Another FUT vs FUE thread!

[FUE2014]

Dr Lindsey made an interesting point that if you take 100 FUE's done by the top 10 guys in the world and compare them to 100 Strip cases done by the top 10 guys in the world...same size cases, same hair quality, everything that you could make the same you do....that the strip results will be at least 40% fuller (once grown out) than the same FUE cases.

 

That is a BIG call in my opinion. Are the FUE results from the top guys really that far off from the best strip cases...views?

Edited June 7, 2015 by FUE2014

[KO]

I'm not sure about the numbers. But I believe the very best aesthetic results come from FUT. The best FUE is for sure better than average FUT, but if we focus on the top 10%, no doubt in my mind which will look better.

 

FUE will give you a better looking donor, FUT will give you a better looking recipient. The mystery is how much the trade off will be in each case.

[Wwiizzkkiidd24]

I agree with KO. you're kinda robbing peter to pay Paul with regards to recipient and doner region. Its either have a near 100% graft survival rate and a massive scar on the back of your head or a 80-90% graft survival rate and have what looks like an untouched doner area but your grafts could die due to transaction. Its a hard one to call for sure.

 

Heres a question say if you you went for fue and told the doctor to mark out where the region of a strip of hair could be taken. Couldn't the doctor just cherry pick around that area just incase you want a fuss in the future.. Or is that just a dumb idea..

[Mickey85]

No. I find in general Lorenzo's/Bisanga's/Feriduni's/Erdogan's/ Maras's etc best FUE cases on par or very very close with the best Konior/Hasson/Wong/Gabel/Shapiro strip cases(given a similar amount of grafts and norwood pattern etc) and certainly miles better than Lindsey's/Feller's/Alexander etc(overall). 40% is absolutely laughable and ridiculous.

[BUSA]

lol yea I wud agree with the 40% being laughable. the results just aren't that noticeable. in fact, from the top doctors I just don't see any discernible differences and wen u add in the strip scar its just a no brainer but I'm just not seeing FUT produce and different results from FUE these day.

 

shiit, I mean doctors are consistently producing 5000-6000 grafts these days FUE. thats no more then were seeing with FUT. that many grafts use to be a mega session only reserved for FUT but thats just not the case these days and not to mention wen u add in BHT u can see over 7000 grafts planted via FUE so the unlimited donor supply of FUE is a clear advantage of FUT if were talking how many grafts u can cram on ur head.

 

maybe on paper more survive via FUT but no ones looking at paper their looking at ppl's heads and the one thing that ppl notice most is the dreaded strip scar NOT less grafts wen comparing the two.

[Wwiizzkkiidd24]

lol yea I wud agree with the 40% being laughable. the results just aren't that noticeable. in fact, from the top doctors I just don't see any discernible differences and wen u add in the strip scar its just a no brainer but I'm just not seeing FUT produce and different results from FUE these day.

 

shiit, I mean doctors are consistently producing 5000-6000 grafts these days FUE. thats no more then were seeing with FUT. that many grafts use to be a mega session only reserved for FUT but thats just not the case these days and not to mention wen u add in BHT u can see over 7000 grafts planted via FUE so the unlimited donor supply of FUE is a clear advantage of FUT if were talking how many grafts u can cram on ur head.

 

maybe on paper more survive via FUT but no ones looking at paper their looking at ppl's heads and the one thing that ppl notice most is the dreaded strip scar NOT less grafts wen comparing the two.

 

Very true busa, very true.

[Sean]

Dr Lindsey made an interesting point that if you take 100 FUE's done by the top 10 guys in the world and compare them to 100 Strip cases done by the top 10 guys in the world...same size cases, same hair quality, everything that you could make the same you do....that the strip results will be at least 40% fuller (once grown out) than the same FUE cases.

 

That is a BIG call in my opinion. Are the FUE results from the top guys really that far off from the best strip cases...views?

 

I guess not all docs think alike and agree. For my first FUE, during preop consultation and paperwork explanations, Dr. Rahal told me there was no difference in FUT and FUE and his FUT can match his FUE. What Dr. Lindsey is saying here, is that it is not the case?

[KO]

^ironic, I think Rahals FUT is a league better than his FUE.

[zx_toth]

 

maybe on paper more survive via FUT but no ones looking at paper their looking at ppl's heads and the one thing that ppl notice most is the dreaded strip scar NOT less grafts wen comparing the two.

 

THIS! ... I can live with 90% survival + No scar compared to 95% survival and the dreaded strip scar.

[Uk86]

I have been thinking the same thing since reading that dr Lindsey thing, iv looked at dozens of fue/fut cases since then and just can't see the huge differences, 40% is a huge difference!! Not to question the experts but 40%?? I don't think that is anywhere close to being correct IMO..

[MAGNUMpi]

maybe on paper more survive via FUT but no ones looking at paper their looking at ppl's heads and the one thing that ppl notice most is the dreaded strip scar NOT less grafts wen comparing the two.

Good point. A strip scar can be a major regret in this battle against MPB, even years down the line.

Im betting the FUE guys are only going to get better and soon there will be no question.

[Uk86]

Heres a question say if you you went for fue and told the doctor to mark out where the region of a strip of hair could be taken. Couldn't the doctor just cherry pick around that area just incase you want a fuss in the future.. Or is that just a dumb idea..

 

Sounds like a perfect idea! ^

[BaldingBogger]

Let's just look who is coming out with these outlandish yield and technique comparison statistics.

North American Dr's who can't have tech involvement to cater for the large session FUE market.

 

Of course there gonna push Strip or MFUE or

Mweneedmoremoney. Get educated and ensure to research thoroughly to make the right decision. Strip is only good for some who are never gonna shave down and some just are not candidates for either.

 

But There's no going back once your cut wih strip.

 

As people have said I would agree the top FUE is better than the best FUT I see from feller / Lindsay/ Charles etc.. No brainer.

[Blake Bloxham]

I don't think the 40% fullness comment is far off, to be honest. There are 2 factors at play here: the growth yield of FUE and the quality of the hairs that do grow. The best evidence we have shows FUE growth yields are VARIABLE. I would put the average in high 70s to low 80s. Saying it is 90% consistently isn't accurate. I also believe the quality of the FUE hair is different than hair extracted from non-FUE methods. The potential damage to the internal portion of the follicle tends to create more "kink" or "wiry" appearance. Combine these two factors, and I don't think it's too crazy.

 

Now, there are some important factors to consider: 1) the strip scar is a reality. For many patients, lower yield and potential character changes outweigh the scar. No contest. As long as patients are honestly informed about all this from their doctor, they can absolute choose FUE. 2) the reason we created the mFUE technique was to address these issues and offer strip-quality hair/results with FUE-level scarring. We think this approach will serve a lot of patients well.

[Wwiizzkkiidd24]

I think if you go to a top surgeon like lerenzo, feriduni, doganay ect ect.. You would get the 90% growth survival rate that tou get with fuss

[Michael Vories, MD]

So a 2000 graft FUE surgery is equivalent in "fullness" to a 800 graft FUT case? That is simply not true.

[Sean]

I don't think the 40% fullness comment is far off, to be honest. There are 2 factors at play here: the growth yield of FUE and the quality of the hairs that do grow. The best evidence we have shows FUE growth yields are VARIABLE. I would put the average in high 70s to low 80s. Saying it is 90% consistently isn't accurate. I also believe the quality of the FUE hair is different than hair extracted from non-FUE methods. The potential damage to the internal portion of the follicle tends to create more "kink" or "wiry" appearance. Combine these two factors, and I don't think it's too crazy.

 

Now, there are some important factors to consider: 1) the strip scar is a reality. For many patients, lower yield and potential character changes outweigh the scar. No contest. As long as patients are honestly informed about all this from their doctor, they can absolute choose FUE. 2) the reason we created the mFUE technique was to address these issues and offer strip-quality hair/results with FUE-level scarring. We think this approach will serve a lot of patients well.

 

 

Blake,

 

My doc, doc Rahal, told me just before surgery that his FUE matches his FUT and at nearly 100% yield. What is mentioned here contradicts that key item about yield? Do all docs have their own level of yield/success? I cant imagine this 40% case for all in the industry? What study indicates this? Is this matketing based or evidence based judgement? How the market percieves or how data percieves?

[KO]

So a 2000 graft FUE surgery is equivalent in "fullness" to a 800 graft FUT case? That is simply not true.

 

A 2000 graft FUE case would be equal to a 1428 graft FUT case.

[KO]

I think if you go to a top surgeon like lerenzo, feriduni, doganay ect ect.. You would get the 90% growth survival rate that tou get with fuss

 

Where does this idea come from that "top FUE" surgeons regularly produce 90% yields? There is literally no basis for this claim but gets thrown around like crazy.

[Wwiizzkkiidd24]

Where does this idea come from that "top FUE" surgeons regularly produce 90% yields? There is literally no basis for this claim but gets thrown around like crazy.

 

The doctors ive spoken to via email have said there survival rate for FUE is 90% maybe even higher. But then again maybe they was lying aye

[Blake Bloxham]

Dr V,

 

No. I think he was saying 2,000*0.6, which would be 1,200, not 2,000 *0.4, which would be 800. It would be a comparison of 1,200 to 2,000, not 800 to 2k -- if we are using the 2k example. He's not saying 40% growth from FUE (which would be the 800).

 

Sean,

 

No, I don't think, on average, the growth rates are equal.

[irishsailor]

As people have said I would agree the top FUE is better than the best FUT I see from feller / Lindsay/ Charles etc.. No brainer.

 

I'd have to disagree. I had fut with Dr feller, and fue with Dr Lorenzo and don't regret either procedure and both turned out great.

 

Dr Lorenzo was very complementary about Dr fellers work and said I got a great result.

 

However each to there own opinion.

[hairweare]

Has anyone been able to find a case that shows irreversible worse hair quality following an FUE? Is there a patent here on the forum who can illustrate that claim? Initial cycles of grafted hair often appears more wiry whether by FUSS or FUE but generally corrects after several months. Repeating this unsubstantiated claim over and over doesn't make it true and damages ones credibility.

[keyser-soze]

Were is the evidence to disprove the 90% claim?

Has blake,Dr feller,Dr lindsay,Dr beecher ect ect actually done a analysis of the yeild of the top docs doing fue? NO

So use your head and ask yourself why we are being quoted these ridiclus figures of yield with no evidence of what is acheivable at the hands of top fue surgeons?

I always ask myself when someone is selling something whether what they are telling me is acurate.

All ht docs are sellers dont just take their word as gospel same goes for clinic reps use common sence and do your own research.

Is joe going to say to a patient asking about dr karadeniz i think you would be better going to my old boss dr rahal or dr wong? of course hes not they dont pay him anymore dr karadeniz does or has. This make sense?

I think blake Dr lindsay and dr feller is saying is beliele what we say tarring all fue docs with the same brush of poor fue yield as they are achieving.

They are asking us or rather telling us to disbelieve our own eyes but believe these ridiculus figures all the while pushing this ( NEW) technique.

Kinky hair with fue were exactly is all this kinky hair?

The only place i see kinky hair is in porn films.

Blake you are constantly avoidind questions regarding this (NEW) technique why is this?

Politicians employ the same tactic were they dont want to lie just in case it can be proved they are lieing or they do not want to tell you the truth because it does not serve them to do so.

Dr feller has to increase his workload to accomadate his new partner does he not?

His partner is also a mod on a site full of potential customers berating their biggest competions technique. and surprise surprise some people are smelling what their shoveling.

Dont piss on my shoes and tell me its raining.

This would be laughable if it did not have such serious consequences for patients.

As with just about anything in life nowadays its all down to money.

The drs make mega money, the reps it pays their wages anyone with a vested interest is unlikkely to be 100% honest with you.

What US rep is gonna say our fue produces a poor yield and we are gonna charge you a lot more so your beter to go to our competitors and get a beter job at much less cost?

 

Where does this idea come from that "top FUE" surgeons regularly produce 90% yields? There is literally no basis for this claim but gets thrown around like crazy.

[KO]

So where is the evidence that "top FUE surgeons" regularly produce 90% yield? If you want people to "disprove" it, that is objectively the stupidest thing i've heard from you, which is saying something. The burden of proof is on the people who claim 90% yield to actually show they have 90% yield. The rest of your post is just stupid rambling by some bitter patient who is really desperate. If they want to discuss their technique, they have that right, if you don't like it, you can find a different forum. Most of the whining is all about the doctor's economic interests, nobody seems to care on whether it will benefit patients as a surgical technique.

 

 

 

I have a 12" penis.

 

Where is the evidence disproving it?