NeoGraft Hair Transplant Machine for FUE Discussion Continued

[Bill - Seemiller]

Doug,

 

I appreciate you taking the time to respond to my comments. This community is made up thousands of hair loss sufferers and dozens of active members. Thus, there will always be dissenting opinions of which we as publishers of this community may or may not agree with. Your opinion as a NeoGraft representative is certainly welcome and encouraged however, we do expect members to contribute constructively without agressively attacking other members.

 

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.

 

Members are free to express their genuine opinions on this forum. While members may not always explicitly use the word "in my opinion", in many cases, it's implied.

 

Also, what agenda could anyone here have against NeoGraft, which is just one of many extraction devices which has it's own set of unique advantages and disadvantages? Most members here are patients and nobody benefits by making comments for or against an extraction device. You are not dealing with competitors on this forum, only members expressing their opinions about a particular device based on what they've seen and/or heard. While some opinions may be more educated than others, members are still entitled to their opinion.

 

Frankly, the fact that most patient communities appear to have concerns about the NeoGraft hair transplant machine means that NeoGraft hasn't done a great job demonstrating the efficacy of their device.

 

Since you claim certain statements are "agenda driven", I expect you to back that up with evidence.

 

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.

 

I don't recall Dr. Feller and/or Dr. Harris marketing their extraction tools as superior devices that neophyte physicians and inexperienced technicians can use more effectively than trained surgeons.

 

The only difference being we built a far superior device and did not have a "chosen one" as the inventor.

 

By who's standards is the device "superior"? And if the NeoGraft is so much better than other extraction tools, why haven't more leading physicians adopted the device?

 

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.

 

I never said there is no difference between the devices. Where did I say that? What I said is that no device is perfect and each device comes with their own unique advantages and disadvantages. You tout the NeoGraft as superior to all other devices. In my opinion, the NeoGraft is just one of many devices with some unique advantages and disadvantages that physicians may choose to adopt and use within an FUE procedure. But many leading physicians are doing excellent FUE work with manual tools and other motorized devices. You seem to dismiss this. To me, this is "agenda driven".

 

In my last post, I said

 

"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. "

 

Then you said

 

Bill again you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

What exactly do you disagree with? Are you saying you truly think that anyone, even inexperienced surgeons/technicians can use the NeoGraft and perform quality FUE with minimal training? Are you saying that the NeoGraft is perfect and has no disadvantages? Are you saying that the skill and experience of the surgeon doesn't matter and that they MUST use the NeoGraft to obtain superior results? What exactly did I say above that you disagree with that makes me "have no idea" what I"m 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.

 

The above is really irrelevant in your argument with me because I never said the NeoGraft was an inferior device, only that it had it's limitations just like every other device. Yes, the SAFE Scribe and Feller punch have limitations too.

 

But since you mentioned it - do you have a link showing the actual workshop and results of the "head to head" performance we can view for ourselves? Also, what were the variables? Was everyone working on the same patient? What does "outperform" mean? Are you referring to speed?

 

This community is open to objective data. Thus, if you have it, I encourage you to share it with this forum.

 

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.

 

Sharing the results of the above study doesn't discredit other devices. So again, if you have a link to the ISHRS or elsewhere that shows the results of this study, please present it.

 

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

 

I've spoken with a number of reputable surgeons who've tried the NeoGraft, some of who liked it and some of who did not. Several reputable physicians expressed several potential disadvantages. I suggest reading Dr. Bob Bernstein's review of the NeoGraft by visiting "NeoGraft Hair Transplant Machine for FUE". The article even cites some suggestions for improvement to the device, which should be seen as constructive criticism and not a detriment to the device or NeoGraft the company.

 

In my last post, I said:

 

"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."

 

Then you said:

 

Yet you would never know that from reading posts from your website.

 

So do I take it by that statement that you agree with me? And if you haven't seen something similar to the above on this website then you haven't been reading it very thoroughly.

 

The only real concerns I've ever had with NeoGraft include NeoGraft's failure to acknowledge its limitations (and thus, there will never be any room for improvement) and their aggressive marketing campaign that attempted to sell NeoGraft as a "procedure" and claim that new and inexperienced physicians using the NeoGraft could replace skilled and experienced surgeons and their staff.

 

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.

 

Assuming this workshop and performance results exist, one side by side comparison isn't sufficient to tout NeoGraft as a superior tool over ALL other FUE devices. Under certain conditions, I'm sure it does have certain advantages.

 

By the way, were these extracted follicular units using both devices implanted into the patient(s)' scalp? If so, was there a follow up study on growth?

 

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.

 

Successfully selling your device to many physicians doesn't mean it's what's best for the patient. Frankly, it's the mass quantity NeoGrafts being sold to new and inexperienced surgeons/technicians that was cause for great concern. More on that later.

 

Regardless, many leading FUE practitioners are producing outstanding results with tools other than the NeoGraft. I don't agree that the NeoGraft device is "best" for the patient. In my opinion, it's just one of many devices physicians may choose to adopt and master to help patients get the results they deserve.

 

In my personal opinion however, the results I've seen from physicians using NeoGraft have been largely underwhelming. Dr. Mike Vories is one of the first I've seen using the NeoGraft that I've been impressed with, who was just recently approved for recommendation on the Hair Transplant Network. But some of the most impressive FUE practitioners in the field are still using manual tools like Dr. Jose Lorenzo, Dr. Christian Bisanga, Dr. Bijan Feriduni, Dr. Raghu Reddy, Dr. Kyriakos Maras, etc. That said, others using simpler motorized tools are also producing outstanding results. This includes Dr. Hakan Doganay, Dr. James Harris, Dr. Alan Feller and a whole list of others.

 

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.

 

I don't begrudge NeoGraft for innovating a device to help make FUE easier and more effective, in fact, I praise them for it. However, their aggressive marketing and initial misleading claims caused many physicians and educated patients concerns because we all know that the skill and experience of the physician and their staff are paramount to which tool they use.

 

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

 

I have never "bashed" NeoGraft however, I have shared very legitimate concerns that many others share. I've already expressed my primary concerns above so there's no need to repeat them here.

 

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.

 

With due respect, you come across much more like an angry salesman who's trying to convince the world that their product is the best and only way to obtain optimal results. If you would actually acknowledge its limitations (in addition to its benefits) and recognize that it still takes a skilled and experience surgeon to effectively use the NeoGraft, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

You may want to take note of Dr. Alan Bauman's comments regarding the NeoGraft who himself issues extreme caution. In the press release "Dr. Alan Bauman Issues Hair Transplant Alert: Beware when Choosing a NeoGraft FUE Surgeon", he says:

 

"However, Bauman said he feels compelled to remind consumers that, as remarkable as NeoGraft is, it is still just a “tool” – and it is not a substitute for a qualified hair transplant surgeon and surgical team. Any type of hair transplant surgery still requires a properly trained surgeon and an experienced surgical team in order to deliver quality results, Bauman noted.

 

'How the harvested follicles (grafts) are handled by the surgical team and how they are artistically placed into the scalp by the surgeon still determines the naturalness, density and results from the procedure,' Bauman said. 'If the follicles are ‘mishandled’ by an inexperienced team of technicians or without appropriate magnification and instrumentation, graft survival may be impacted - thereby squandering precious donor hair follicles. Also, if the surgeon does not have an aesthetic sense and understand the subtle nuances of hairline design, the naturalness of the results can ultimately suffer. In the worst cases, these unnatural hairlines may require repair.'

 

The number of NeoGraft hair transplant devices in North America has more than quadrupled since last year and now tops 40, according to the device’s distributor, NeoGraft Resource Group. This has already prompted warnings from consumer groups like the American Hair Loss Association (AHLA)."

 

You can read Spencer Kobren's AHLA warning at "NeoGraft Hair Transplant Warning - Let the Buyer Beware"

 

Moreover, Dr. Vories recently shared his thoughts about some of the claims NeoGraft has made:

 

"Thanks for your input. I think it is admirable that you are learning as much as possible about the process before you proceed. However, I believe that far too much emphasis is placed on the term "NeoGraft."

 

I do use a NeoGraft machine to assist me with extractions (I also have a CIT punch in case I need to perform manual extractions). Since I have joined this network of physicians, I have maintained that this machine is a surgical instrument and should be used only by physicians or physician extenders that are licensed in their state to perform the extraction phase of the procedure.

 

This leads me to the question of where does the controversy exist? If it exists within the context of unlicensed technicians performing the procedure under "supervision" of physicians without training or experience in hair surgery, then I believe most people would agree that practice should be avoided.

 

If the controversy exists within the context that the NeoGraft machine has some inherent flaw (such as risk of desiccation of grafts), then I would argue that when appropriately used, this risk is minimized and must be weighed against the risk of tethering of grafts when extracted by forceps.I hope this begins to answer your questions. Please never feel poorly about demanding transparency, it is the oxygen the whole field (not just hair surgery) requires.

 

Mike Vories, MD"

 

His thoughts on the NeoGraft can be found by visiting the discussion topic "Update on FUE Procedure".

 

As you can see, many patients and physicians (including those who use the NeoGraft) have expressed concerns about NeoGraft's aggressive and misleading marketing of the device.

 

All that aside, I do believe the NeoGraft device in the right hands can be a valuable tool - but not necessarily superior over all other devices.

 

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.

 

Doug, maybe as a NeoGraft sales rep, you aren't knowingly posting false or misleading information. However, if you are still claiming that the NeoGraft is flawless, superior over all other devices and can be used just as effectively by neophyte surgeons and inexperienced technicians, then I completely disagree with you.

 

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

 

There is no such thing as a "Neograft procedure". What you've had is FUE with a surgeon (or technician) using the NeoGraft machine for extracting follicular units. The fact that you still tout NeoGraft as a procedure is just proof of the concerning claims your company makes.

 

By the way, have you shared your FUE results on this community? If not, why not? I encourage you to stop playing the salesman (after all, nobody here is interested in buying the device) and start sharing your own personal experience and results. Try relating to hair loss sufferers instead of trying to convince them of unrealistic claims.

 

Best Regards,

 

Bill

[greatjob]

Doug,

 

I went back and had a look at all of your previous posts on this forum, and you are nothing more than a trolling salesmen. You ignore very valid concerns about the machine and the only aspects of hair transplantation you are concerned with is the donor site and extractions. While this is very important, especially with fue as to avoid transection or damaging the grafts, you completely ignore the entire purpose of a hair transplant and that is the hair in the recipient area. To suggest that an unskilled tech can properly implant grafts at the correct angle and place the correct follicular units in the correct area in the scalp is laughable. Additionally to sugesst that a FUE procedure is simple and easy to perform is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard on any hair restoration site.

 

Ever since you joined this site people have been asking you for clear before and after pictures proving that neograft is comparable to a fue procedure performed by top doctors, and aside from one or two promotional links you haven't provided anything. I really can't believe that you haven't realized that the members of this forum are probably the most educated hair transplant patients you will ever find, and you can talk about how much money neograft makes, or give some marketing spin blah blah, but until you provide crystal clear evidence everything you are saying is just hot air from a salesmen trying to push a product.

 

Here let me give you some examples of what evidence of high quality fue looks like:

 

http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/171439-dr-jose-lorenzo-6212-fug.html

http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/169919-3100-grafts-dr-hakan-doganay.html

http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/168673-3530-850%3D4380-grafts-dr-hakan-doganay.html

http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/168182-2400-grafts-dr-hakan-doganay.html

http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/170803-dr-reddy-fue-gentleman-7-year-history-hair-loss-3570-grafts.html

http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/171232-4000-grafts-dr-hakan-doganay.html

http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/171400-fue-performed-dr-feriduni-%96-2972-fu-two-days-session.html

 

and that is just the first page of the results section of this forum. Now your turn, go ahead and post up some results of a Neograft procedure performed by an unskilled tech that proves FUE is so easy with Neograft that anyone can obtain outstanding results. If you cannot do that then I suggest that you quit while you're behind and leave this forum and never come back

[Blake Bloxham]

Nicely stated, Bill!

[nathaniel]

Doug Monty,

 

I know there is a lot to respond to in this thread. And some of the statements made here have led to additional questions on my part, but I will refrain from asking them at the moment to give you a chance to reply to what has already been posted.

 

With that in mind, can you please respond to my initial questions?

 

Alternatively, if the comments and questions in this thread are too time consuming for you to respond on your personal time, could you please have an official representative from Neograft reply on "company time"?

 

To be honest, and I don't mean any disrespect towards you, I would really like to have an "official" Noegrarft representative at least contributing to this thread for the purpose of transparency - though I certainly appreciate your input even in a non-official capacity and welcome greatly your participation even alongside an "official" representative.

 

Thanks!

 

Nathaniel

[Blake Bloxham]

Nathaniel,

 

Because Doug Monty actually works for NeoGraft, I'm guessing this is as close to an "official representative" as possible. I think you have two options: 1. waiting for him to answer your questions; 2. contacting NeoGraft directly with your questions and obtaining a reply from a dedicated representative. Additionally, if there are any questions I (or any other moderator) can help answer, please feel free to ask.

 

Hope this helps!

[TommyLucchese]

Doug

 

Having reviewed your posts here, I'm disinclined to use NeoGraft for my next hair transplant. Thanks for your efforts in providing assurances on the greatness of the product but I think on this occasion I'm going to look elsewhere.

 

Regards.

[Mickey85]

Please keep Doug's posting privileges, they are absolutely hilarious.

[greatjob]

Please keep Doug's posting privileges, they are absolutely hilarious.

I agree! It's funny how blind some people are, he is doing more damage to Neograft than anyone on this forum has ever done, and he works for them, lol.

[Michael Vories, MD]

NeoGraft the machine is not the same as NeoGraft the company (If this guy actually works for NeoGraft). The machine is made in France under the name Medicamat. With the type of postings that I have seen on this thread, I think we should go back to calling the machine Medicamat. I use the machine every day. The machine is not the problem.

[scar5]

Dr. Vories,

The machine is not the problem for you, I suspect, because you have judiciously concluded what parts of the apparatus work, what parts are highly suspect and what parts are downright dangerous, and have taken the optimal course.

 

Good luck to you and the ligaments in your fingers, hands and wrists. ( are there even ligaments there lol?)

 

As a resident long term hair loss-transpant-troll-tragic, I welcome your input into this.

As you probably know, most of the opinion here has always been highly skewed toward the opposite bank of the river...the organic vs the machine has no arbitrator here, because individual clinics pay there dues to be represented hers, and they are unlikely to endorse a McDonalds FUE like Neograft. However, your input that Neograft is just a company that markets another machine from France is a good harpoon in the back the whale.

It won't beach itself yet, but point taken.

[greatjob]

NeoGraft the machine is not the same as NeoGraft the company (If this guy actually works for NeoGraft). The machine is made in France under the name Medicamat. With the type of postings that I have seen on this thread, I think we should go back to calling the machine Medicamat. I use the machine every day. The machine is not the problem.

My personal thoughts are that the Neograft machine is a tool just like any other tool, in the hands of a skilled doctor who has perfected its use it can produce great results. The funny thing is all of the good doctors that use the Neograft machine seem to feel the same way, its people at Neograft like Doug who give it a bad name by trying to suggest that it makes hair transplantation so easy a retarded monkey could perform a procedure. They probably should change the name, because the company is its own worst enemy.

[bobbyboy]

was told i needed 1500 to 2000 grafts on top of head. (neograft) about $10- 11 000. I am an older guy and just need a fill in so am requesting a more limited amount, maybe 1000 grafts. My comfort zone is about 5000 dollars. I am waiting to hear back. Any comments

 

I can always go back

[greatjob]

was told i needed 1500 to 2000 grafts on top of head. (neograft) about $10- 11 000. I am an older guy and just need a fill in so am requesting a more limited amount, maybe 1000 grafts. My comfort zone is about 5000 dollars. I am waiting to hear back. Any comments

 

I can always go back

Who is the doctor? Whether the doctor uses neograft or not is all but irrelevant, the only thing that matters is whether or not the doctor consistently produces outstanding results. I would suggest you create a new thread in the questions and answer forum and post some pictures (you can crop out any distinguishing features) and ask the members here for their opinions on your situation

[bobbyboy]

I am 6 days post neo graft so far fine except extremely irritated where my donor area was shaved.I am using hydrocortisone with triple antibiotic as per drs instructions. I am taking tylenoi and ibuprofen for pain. Any other suggestioins?

[Arrie]

I am 6 days post neo graft so far fine except extremely irritated where my donor area was shaved.I am using hydrocortisone with triple antibiotic as per drs instructions. I am taking tylenoi and ibuprofen for pain. Any other suggestioins?

 

Yes start your own thread and post pics and as many details you can (physician, # of grafts, age, etc...)