official support from the Neograft company? How can we verify, for example, that your avatar image is what you claim and not actually a hi-jacked image of a strip procedure?

 

I am very interested in all aspects of hair transplant, including Neograft. It would be great if Neograft has indeed developed a tool that allows someone with no previous experience to successfully extract all perfect grafts with no damage to any grafts during the process - really, that would be fantastic. I am very interested in this claim. Can you or another official representative of Neograft support this claim with documentation?

 

Thanks!

 

- Nathaniel

 

 

Originally Posted by Future_HT_Doc

Doug,

 

While you are more than entitled to your opinion, this type of aggressive behavior on the boards will not be tolerated. If you would like to debate the merits of FUE extraction devices, you are more than welcome to do so. However, telling people they are "full of crap" and calling the individuals associated with our site "hacks and quacks" will absolutely not be tolerated.

 

Blake,

 

I do appreciate very much your desire to insure a certain degree of etiquette in this forum; however, I ask that you please refrain from censoring Doug Monty's comments or blocking his participation. To my (albeit limited) knowledge no Neograft representative has made an appearance in these forums. Although Doug Monty's demeanor is not at all appropriate for any corporate representative in a public forum, he does claim to be an employee of the Neograft company in some facet - the first such employee/representative to date. Hopefully Doug Monty will realize that making inappropriate comments as a representative of Neograft ultimately do not in any way reflect positively on Neograft as a company or a product and only hurt the image of Neograft - company, product, and employees - regardless of the Neograft's actual abilities whatever they may be. If he does not realize this then it is Neograft, and ultimately Neograft's employees, who will literally not profit from such poor representation. With this in mind, I again ask that you not censor or ban Doug Monty. As I previously stated, I am very interested in what he has to say - whether it reflect well on his company or poorly.

 

- Nathaniel

[TommyLucchese]

Dear Pot,

 

Remind me to call kettle.

 

Thanks,

 

Black

 

What a fantastically insightful post that has really made readers buy into the product you're on here to promote.

[Doug Monty]

Doug Monty,

 

Are you here officially representing Neograft? I have been asking openly in the forums here that Neograft representatives willingly field questions from forum members so that all forum members can learn more about the Neograft company, product, and practice.

 

NeoGraft has been around for 5 years and we have been bashed on this site since day 1. Our latest system costs $100, 000 and we probably sell more of these per month than Dr. Feller's punch or the safe scribe combined. But yet these two tools were deemed superior to the NeoGraft for years. In fact the NeoGraft went head to head against the safescribe at an ishrs meeting. The NeoGraft outperformed in speed and quality. And we had a tech do the bulk of the harvesting.

 

If you are not here as an official representative, I still am interested in hearing more about your support of Neograft; at the same time, as a non-official representative any comments you make are highly suspect:

 

Read everything negative on here and take the opposite and you will have all your questions answered.

 

I believe they're approved members of this web site who offer a NeoGraft procedure. They can fill in what you want to know. I would highly suggest you contact them to get a professional medical opinion. Obviously anything I tell you is going to be seen as biased.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Can you provide documented support for this claim - preferably with official support from the Neograft company? How can we verify, for example, that your avatar image is what you claim and not actually a hi-jacked image of a strip procedure?

 

I took the picture, I had video posted on here several years ago, not sure if the link is still up here.

 

I am very interested in all aspects of hair transplant, including Neograft. It would be great if Neograft has indeed developed a tool that allows someone with no previous experience to successfully extract all perfect grafts with no damage to any grafts during the process - really, that would be fantastic. I am very interested in this claim. Can you or another official representative of Neograft support this claim with documentation?

 

 

Thanks!

 

- Nathaniel

 

 

 

 

Blake,

 

I do appreciate very much your desire to insure a certain degree of etiquette in this forum; however, I ask that you please refrain from censoring Doug Monty's comments or blocking his participation. To my (albeit limited) knowledge no Neograft representative has made an appearance in these forums. Although Doug Monty's demeanor is not at all appropriate for any corporate representative in a public forum, he does claim to be an employee of the Neograft company in some facet - the first such employee/representative to date. Hopefully Doug Monty will realize that making inappropriate comments as a representative of Neograft ultimately do not in any way reflect positively on Neograft as a company or a product and only hurt the image of Neograft - company, product, and employees - regardless of the Neograft's actual abilities whatever they may be. If he does not realize this then it is Neograft, and ultimately Neograft's employees, who will literally not profit from such poor representation. With this in mind, I again ask that you not censor or ban Doug Monty. As I previously stated, I am very interested in what he has to say - whether it reflect well on his company or poorly.

 

- Nathaniel

 

Nate,

 

Just please go back in time and read the mountain of negative info out there about NeoGraft and ask yourself, if a NeoGraft procedure was as bad as this web site claims then why would we be so successful?

[Bill - Seemiller]

Doug,

 

It's unfortunate that a NeoGraft representative would conduct himself in such an unprofessional manner in an otherwise healthy debate. While experienced physicians like Dr. Mike Vories who regularly produces excellent results using the NeoGraft device has done a service to the device, you are doing a great disservice by coming in swinging and attacking members who have an opposing opinion.

 

For the record, this website consists of thousands of members who are entitled to their own opinions even if its publishers don't agree.

 

For the record, the publishers of this community don't feel the NeoGraft (the machine) is "bad" (as you put it) but does not recognize NeoGraft as a "procedure". Furthermore, we have concerns about how NeoGraft (the company) has marketed the device to neophyte surgeons and inexperienced technicians.

 

As a device, the NeoGraft hair transplant machine comes with a list of potential advantages and disadvantages like other tools/devices. Moreover, the success of the device depends largely on the experience and skill of the surgeon. This is true for every tool used for similar purposes.

 

There are those who've mastered manual tools, the SAFE Scribe, the ARTAS, the motorized Feller Punch (etc.) and there are those who've mastered the NeoGraft. Like physicians, patients have their preference and opinions about varying extraction and implantation devices. But put any of these tools in inexperienced or novice hands and you're creating a recipe for potential disaster.

 

One thing these devices all have in common is that they are tools physicians/technicians use in follicular unit extraction (FUE) procedures. Whether or not one is truly and objectively better has yet to be determined since physicians all have their preference and have mastered various tools.

 

Doug, as an official representative of the NeoGraft, we welcome your input and invite you to participate constructively in discussions. However, if you are going to resort to insulting this community and its members and/or making knowingly false and misleading claims (which are in violation of our terms of service), your posting privileges will be suspended.

 

Best wishes,

 

Bill

[scar5]

Bill,

Does Dr. Vories use Neograft to extract as well as plant the graft? I am sorry if this is an ignorant question as I have fallen behind everything these days.

[nathaniel]

Hi, Doug Monty, thanks for replying.

 

NeoGraft has been around for 5 years and we have been bashed on this site since day 1.

 

It is true that the the majority of comments I have seen on this site with regards to Neograft have been very negative; and I must say that I have been quite shocked at some of the images provided of final patient outcomes in this forum. At the same time, however, Bill the Managing Publisher, Blake (Future_HT_Doc) , and Dr. Vories (who uses Neograft) have tried to emphasize in these same forum threads that Neograft is a tool whose successful utilization is dependent, at least in part, on the skill of the user. With this in mind, I am trying to remain objective with regards to Neograft and therefore appreciate feedback from those who actually utilize Neograft in surgery or represent Neograft in an official capacity.

 

My first two questions, however, do not relate to Neograft's performance in a procedure. Your reference to Neograft's sales performance has simply piqued my curiosity.

 

Our latest system costs $100, 000 and we probably sell more of these per month than Dr. Feller's punch or the safe scribe combined.

 

1) How many systems have you sold on average per month in each year since Neograft went public? Or alternatively how many systems total have you sold in the last 5 years? Is this in the US or worldwide?

 

2) Is there an investment prospectus or website where I can glean more information about Neograft's business model?

 

In fact the NeoGraft went head to head against the safescribe at an ishrs meeting. The NeoGraft outperformed in speed and quality.

 

I will say as a potential HT patient, I am less interested in speed and much more interested in quality - in fact the final outcome of a hair transplant is really all I personally care about. If speed helps to insure a great outcome by reducing fatigue as I have read some say - great! If it results in a rush job where grafts are damaged upon extraction, implanted grafts are placed haphazardly or in a sloppy manner without regard to hair caliber, angle, or density I say, "Slow down!!!"

 

3) As for quality, how is this measured? Were all extracted grafts from both the Safescribe and Neograft examined under a microscope for quality before implanting?

 

4) On a side note not relating to Neograft or the Safescribe per se, I have found it a bit disconcerting when attendees at conferences marvel at procedures being performed without any evidence of the final outcome. I feel similarly when patients post post-op pictures of recent procedures in these forums and others comment on what a fantastic job it is. But I am not in the hair transplant industry and these things mean nothing to me in comparison to the final outcome. With this in mind, where can I find pictures of the final outcomes of the patients who participated in this "head to head" event?

 

I believe they're approved members of this web site who offer a NeoGraft procedure. They can fill in what you want to know. I would highly suggest you contact them to get a professional medical opinion.

 

I was informed by Blake that the only recommended doctor on this website who uses Neograft is Dr. Vories. A week ago I did post several questions in his recent thread "Update on FUE procedure" (link provided below) using Neograft and am waiting for his response - hopefully he will reply soon.

 

http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/171175-update-fue-procedure-2.html

 

I took the picture, I had video posted on here several years ago, not sure if the link is still up here.

 

My biggest complaint with regards to the Hair Restoration Network site is the difficulty in navigating the forums/threads or performing search queries. Any relevant links that you can provide would be greatly appreciated.

 

Thanks!

 

- Nathaniel

[Bill - Seemiller]

Scar,

 

Dr. Vories only uses the NeoGraft to extract the follicular units. He uses the Lion / Hans Pen implanter (the same one Dr. Lorenzo uses) for implanting follicular units. To learn more about pen implantation devices, visit "FUE Hair Transplant: Implantation Methods and Devices".

 

Best,

 

Bill

[Bill - Seemiller]

Nathaniel,

 

I recommend creating a new thread with your NeoGraft questions and simply copying/pasting your questions into the new topic. I can move posts to a new topic however, I feel that it may break the flow of conversation and seem out of place to anyone new stumbling into the conversation.

 

Best wishes,

 

Bill

[Doug Monty]

Doug,

 

It's unfortunate that a NeoGraft representative would conduct himself in such an unprofessional manner in an otherwise healthy debate. While experienced physicians like Dr. Mike Vories who regularly produces excellent results using the NeoGraft device has done a service to the device, you are doing a great disservice by coming in swinging and attacking members who have an opposing opinion.

 

Bill,I guess we have a different idea of what we consider to be a "Professional" environment. Seems to me that all the completely unfounded agenda driven opinions are being stated as facts.

 

For the record, this website consists of thousands of members who are entitled to their own opinions even if its publishers don't agree.

 

For the record, the publishers of this community don't feel the NeoGraft (the machine) is "bad" (as you put it) but does not recognize NeoGraft as a "procedure". Furthermore, we have concerns about how NeoGraft (the company) has marketed the device to neophyte surgeons and inexperienced technicians.

 

For the record, NeoGraft used almost the exact same wording to market and promote the NeoGraft as the makers of the Feller Punch and the SafeScribe. The only difference being we built a far superior device and did not have a "chosen one" as the inventor. For a moment, just think about common sense....if there is no difference between the devices and its all doctor driven or to your most ardent anti-neograft crowd, the NeoGraft is just horrible, why would a doctor spend $100,000 when he/she could have spent a fraction of the cost for the other two. It just does not make sense and the free market has spoken and anti-NeoGraft people are just not happy.

 

 

As a device, the NeoGraft hair transplant machine comes with a list of potential advantages and disadvantages like other tools/devices. Moreover, the success of the device depends largely on the experience and skill of the surgeon. This is true for every tool used for similar purposes.

 

There are those who've mastered manual tools, the SAFE Scribe, the ARTAS, the motorized Feller Punch (etc.) and there are those who've mastered the NeoGraft. Like physicians, patients have their preference and opinions about varying extraction and implantation devices. But put any of these tools in inexperienced or novice hands and you're creating a recipe for potential disaster.

 

Bill again you have no idea what you are talking about. Let me be perfectly clear instead of beating around the bush and being polite.

 

Several years ago at an ISHRS annual invent in Orlando the NeoGraft went head to head against the SafeScribe. We had a Tech and Dr. Bauman harvesting with a tech doing most of the harvesting and Dr. Harris was using the safescribe. Not only did the Tech and Newbie doctor (at the time) outperform the safescribe and the inventor , the transection rates were not even close with the NeoGraft being far less than one percent and the Safescribe being over 8%. I was there along with 100 or so other doctors.

 

We never actively promoted this because we did not need to. Bashing someone else's tool is just not good business sense. Now that we are the 400 Pound Gorilla in the room it does not matter.

 

Also Please Please Please tell me what one Single Disadvantage is using the NeoGraft than is not an opinion from some troll.

 

 

 

One thing these devices all have in common is that they are tools physicians/technicians use in follicular unit extraction (FUE) procedures. Whether or not one is truly and objectively better has yet to be determined since physicians all have their preference and have mastered various tools.

 

Yet you would never know that from reading posts from your website. However when the master of one tool (safescribe) was outperformed by a tech, in a head to head match up, supervised by 100 other doctors at the ISHRS. I have to disagree with your statement.

 

Keep in mind, if the NeoGraft had been out performed by the Safe Scribe and Dr. Harris, we would still be hearing it today. This is the reason why doctors would rather spend $90,000 more for out Device than to purchase a Safescribe or other similar device using the same principles. It's what is BEST for the PATIENT.

 

Another thing to keep in mind. Its been FIVE FREAKEN years since the NeoGraft was introduced and all the Doom and Gloom BS of how the NeoGraft was going to set the industry back 10 years with all these "New" Doctors starting to offer hair has now come and gone and all been proven false. If Fact NeoGraft has done just the Opposite. It has grown the Hair Transplant industry and has changed FUE to the New Gold Standard for Hair Transplants.

 

NeoGraft has continued to prove you and the core group of bashers wrong year after year.

 

Doug, as an official representative of the NeoGraft, we welcome your input and invite you to participate constructively in discussions. However, if you are going to resort to insulting this community and its members and/or making knowingly false and misleading claims (which are in violation of our terms of service), your posting privileges will be suspended.

 

I am a Hair Loss Suffer and NeoGraft patient who happens to work for NeoGraft. No different than any other person on here who works with or helps answer questions regarding a certain doctor or procedure who happens to be affiliated with a certain practice.

 

Please afford me the same freedoms as everyone else. Also let me know if I have made anything which was false or misleading and I will gladly correct it.

 

I wont ask you to do the same for all the posters who have posted Negative Agenda driven comments about NeoGraft because that would take too long to correct.

 

As far as micky being full of C@#P I was at a loss for words regarding all the False and Misleading statements which he made and thought this was the best word to full describe his entire view and agenda driven posts.

 

FYI I had a NeoGraft procedure and not a Hair Transplant with the NeoGraft.

 

 

Best wishes,

 

Doug Monty

[Mickey85]

, the transection rates were not even close with the NeoGraft being far less than one percent and the Safescribe being over 8%. I was there along with 100 or so other doctors.

 

 

 

Where are all these amazing 99.999999% yield Neograft results champ? They should be plentiful and abundant given that all these doctors(and techs) are using them?

Edited July 18, 2013 by Mickey85

[greatjob]

Doug Monty,

 

The fact that you tout a untrained nurse extracting grafts as a badge of honor and a positive thing illustrates how stupid you are.

 

In the hands of a skilled surgeon, such as Dr. Vories, Neograft can be a very effective tool. However, in the hands of an unskilled, untrained nurse or technician it is no different than the work performed by thousands of unskilled hacks that continue to perform HT's and ruin peoples lives.

 

It sounds like you base the success of Neograft on how many units are sold and how much money it generates, which is what I would expect from a salesmen. By that standard then all of the hack doctors that continue to practice and ruin peoples lives with sub-par hair transplants are successful as well because they have swindled many people out of their money. I base success on the consistent production of outstanding results, and aside from a few doctors, who I might add were already good doctors before they acquired a Neograft machine, Neograft just doesn't meet my standard of success. You market Neograft to doctors who don't specialize in hair transplantation and tell them how they can generate tons of revenue by having untrained nurses perform medical procedures, hell you even offer fly-in techs like some sort of medical temp agency.

 

The Neograft machine can produce great results in the right hands, but the way your company markets the machine as something that anyone on the street can use to perform a medical procedure is shameful and disgusting. All I have heard you talk about is transection rates and graft extraction, but you have failed to address the whole point of a hair transplant, the recipient area. All that matters in a HT's is the results and in the hands of the unskilled doctors or techs that you market your machine to I have yet to see one good result.