INTRODUCING: Modified FUE (mFUE)

[scar5]

1) Once the dust clears...

2) FUE is inherently shackled

 

 

1) Let's get some of the dust cleared out. = This is not FUE

2) North American clinics are shackled by their inability to allow tech extraction and thus....

[KO]

Ok lets just look at todays posts to the forum for example. A quick glance will see 2 FUE cases as below from leading clinics in which it can easily displayed of a 90%^^ range yield. Well there are tons of these cases around these days from leading clinics any prospective patient can view. When performed at a leading clinic i don't think there is a big variation in the yield rates. And i think most patients would take a small percentage less yield which would not be noticeable in the final result in lieu of a strip scar.

 

Having seen plenty of results in the flesh i see no discernable difference in the quality of FUE to FUT grafts once fully grown in and matured.

 

I agree FUE takes longer to grow and 'bed' in for the hair to cycle. I would also highlight there are no guarantees with either procedures and there are plenty of FUT results with a poor yield to be found.

 

http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/179412-just-over-12mths-post-op-dr-jose-lorenzo.html

 

http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/173413-bisanga-fue-2995-dec-2013-a-10.html

 

How do you know the yield here is 90%? What data can you cite to back up this claim? Finally it seems you're backtracking in saying that patients would accept "lower yield" good to know, but my point still stands.

[KO]

Scar5, I'm awaiting your opinion on my assertion here: "Do you disagree that FUT gives patients more hair and better hair than FUE"?

 

Scar5, you seem quite silent on this issue.

[1978matt]

How do you know the yield here is 90%? What data can you cite to back up this claim? Finally it seems you're backtracking in saying that patients would accept "lower yield" good to know, but my point still stands.

 

This fella had questionable yield. A shame he never presented any photos or revealed who the doctor was :rolleyes:

 

http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/173108-15-months-post-fue-will-i-get-more-growth.html

[KO]

TI'm not sure who made the comment that it take 2/5 passes with FUE V 1 pass with FUT that seems a far cry imo, I do think from what I've seen that FUT has the edge by a small. % margin though.

 

Blake is right, it does take 3-5 passes for a NW5 to have good coverage and density with FUE. Especially Lorenzo favors this approach. Take a look at these cases, all would take multiple passes via FUE, and I don't believe they would achieve the same illusion of density, not to mention the perfectly soft, natural hairlines that Hasson is a master of:

 

http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/170104-bar-raising-result-dr-hasson-5820-grafts-one-surgery-5-years.html

 

http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/166220-dr-hasson-7046-grafts-one-procedure-10-months.html

 

http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/175126-dr-hasson-5888-grafts-1-procedure-18-months-fut.html

 

Hair restoration procedure before and after result images with 5300 grafts

 

Hair transplant repair procedure before and after result images with 4548 grafts

 

http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/170236-megasession-dr-hasson-5955-one-surgery.html

 

 

Or look at this monster:

 

http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/165656-dr-hasson-8402-grafts-one-session-11-months.html

[BaldingBogger]

How do you know the yield here is 90%? What data can you cite to back up this claim? Finally it seems you're backtracking in saying that patients would accept "lower yield" good to know, but my point still stands.

 

How do you know its not? Theres No backtracking here. What exactly is your point? You have proved nothing and presented nothing to dispute leading FUE clinics have %90 yields and upper..

 

Theres an accepted number of grafts accepted that will cover a specific area in a hair transplant on a average sized head. Considering the number of posts you have made on here i am surprised you cannot see these procedures have quite a high yield percentage for the number of grafts used.

 

In any event yield aside both results look great so that is all the matters in the end,

[KO]

How do you know its not? Theres No backtracking here. What exactly is your point? You have proved nothing and presented nothing to dispute leading FUE clinics have %90 yields and upper..

 

Theres an accepted number of grafts accepted that will cover a specific area in a hair transplant on a average sized head. Considering the number of posts you have made on here i am surprised you cannot see these procedures have quite a high yield percentage for the number of grafts used.

 

In any event yield aside both results look great so that is all the matters in the end,

 

Ah but you didn't answer the question. Where is the evidence, as you claimed that these results show 90% yield? Hmm?

 

You're quick to blast people like Blake for pushing ideas you claim as "debunked" but I don't see anything from you that backs up your claims.

 

So again, please show me the evidence that these results had 90% yield.

[ontop]

KO..

Granted them pts show some great yeilds with from what I can see & most if not all have some good thick donor hair which really shows & helps the end result imo never the less great results for only 1 pass..or what is called in the trade a mega session.

 

Saying that I've seen more or less the same with FUE pts from europe, all be it they done it over 2 days due to the time given.

Its defo a toss up of who's the king of surgery? but not all fits all for each person.

 

But this stuff blake is showing us ....to me anyways is very interesting & jury still out on this one but a step in the right direction, but time is our best & only friend right now with this way of doing surgey.

I will always give somebody a shot....esp the underdog ha ha.

 

Blake please can you address the several Qs I ask you if you can at this time & also Dr V had one to

 

Tks.

[BaldingBogger]

Ah but you didn't answer the question. Where is the evidence, as you claimed that these results show 90% yield? Hmm?

 

You're quick to blast people like Blake for pushing ideas you claim as "debunked" but I don't see anything from you that backs up your claims.

 

So again, please show me the evidence that these results had 90% yield.

 

The answers in there. Given the number of grafts used if these guys are not sporting 90% yields. Then everything known to date regarding graft numbers to cover the frontal third of the scalp is wrong and Dr's have been lying to us since the outset of hair transplantation regarding the number of grafts needed . Dr's can measure density of grown in grafts and decipher quite accurately the % yields.

 

Your quick to retort but you also present no evidence to back up any of your claims and just avoid the point totally that leading FUE clinics are producing 90%^^ and strip range yields.

 

This is the crux of my point. To counter the impression coming off this thread that all FUE is hitting yields of 60-70% which isn't correct. I haven't blasted anyone either like you say. I have commended Blake for the innovation and welcome further analysis.

[hairweare]

Let's not confuse case selected examples as scientific evidence. Anyone can show both good and bad results from either technique but other than providing photographic evidence of that result for a specific patient it proves nothing and really shouldn't be part of the debate.

 

The fact is that FUE has evolved to be a viable alternative which over the years has demonstrated to be non-inferior and less invasive than FUSS. Stating that transaction rates are greater than 20-30%, yields are low, hair quality is inferior, or that scar tissue impedes later procedures has been refuted convincingly by the top FUE clinics. Anyone who continues to pound that drum will soon be a lonely voice left behind in the parade. I have no doubt that improvements and further refinements will be forthcoming but repeating something false over and over again doesn't make it true. mFUE {sic} may turn out to be an advancement but it is more likely in reference to the shortcomings of FUSS not FUE so I agree that the nomenclature as it stands is a misnomer.

[KO]

The answers in there. Given the number of grafts used if these guys are not sporting 90% yields. Then everything known to date regarding graft numbers to cover the frontal third of the scalp is wrong and Dr's have been lying to us since the outset of hair transplantation regarding the number of grafts needed . Dr's can measure density of grown in grafts and decipher quite accurately the % yields.

 

Your quick to retort but you also present no evidence to back up any of your claims and just avoid the point totally that leading FUE clinics are producing 90%^^ and strip range yields.

 

But you have NEVER established the point that FUE clinics are producing 90% yield. I have nothing to refute as you are doing the work for me! It is foolish to look at a result and divine the precise yield of the transplant.

[BaldingBogger]

But you have NEVER established the point that FUE clinics are producing 90% yield. I have nothing to refute as you are doing the work for me! It is foolish to look at a result and divine the precise yield of the transplant.

 

I think i have and not only that it is widely accepted in the industry by way of density measurements and reasons i mentioned that leading FUE clincs CAN produce this yield range.

 

Your point that these clinc's cannot holds no water and obviously you have nothing to back it up so i think you are the one looking foolish.

 

Bye.

[KO]

I think i have and not only that it is widely accepted in the industry by way of density measurements and reasons i mentioned that leading FUE clincs CAN produce this yield range.

 

Your point that these clinc's cannot holds no water and obviously you have nothing to back it up so i think you are the one looking foolish.

 

Bye.

 

No, the burden of proof is you to demonstrate regular 90% yields among "top clinics". You have not done so, yet you continue to call out others for their argument. Poor logic.

[TakingThePlunge]

You said Blake can stand up for himself so let him.

 

Well, this doesn't give me too much leeway to respond. I thought it was pretty clear that my concerns went beyond this discussion and Blake in general but I guess in your mind, if I respond to anything you've said I'm just defending Blake.

 

I don't like to be involved in ongoing disputes. Suffice to say that I find your attitude off-putting and your participation in various posts suspect. Blame it on your place of origin if you wish. I was born in Brooklyn, NY. I suppose there are all sorts of stereotypes I could apply to myself.

 

As long as you are abiding by our Terms of Service, I'll just have to put up with it for now. The members of the community will eventually figure out if you're for real or just full of hot air.

[BaldingBogger]

No, the burden of proof is you to demonstrate regular 90% yields among "top clinics". You have not done so, yet you continue to call out others for their argument. Poor logic.

 

If you actually believed in your 'logical approach' and your 'burden of proof' you would see you are contradicting your own advice.

 

You are publicly doubting the yields can be achieved yet offer absolutely nothing in any form whatsoever to back your statements up. Quite laughable really.

 

If I was inclined I could easily link some FUE yield study here but like blakes earlier study i don't think that is necessary nor particularly informative for people.

 

The proof is in the pudding and people who do proper research can easily view a Panthanon of successful FUE results just by doing a quick google search or arranging to view ex patients in person

 

Sounds like you need to do a bit more research .

[KO]

If you actually believed in your 'logical approach' and your 'burden of proof' you would see you are contradicting your own advice.

 

You are publicly doubting the yields can be achieved yet offer absolutely nothing in any form whatsoever to back your statements up. Quite laughable really.

 

If I was inclined I could easily link some FUE yield study here but like blakes earlier study i don't think that is necessary nor particularly informative for people.

 

The proof is in the pudding and people who do proper research can easily view a Panthanon of successful FUE results just by doing a quick google search or arranging to view ex patients in person

 

Sounds like you need to do a bit more research .

 

See, unlike you, when I start claiming something has 90% yield, I like to have it backed up by you know, actual data.

 

 

But I guess we fundamentally disagree, you seem to be satisfied by arbitrary claims. FUE has 90% yield, It is known......

[BaldingBogger]

Nah i tend to be more satisfied by seeing like you know ,actual results in person. Rather than reading 'Data' which depending which Dr has compiled it could be totally unobjective and would only reflect that particular Dr's ability at the technique.

 

Good luck with your Data, I still recommend you do more research.

[ontop]

I would think these claims of who got the best yeilds will differ from whome & what source they come from imo.

This old chess nut been kicking around for some time & we can talk about this till we are blue in the face...it don't do any of us any good tho.

 

What really matters in todays Mordern HT that there is some really good comp out there with many great Drs pushing for the best results FUT & FUE & that's only good for new & old Pts imo.

 

Not sure how you guys feel but I'm more than happy to see what is going on today in this business than 15 or even 10 yrs ago with them nasty old plugs some of them monters was doing on people....I think we are all moving in the right direction.

[irishsailor]

I would think these claims of who got the best yeilds will differ from whome & what source they come from imo.

This old chess nut been kicking around for some time & we can talk about this till we are blue in the face...it don't do any of us any good tho.

 

What really matters in todays Mordern HT that there is some really good comp out there with many great Drs pushing for the best results FUT & FUE & that's only good for new & old Pts imo.

 

Not sure how you guys feel but I'm more than happy to see what is going on today in this business than 15 or even 10 yrs ago with them nasty old plugs some of them monters was doing on people....I think we are all moving in the right direction.

 

Well said fella. Things have definitely improved which is great for us patients.

[hairweare]

Irish, I see that you had procedures with both Feller and Lorenzo which I assume were FUSS and FUE respectively. I am curious as to whether you noticed any significant difference in yield between the two and is the hair quality of your FUE grafts worse that what grew from the FUSS?

[irishsailor]

Hi hairweave,

 

Yes both methods with Dr feller and Dr Lorenzo. It's hard to compare as the fue procedure was more to do with having very coarse hair, and trying to cherry pick my finer hairs for that procedure. Both turned on very well and I'm very pleased with the results.

Me personally I've always been a fan of strip, even with the risks, for me it's still my favoured method .

[keyser-soze]

This imo should be taken with a very large pinch of salt.

Who carried out this research? That's right US drs who as we know are pro fut for te most part for reasons we all know.

Are these drs anywhere in anyones top ten for fue? Well not in mine that's for sure.

While I think this technique I would personally have rather than fut I would still go proper fue.

Whilst blake says transection rates of less than 2% I am presuming this isdata gathered from examination of the removed segment of scalp but what about the damage to the folicle damage on the edge of were this segment is removed?

I don't believe you can wield this punch in dence donor areas without a lot more transection than is being claimed.Blake dispite being asked several times has still not told us the size of any punch they have used.Why we don't need a calculation of the area the punch covers just the dimentions.

From the pictures on the first page it looks to me to be aprox 10mm by about 6mm.

Now let's just think about it.

18 fugs blake says with each punch. Noew let's say a 3600 graft procedure that's 200 of these scars.

The reason fue scaring blends so well is it difused scaring over a large area.

With this technique the only way I see it not being a problem is if the patient is never going to wear their hair short.

I just cannot see this scarring blending in like fue does. 200 . 8. to 10mm scars will show up badly on a very short hair cut.

Have you any examples of the scaring with very short hair blake?

Do you know the sizes of the punchs you have been using?

If this had been presented by dr feller or lindsay there sould be no conflict of interest but by a mod that's wrong.

Don't forget folks this has been on sale for While now has it not blake?

I really hope I am wrong for all our sakes and this turns out to be mega.

You have convinced ko but he always buys into whatever you say anyway.

The top fue drs are getting at best 70% yield lol.

Ko can tell by just looking whether it is fue or fut because of the difference it hair charactersteristics lol

Please show us ko some fue cases were the hair in the recipient looks different to the donor hair?

Rant over good night

And david -taking the plunge I appreciate straight talkers so say what you want you won't offend me.

 

From page one

Why create a new approach to FUE?

 

The FUE technique continues growing in popularity. Patients clearly want FUE. Whether it's the less invasive nature or the lack of the linear scar, hair loss sufferers have spoken!

 

There are serious limitations to the technique, however, and growth and quality of FUE hair is still not on par with strip. But why is this? The best evidence we have available may offer an explanation:

 

*The "blind" approach to FUE graft harvesting creates transection rates as high as 32%. *The small punches and pulling of grafts during delivery severly "skeletonizes,” or removes the protective tissue layer surrounding follicular unit grafts. According to studies, the growth rate of skeletonized FUE grafts is between 48-68.7%. This means only 1/2 to 2/3rd of all these "skeletonized" FUE grafts grow. *This same analysis shows that grafts extracted with an appropriate amount of supportive tissue grow 45% better than skeletonized FUE grafts (Reference).

 

So what does this tell us? FUE is becoming very popular, but it may be less efficient and produce more variable results. Hair loss patients only have a finite number of available follicular unit grafts, and each one of these grafts must be optimized and used wisely. We do not believe the FUE techniques available today utilize these precious grafts properly, and wanted to find a way to overcome these issues and deliver the results patients deserve with the minimal scarring they want.

[Blake Bloxham]

10mm??? No way. Much, much smaller.

 

The reason why the scarring is comparable is because it is something like 200 of the slightly bigger punches blended into the donor region versus 3,500 smaller punch scars blended into the donor region. These scars heal very well. 200 of them in the donor region will still allow patients to wear their hair short without any laymen knowing they've had surgery -- which is something patients say isn't as realistic with strip.

 

Also, remember that there are two types of scarring: superficial, cosmetic scarring -- which is acceptable with both traditional FUE and mFUE; and subcutaneous scarring, which makes future extraction from the donor region more difficult and can decrease yield. This is what's significantly reduced with mFUE when comparing the two.

[rev333]

while i don't approve of the animal testing, i guess there is no way around that

 

love the name of the technique mFUE

good luck!

[Blake Bloxham]

http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/179706-strip-vs-fue-vs-mfue-dr-alan-feller-great-neck-ny.html