Another FUT vs FUE thread!

[keyser-soze]

You carry on back slapping your ig friend blake quoting his ridiculus figures and pass the buck for others to back up what they say rather than actually back up what you say.

You say fue can give kinky hair yet have you produced one such case? NO

Were did blake get his figures from? Has he done a study into the top fue docs yield?

I would imagine you have a small penis that goes with your other inadaquecyis such as spending your life talking rubbish for the most part on a forum for desperate people trying to address their personel issues regarding hair loss.

If you EVER get a ht ko you will no doubt be going for strip within the US i would presume?

Unlike you i see both techniques for what they are and if one person chooses strip and one goes fue i say good luck to them both.

I had fue that does not mean everyone should do the same.

As for your quip about my intelligence i stooped to your level with a personal insult about your penis size or lack of ordinarilly i would appologise.

Dr beecher attained poor results with fue and pblished his findings so exactly were would dr beecher come in anyones list of prefered fue docs?

 

KO try practicing what you preach and show us these kinky haired fue cases PLEASE.

 

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?

[Wwiizzkkiidd24]

Heres an email ive dug out from a surgeon i recently contacted for a procedure with him and this is hes growth/survival rate

 

Note: he does manual FUE with about ten years experience so i think he knows what hes talking about.

[KO]

You carry on back slapping your ig friend blake quoting his ridiculus figures and pass the buck for others to back up what they say rather than actually back up what you say.

You say fue can give kinky hair yet have you produced one such case? NO

Were did blake get his figures from? Has he done a study into the top fue docs yield?

I would imagine you have a small penis that goes with your other inadaquecyis such as spending your life talking rubbish for the most part on a forum for desperate people trying to address their personel issues regarding hair loss.

If you EVER get a ht ko you will no doubt be going for strip within the US i would presume?

Unlike you i see both techniques for what they are and if one person chooses strip and one goes fue i say good luck to them both.

I had fue that does not mean everyone should do the same.

As for your quip about my intelligence i stooped to your level with a personal insult about your penis size or lack of ordinarilly i would appologise.

Dr beecher attained poor results with fue and pblished his findings so exactly were would dr beecher come in anyones list of prefered fue docs?

 

KO try practicing what you preach and show us these kinky haired fue cases PLEASE.

 

Are you illiterate? Where have I said FUE gives you kinky hair?

 

I mean, I like kinky and all but...

[Wwiizzkkiidd24]

 

I mean, I like kinky and all but...

 

Way to much information KO haha

[JohnCasper]

Well said BUSA, I've had over 7,000 FUE grafts moved and my donor area looks like it did prior to my surgeries. Transection rate was less than 5% and compensations were made for those very few transected grafts. Even with my head shaved prior to my second surgery there was no discernable scarring. No way I was going to live with an 8 inch linear scar on the back of my head. FUE was an easy choice for me.

[keyser-soze]

Well said BUSA, I've had over 7,000 FUE grafts moved and my donor area looks like it did prior to my surgeries. Transection rate was less than 5% and compensations were made for those very few transected grafts. Even with my head shaved prior to my second surgery there was no discernable scarring. No way I was going to live with an 8 inch linear scar on the back of my head. FUE was an easy choice for me.

It seems the vast majority of people agree with you John and whether there is a slight trade off in terms of yield the scar swings the decision firmly toward fue.

What % of people in the US go for fuss and how many fue?

What % of people out side of the US go for fuss and how many fue?

It was simple for me also fue all the way but if someone goes fuss good luck to them.

[JohnCasper]

I believe so many people are most familiar with the FUT scar procedure and the vast majority of hair surgeons only promote FUT to extract grafts, many people do not know that you can have very similar results with no scarring (FUE). Strip surgery is still the most economical procedure for the doctor but may not be the best for the patient.

Edited June 8, 2015 by Blake_Bloxham

[Blake Bloxham]

I believe so many people are most familiar with the FUT scar procedure and the vast majority of hair surgeons only promote FUT to extract grafts, many people do not know that you can have very similar results with no scarring (FUE). Strip surgery is still the most economical procedure for the doctor but may not be the best for the patient.

 

John,

 

1) I've disproved the "economics" of strip theory before. It's more profitable for a clinic to perform FUE. Period.

 

2) FUE is absolutely not a scarless procedure. There is no such thing as scarless surgery. Saying there is "no scarring" associated with FUE is misleading. And I highly doubt Dr Vories agrees that there is "no scarring."

[scar5]

John,

 

1) I've disproved the "economics" of strip theory before. It's more profitable for a clinic to perform FUE. Period.

 

Nothing personal Doctor.

 

You proved nothing. Zilch... other than that you are willing to blow smoke all over the simple fact that,

 

a) It takes a doctor 40 min max, to extract 3000-4000 grafts via strip

 

b) It takes a doctor 100% of two full days (OK maybe one l-o-n-g one using a mechanical device) to extract the same amount of follicles using FUE if -

 

IF - AND IT IS THE KEY POINT - HE IS IN A JURISDICTION LIKES YOURS (NEW YORK) where technicians are not allowed to assist in extraction.

 

c) Now in Turkey/Europe or other places, it is a different story.

 

Guys,

 

Blake's economic argument...I hope you can see through the (thin) smoke.

 

Exclusive FUE in New York is completely economically and (physiologically?) a drain.

 

A bit of part-time FUE is good for business, but that is another story.

 

And mFUE? Well, that is not FUE at all so whatever.

[hairweare]

Sure it is more profitable if someone is foolish enough to pay $10/graft for an outdated unrefined technique. The HT business remains for the most part shady. Always ask questions and demand answers and follow your instincts. Why trust the opinion of a poster (poseur?) such as KO who has been lurking here for years yet still can't decide whether to have a procedure let alone what methodology. And for nth time CAVEAT EMPTOR, it is your hard earned money and precious follicles that are at risk.

[KO]

Sure it is more profitable if someone is foolish enough to pay $10/graft for an outdated unrefined technique. The HT business remains for the most part shady. Always ask questions and demand answers and follow your instincts. Why trust the opinion of a poster (poseur?) such as KO who has been lurking here for years yet still can't decide whether to have a procedure let alone what methodology. And for nth time CAVEAT EMPTOR, it is your hard earned money and precious follicles that are at risk.

I will get an HT when circumstances allow, it is a personal decision and I will decide when I am comfortable, and frankly it is none of your business.

 

Now as for you, far and away the biggest shill on this forum, who complains about "single operator studies" yet your only argument has been a rabid man-crush on Lorenzo "Oh b-b-but Lorenzo!" and not actually presenting any evidence to the contrary that FUE yields exceed or even match FUT. (I guess zero-operator studies are more convincing than single operator!). Compound that with the fact that you need to lecture posters how you're a doctor (apparently that adds legitimacy to your arguments about FUE, despite again, no evidence). In the end, you're just an insecure twat.

[keyser-soze]

Oh nurse oh nurse the babies spat its dummy out of its pram

Don't worry ko your buddie blake won't spank you or is that what you want?

Seriously get a life away from here get a ht and move on your on here all the time.

You are what we calll in the uk billy no mates.

You obviously don't have wife or partner how could you your here all the time.

Its quite sad I actually pity you.

What was it your mate blake said? Oh yeh people attack when they are losing a argument.

Life is passing you by and before you know its gone.

And before you retort.

I'm married and have been for 20 years. I have two kids and life is sweet.

And I've already had a 4000 fue session.

Insult me or anyone else and you just look like a fool who cannot hold a sensible civil debate

[JohnCasper]

"Doc" Blake,

When I posted "no scarring", I should have said.... no visible scarring to the untrained eye. Your trained eye may see plenty. I've had two surgeries and have pictures of my donor areas after 5,000 grafts were removed and I see no discernible scarring on my head. You could shave my head now and line up 100 people and put them five feet away from me and ask them if they see any scarring and I'll bet 98% of them do not and the other 2% would be you and a colleague. Clearly, after surgery there is going to be some scarring but my point is....its less than obvious and certainly doesn't compare to an 8 inch linear scar that you can see from 50 feet.

[Sean]

"Doc" Blake,

When I posted "no scarring", I should have said.... no visible scarring to the untrained eye. Your trained eye may see plenty. I've had two surgeries and have pictures of my donor areas after 5,000 grafts were removed and I see no discernible scarring on my head. You could shave my head now and line up 100 people and put them five feet away from me and ask them if they see any scarring and I'll bet 98% of them do not and the other 2% would be you and a colleague. Clearly, after surgery there is going to be some scarring but my point is....its less than obvious and certainly doesn't compare to an 8 inch linear scar that you can see from 50 feet.

 

Well said JC,

 

This is how FUE result is for the most part.

Unless Dr. Has a newbie extract and possiby wrecklessly damage your donor zone.

 

But clearly, the tell tale sign of a fut is a smiley on the back of the head even nonhairloss sufferrers are aware of. Did a sample study back in college where asked how do you know if someone had hair transplant, the number one r sponse from nonhairloss sufferrers was a "line" or smiley face on the back of the head. Imagine that. And that is for the untrained eye.

 

 

Very happy to see and read about your successful surgery JC. Seems like your doc operated with the best interest of the patient and a proper surgical protocol to ensure patient safety. That is a very rare trait for North American FUE. It seems mostly money oriented clinics cannot offer such a surgical protocol.

[JohnCasper]

Thanks "Sean",

I certainly respect Doc Blake's opinion and he clearly is an accomplished trained professional. However, to folks like us, its hard to understand the debate. I suppose FUT proponents believe the yield may be better and its worth having the obvious linear scar the rest of your life. I believe the FUE process is arguably...just as good and has a wonderful trade-off, NO VISIBLE scaring to the untrained eye.

[thatoldchestnut]

I believe the FUE process is arguably...just as good and has a wonderful trade-off, NO VISIBLE scaring to the untrained eye.

 

When it comes down to it, this is basically the whole argument for FUE in a nutshell. People seem desperate to debate the minutia (as well they might/should) but in reality, it seems more and more people (leaving aside issues of candidacy, price and yield) want a less invasive procedure with less cosmetically significant scarring.

[JohnCasper]

Well said "thatoldchestnut". I try to be open minded and respect all sides of the issue but If you can get a less invasive and excellent result here in the states for $4-5 per graft and have no visible scaring? It was an easy decision for me.

[Swooping]

When it comes down to it, this is basically the whole argument for FUE in a nutshell. People seem desperate to debate the minutia (as well they might/should) but in reality, it seems more and more people (leaving aside issues of candidacy, price and yield) want a less invasive procedure with less cosmetically significant scarring.

 

+100. FUT isn't of this time anymore. It's 2015. People see that.

[BaldingBogger]

Thanks "Sean",

I certainly respect Doc Blake's opinion and he clearly is an accomplished trained professional. However, to folks like us, its hard to understand the debate. I suppose FUT proponents believe the yield may be better and its worth having the obvious linear scar the rest of your life. I believe the FUE process is arguably...just as good and has a wonderful trade-off, NO VISIBLE scaring to the untrained eye.

 

John you make some great points. The tide is Moving the people have spoken and Market forces are at work. The Market force of public demand demands a less invasive procedure. FUT for me is 1980's. In this day and age we should not be restricted to keeping hair long to cover a large linear scar.

 

Posters and Doctors can argue all day long until they are blue in the face about yield %'s, it is just semantics. There is no denying the results being acheived through the FUE procedure of which i myself am a beneficiary.

 

Hell we even saw Jotronic and even Spex jump on the FUE wagon they changed to represent FUE clinics citing to the quality and consistency of the results coming through.

 

For FUT i think it can yield great results and if the patient is fully informed then great go for it. I just don't like the idea of impressionalbe prospective patients railroaded or 'persuaded' in FUT in which i think they will majorly regret when they discover they could have got a similar result with an FUE.

 

A prospective Patient can be overwhelmed in a Consult by information and be too trusting and intimidated in to a point of view by a Surgeon.

[Michael Vories, MD]

I believe it also important to understand that studies of percentage growth comparing FUE to FUT was done using forceps placement. It is our experience that this is poor way to place fragile FUE grafts, and that after years of performing FUT surgery, the use of Implanter Pens has given us better growth of FUE grafts compared to our forceps placed FUT grafts.

[tommygun]

Please post more often Dr Vories. A lot of propaganda around these parts.

[Blake Bloxham]

Dr Vories,

 

Do you have any data on the implanter pen? I've never seen anything indicating that it can actually improve FUE yield. That article I posted by Shapiro last time said dehydration of the grafts was a far bigger issue than crush injury to grafts -- even skeletonized FUE grafts -- and the pen wouldn't address this issue. Nor would it change injury that occurs to the graft before implantation. Thanks!

[Michael Vories, MD]

Blake-

 

I agree that dehydration it a big problem for both FUT and FUE grafts. This is yet another reason to use Implanter Pens. Once I extract a graft, it goes immediately into chilled saline. The grafts remain there until they are collated, which is also done under saline immersion, and then placed into petri dishes where they are kept in chilled saline until implantation. During implantation, the grafts are kept in the petri dishes until they are loaded in the Implanter Pen. We have timed this, and the average time the graft is in the Implanter Pen before insertion is 2.5 seconds. Compare this to forceps placement, where sometimes the grafts are kept on a gloved finger for several minutes before placing. There are many ways to keeping the grafts moist until placed by forceps, but I do not believe 2.5 seconds is enough time to dehydrate a graft. (Or else Dr. Lorenzo or myself would not get the graft survival that we consistently achieve) Thanks!

[Blake Bloxham]

Dr Vories,

 

This is assuming the grafts are being held on a gloved finger and not in a ring holder or other device filled with saline -- which is often the case. However, dehydration is still only one aspect of potential graft death, and I still haven't seen data saying the pen does anything to minimize the trauma of these grafts. Does Dr Lorenzo have any data on this or has anything been published saying yield is increased when pens are used?

[Michael Vories, MD]

As you know data is hard to come by in this field. But it is common sense that physical trauma, when it happens, is most likely to be from damaging the dermal papilla or "bulb" of the graft. The beauty of the Implanter Pens is the dermal papilla is never touched during loading or placement. The graft is loaded by gripping the upper third of the graft and sliding into the lumen of the pen, and then "pushed" from the top of the graft down by the trocar. Even when a graft pops, we do not force it down with forceps. Rather we just put the graft back into circulation to be replaced. This is a huge issue for FUE, and not talked about enough. Thanks!