FUT is more popular than FUE

[hairshopeing]

What people need to remember is this topic of which procedure cause what problems/restrictions etc is being viewed as if you got strip surgery sure you may get a good or bad scar and that's the only downside but you WILL get great yield because the 3 forces Dr feller SOMETIMES mentions are not relevant to strip so great your guranteed a good head of hair which you can keep longer and cover that strip scar if it's bad!

 

This simply isn't true!!! There are loads of failed strip surgeries in terms of yield same with fue!! Even the top strip surgeons still have poor yield and before we mention the x factor that exists in some patients alot of the time these patients get 2nd procedures which work out great either via fue or strip!! Most strip scars that are really bad we see on people who have had failed strip surgery's and are shaved right down pre fue for repair work on their original transplant or a second pass on that as the strip hadn't worked out and quite often to get fue into the scar!!

 

So I think if strip was going to give 90% plus yield guranteed then yes alot of people who never want a short hair cut would use this method, but it doesnt! It can,but so can fue!!

[Dr Tejinder Bhatti]

 

Dr. Bhatti,

 

I'm sorry Dr. Bhatti, but your procedure does not support any of the claims of advancement you've made on this thread.

 

In fact, I find the contents of your video to be the most brutal FUE procedure I've ever seen. A layman can see how indelicate your method. There is a "wrongness" to it on its face, and you don't have to be an FUE practitioner to see it. To say you were racing is an understatement.

 

The use of a rotating drill and indiscriminate grabbing and yanking the grafts free at high speed are hardly innovative or new. Indeed, this method has been around since the inception of FUE 14 years ago. In fact, there were no less than two megasession FUE clinics who are now banned from this site that performed their procedures the same exact way 12 years ago. One company of which produced a video identical to yours. So what is new here sir? Nothing.

 

This is brute force and nothing more. No use of technology or advances-real or imagined. There is no feedback to the hand during scoring due to the weight and vibration of the tool, and there is absolutely no technique used to remove the grafts. No care either. They are just ripped free in any direction and smashed together with other grafts that were yanked free and crushed within the jaws of the forceps. While there are FUE practitioners who actually incorporate delicate and purposeful movements, feedback, and technique, this video of yours clearly demonstrates that you do not.

 

You just score holes as quickly as you can and then tear them out as quickly as you can. This is not working smart. This is just working fast. The one bit of technology that you are using is the drill, but you use that simply to speed up the procedure, not reduce detrimental forces. That is not an "advance".

 

You stated that there were indeed three detrimental forces associated with FUE but that "advances" in FUE had overcome them. The detrimental forces are in clear evidence in your video, but I see no "advances" in your instrumentation nor technique to neutralize them. Just the opposite in fact.

 

The three detrimental forces of FUE clearly in evidence in the video (Torsion, Compression, Traction):

 

Torsion:

 

Every time you bury that high speed drill driven punch into the skin you create torsion. A twisting force that twists the follicle ever more as you proceed deeper into the skin. As you drive the punch down past the 1.5 mm depth the torsion has already started to do it's damage. Not to mention the heat that is created. You claimed in another post that you scored very shallow, but what I witnessed was a scoring depth down to 3mm. About the average for all FUE doctors. Since most grafts are about 4-5 mm in total length I think we can safely conclude from your video that you are scoring at least 50% down the length of the entire graft. That is the red zone for torsional damage.

 

Compression:

 

Every time your assistant blindly grabs the grafts after they are scored she applies the detrimental force of compression. However, in your method the graft gets multiple exposures to compression because she doesn't pull the graft free and clear it from the field. Rather, unbelievably, she just keeps squeezing the same grafts over and over again blindly as she attempts to grab a clump of grafts in one scoop just to save time.

 

Traction:

 

And the traction force is incredible. It's bad enough that there is a minimum amount of force necessary to break the grafts free in the first place, but your assistant makes it even greater by increasing the speed of delivery AND doing so at the worst angles. In the video the traction force can be easily seen by the tenting in the skin. To lift an area of skin in the form of tenting takes incredibly focused force on the graft itself.

 

Greater traction force requires greater compression force as well.

 

The removal of grafts via FUE should be an intricate waltz, not an unruly mosh pit. Look at what some of your better fellow FUE megasessionist do. They do not race, they give each graft its own attention and time to be delivered as safely as possible, they respect each graft individually and clear it from the field before clamping onto the next one in preparation for the next delivery. Your staff just blindly clamp and pull. Do you honestly believe you are not injuring grafts compared to a more delicate and refined FUE approach? Do you honestly believe this does not injure grafts to a far greater extent than an FUT graft that experiences no such punishment at all ???

 

Also, your video excludes the ability of the viewer to see the grafts AS they are removed. At the speed and distance from the camera that the grafts are being removed scrutiny is impossible. Also, when you showed the petri dish filled with tissue it is almost impossible to evaluate the grafts. Despite this, I could still see skeletonized grafts.

 

At what point are you placing each and every graft under a microscope for inspection as you claimed? I do this. You claimed to do this. But I don't see where or how. You do not have it in your video.

 

Dr. Bhatti, your one video did more to make my point about the damage FUE visits on each and every graft far better than I ever could have written or even demonstrated in my own clinic. I think MANY people watching this thread who may not have understood what I was talking about experienced an instant understanding and awakening.

 

I look forward to the comments from viewers and other FUE practitioners as well.

One final question Dr. Bhatti: Do you believe most FUE practitioners perform surgery this way?

 

Thank you, Dr. Feller, for your continued opinion of FUE in general and your insulting comments about my FUE specifically. I was hoping that the discussion would not degrade to such a point but I suppose that is the manner in which you feel you need to conduct yourself.

 

Well done, Sir!

 

To address the two videos you presented.

 

From 2002...

 

 

I would expect a slow process since it was 2002 and you yourself were very new to the procedure.

 

From five years ago...

 

 

My impromptu video, obviously, comes as a complete surprise to you since you never once imagined a megasession FUE procedure could be done without much transection, torsion and compression, and with great speed ( all hallmarks of a minimally invasive procedure) the 3 bugbears in your FUE practice.

 

May I , Sir, suggest 4 points in your technique that you need to change if you wish to negate these 3 physical forces (torsion , traction and compression) in your practice that you are so petrified of-

 

1. I watched this video three times to figure out why your hand appears to shake before the punch sinks into the tissue. I believe it is from the length of the extension from the hand piece that prevents proper balance. The hand must be nearer to the punch to better guide and control the application without a shaky touch. Perhaps this is why you have formed the opinion which you are so voraciously defending. Compare this to my punch. It is a mere 3 mm long (not 4 mm as you presume it to be). Please use modern day punches and it should be just fine.

 

2. More detrimental with your technique is the time spent under the skin around the graft with the punch engaging it for a full 4 + seconds or even more. Contrast it to with technique- my punch remains inside for just half a second. So you are spending 10 times more time inside the skin making your grafts do a merry go round- what you call torsion. This badly wrings the graft like you would a towel. On the contrary, Sir, not a single one of my grafts seem to undergo torsion. You can see them popping out after the punch engages with them a mere 1.5 mm! Can you see them undergo torsion. No you cannot. It is there for all to see.

 

3. Third but the most important is the fact that your punch goes in about 5 mm under the skin. A sure shot recipe for the damnable force of torsion in your hands. This is another reason you are discouraged by your FUE technique. To each his own Dr Feller. You are a brilliant FUT surgeon but I am not convinced by your FUE techniques if the evidence you have produced is what one is to go by.

 

4. Last but not the least, you spent around 6.5 seconds to pull it out- like a troublesome child being pulled out by an arm from a candy shop. Very forcible pull, Dr Feller! My grafts need not be pulled or sheared. They just pop out and are only being gathered by my technician. Watch the video one more time and you would appreciate it. There is no brute force exerted in gathering grafts. How do I manage this? There is a small trick which we shall discuss some other time.

 

 

With the video you have demonstrated I do not believe you can even do 700 grafts in a day, Dr Feller.

 

Or is your video only for demonstration?

 

That is unfair the, Dr Feller. You pulled out an old, clean edited video from your library, Dr Feller.

Why don’t you post your full harvesting in your next FUE case like I did. Much like I prepared my video just yesterday on my very last patient when the request from Bill for a video came in. . Let it not just be a war of words. I am sure you will since you do not leave any of my questions unanswered, Dr Feller. You just avoid them for the moment- atleast not on this thread.

 

 

Regardless, I think what is being overlooked at this point is that while you can say that what I am doing in my surgery might not be different than what was done 14 years ago I believe the results of such cases is telling a different story. I will remind you, sir, that I am not questioning anything that you are doing in your practice. You believe what you believe based on your experience and there is nothing wrong with that but it is YOUR experience. You are inferring that all procedures are performed the same if only because the tools are no different. Assuming this is correct, if we are to compare every FUSS surgeon and clinic must we not say that they too are all performed the same? They all use a scalpel. They all use technicians for microscopic dissection (assuming FUSS) and they all place grafts with forceps, some with stick & place and some with pre-made incisions. Some use needles, others use blades but they are doing nothing different than the next clinic. However, I think we can all agree that there is a wide variance of results from one clinic to the next outside of the better recognized clinics. Take the aesthetics out of the picture and just consider yield and I think it is safe to say that some clinics get better yields than others. The same applies to FUE and those that perform it daily, in a dedicated environment vs. those that may not have such daily dedication. For every bad FUE case that you can point to I can point to ten more FUSS cases that are equally as bad or worse, not to mention the inclusion of the donor scar which, consequently, is still present no matter how thin or not. You said that you routinely see patients that have had failed FUE procedures come to you for FUSS to have these procedures filled in. I would wager that the cases, the majority at least, are not from recognized leaders in the FUE procedure but in fact are made up of no-name clinics that may be utilizing highly mechanized vacuum systems or other similarly disassociative FUE platforms. A quick (20 second) glance on Google reveals at least six or more vacuum FUE based clinics in your immediate area alone.

 

Now before you accuse me again of trying to use deflective tactics I will repeat my assertion that you have not supported your position on the three "detrimental forces" of FUE by showing, proving, that they are actually as detrimental as you would have us believe. You have only talked. They may have been prohibitively detrimental in your hands but you cannot make blanket statements across the board based on YOUR experience in YOUR clinic and have it apply to my experience and my clinic, much less that of any other leading FUE physician. Proof of your claims is demanded by the scientific method, sir. I will repeat that while you make the assertion that no one has proven you wrong as the only validation of your position it is you that must prove your position to be valid in the first place. We cannot disprove that which has yet to be proven. The forces exist but I posit that said forces are not as detrimental as you say they are with the right touch. If they were I would not have a successful, high profile practice that is susceptible to the success or failure of each and every result that I produce with my own hands. This is the case for my many colleagues as well so what this means is that either you are wrong in your assertion because it is based on your limited sphere of experience or I, along with my many colleagues that specialize in FUE are not only ALL wrong, but are ALL dishonest about being wrong, despite having published dozens of results by, may I remind you, HAPPY patients. It is this fact alone, and yes it is a fact, that makes this entire discussion purely academic with little real world validation.

 

Your voracity on this subject is unusual considering before the thread was started that compares your new "mFUE" to other procedures, started in June of this year, your previous post was nearly a year and a half earlier in January 2014. The only posts in between this time frame were made by your "FellerMedical" alias to post a result six months before your "mFUE" thread was begun.

 

If you are so adamant about telling "the truth" as you see it why have you been silent for so long and what event occurred that gave you such a bark?

 

Best.

[Eurofue]

Maybe he is trying to drum up some business for FUT

I was thinking the same what someone else has written about how much time he is on here seems like every half an hour to every hour between posts

And I was thinking also the same about the shakey hands that may be the reason for the poor FUE results on the whole and trying to discredit FUE to convince people that FUT is still needed since it seems as though FUE will be taking over and leaving FUT in its dust.

[Dr. Alan Feller]

May I , Sir, suggest 4 points in your technique that you need to change if you wish to negate these 3 physical forces (torsion , traction and compression) in your practice that you are so petrified of-

 

 

No you may not, sir. Based on your writings in this thread and that infamous video you just posted you are clearly not in a position to suggest anything to me about the FUE procedure nor my practice.

[Dr. Alan Feller]

Arent Lorenzo's results proof that he negates the three forces on consistent basis?

 

He does most extractions himself even now.

 

No adonix unfortunately it isn't proof that he negates the three forces as Newbie correctly pointed out already. But his method is far better than that seen in the Bhatti video and is probably as good as FUE can be performed today. Thus, if you are absolutely dead set on having FUE, then this is the way to do it. Careful, controlled, and using variations of an actual technique to deliver the grafts. There is also a proper "rhythm" employed that I can appreciate as a practitioner but find difficult to articulate on a chat site.

 

That said, the grafts in this video are still subjected to the three detrimental forces that FUT grafts just aren't -thereby still making the FUT grafts less traumatized, more hardy, and thus more likely to survive and grow by comparison.

 

The odds will continue to favor FUT until some substantive new technology comes out to reduce or eliminate one or all of the detrimental forces.

Edited August 15, 2015 by Dr. Alan Feller

[Spanker]

Any chance we could get a NW3A or so who wants a free procedure and one doc take the left side and one take the right and see where this goes?

 

With all of the debate, this could actually shut this debate down.

[Dr. Alan Feller]

Adonix,

 

 

 

Not to make Feller's point for him. But he's basically saying if you want most grafts out and in a way that's going to give them the best chance to grow, go for strip.

 

 

Yes.

 

Hair Transplantation is a game of odds. Stack them as best you can in your favor for growth.

[Dr. Alan Feller]

Any chance we could get a NW3A or so who wants a free procedure and one doc take the left side and one take the right and see where this goes?

 

With all of the debate, this could actually shut this debate down.

 

I thought of this very same thing. Problem is there is so much variation from inch to inch on the scalp in the same person that it wouldn't be valid.

 

However, in a full chapter dedicated to the subject of graft survival in the fourth edition of Unger/Shaprio's text Segar and Beehner did independent studies on survival rates for chubbier FUT grafts vs. thinner FUT grafts very similar to your suggestion and found, predictably, that the chubbier grafts grew far better. That is to say, the thinner ones did not grow as well. Since thin grafts produced by avulsion and injury during the FUE process are by definition more traumatized than FUT grafts purposefully cut thin I think it is safe to conclude without clinical experimentation that FUE grafts start at a great disadvantage over their FUT counterparts.

 

Also, even a scan of ANY chat website will show the percentage of great FUT results far exceeds the percentage of FUE results as posted by the patients themselves. And that's with the handicap that most FUT patients don't bother to post results anymore because it just isn't novel to show fantastic megasession results from FUT anymore. And this is for the reasons I pointed out in the first post of this thread.

[Dr. Alan Feller]

And, yes, I know Dr Feller can sometimes, as Americans say, come over as an a-hole (sorry, old chap), but I am grateful he spends time trying to educate us. Not a single doctor I've spoken to about FUE has mentioned fibrosis, or a lot of other things that thanks to this forum I'm informed enough to ask about.

 

Maybe that word is a bit strong, even for an American. But I can see how that can be the perception, Newbie. Look how difficult it was to get my simple point across. Over 30,000 views, over 70 pages, hundreds of replies, and endless personal attacks against me, my practice, and my reputation. To defend myself I have to get a bit muddy. There is no other way.

 

To get the logical truth out there is like running a gauntlet. And this is why other doctors will not participate on these forums. And who loses? Not me, I know what's going on in every aspect of HT. It's the patients and potential patients who lose out.

 

Not all people will listen to logical truth. You did. You get it. And I think this thread has converted quite a few others.

 

But there are some who want to believe what they want to believe and are content to shoot the messenger when it suits them. That is their choice. I don't participate to try and educate them against their will. I participate to educate the thousands of viewers who are reading this thread quietly everyday and are willing to learn.

[Shera]

Well here's a comparison that we could probably start with.

 

http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/180338-dr-bhatti-2560-fue-grafts-female-patient.html

 

http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/161553-am-i-one-unlucky-few-4-years-post-strip-dr-feller-2.html

 

In the above examples the transplanted surface areas appear to be roughly equal - if anything the woman's is slighter bigger.

 

According to the thread, LondonHTseeker had 2000 FUT grafts from Dr Feller into a bald area at the front (not including his initial FUT surgery with Dr Feller for around 1300 grafts, which seems to have grown well at his original hairline) and the woman had around 2500 via FUE from Dr Bhatti into a similar sized bald area.

 

Now for the million dolhair question, does her thicker result look 500ish grafts thicker?

 

No way!................ It looks A LOT thicker!!

 

Therefore, how did Dr Bhatti's FUE result on her turn out so much better than Dr Feller's FUT result on LondonHTseeker?

 

__________________________________________________

Dr Bhatti FUE Oct 2014 3305 grafts

http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/178931-my-fue-dr-tejinder-bhatti-oct-2014-a.html

[Spanker]

I just kind of dip in and out of the thread so I haven't followed it closely.

 

I think it would or at least be valid if the nw level were high enough. All extracted grafts were used, and the fue doc extracted the average natural fu, meaning, he didn't intentionally cherry pick all threes. The strip or mFUE could go first to allow the FUE doc to extract the exact number of grafts.

 

Idk, I think if everyone acted legit and looked at it as a professional study, it would really be great for the industry consumers.

 

Of course, this would not address subsequent procedure difficulty from the different procedures.

[Dr. Alan Feller]

Well here's a comparison that we could probably start with.

 

http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/180338-dr-bhatti-2560-fue-grafts-female-patient.html

 

http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/161553-am-i-one-unlucky-few-4-years-post-strip-dr-feller-2.html

 

In the above examples the transplanted surface areas appear to be roughly equal - if anything the woman's is slighter bigger.

 

According to the thread, LondonHTseeker had 2000 FUT grafts from Dr Feller into a bald area at the front (not including his initial FUT surgery with Dr Feller for around 1300 grafts, which seems to have grown well at his original hairline) and the woman had around 2500 via FUE from Dr Bhatti into a similar sized bald area.

 

Now for the million dolhair question, does her thicker result look 500ish grafts thicker?

 

No way!................ It looks A LOT thicker!!

 

Therefore, how did Dr Bhatti's FUE result on her turn out so much better than Dr Feller's FUT result on LondonHTseeker?

 

__________________________________________________

Dr Bhatti FUE Oct 2014 3305 grafts

http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/178931-my-fue-dr-tejinder-bhatti-oct-2014-

 

a.html

 

You should look before you leap Shera. London seeker had FUE from a doctor who uses a far better technique than yours and still did not grow well. There is also more to London's case than you are letting on here. You are being disingenuous and you know it. Pretty desperate.

 

I have avoided discussing individual results, because all it does is create a subjective slinging match that serves nobody. But you just couldn't help yourself could you? So is my next move to start singling out and posting unhappy patients of Dr. Bhatti ? You really want to go there ?

 

Try and stick to focusing on the procedure instead of the surgeon. I know you are trying to stick up for your doctor. Instead, why don't you stick up for his procedure as shown in the video if you can. That would be much more on point and much more civil don't you think?

[Mickey85]

Doctor, in your opinion, if you stacked up the best strip surgeon/s against the best FUE surgeons in the world, what would the general yield difference be(all best case scenario)? I'm not trying to bait you and I can understand if you don't want to answer my question. Up to you.

[Dr. Alan Feller]

Doctor, in your opinion, if you stacked up the best strip surgeon/s against the best FUE surgeons in the world, what would the general yield difference be(all best case scenario)? I'm not trying to bait you and I can understand if you don't want to answer my question. Up to you.

 

Mickey,

I think it is an excellent question and the most on-point question raised since the start of this thread. It is this question that I asked myself when I decided to stop doing large FUE procedures.

 

If you stacked the best FUT surgery against the best FUE surgery assuming experienced, truly caring, and detail oriented doctors on both sides, then the most likely yields would be as follows:

 

FUT 97%

FUE 75%

[Mickey85]

Mickey,

I think it is an excellent question and the most on-point question raised since the start of this thread. It is this question that I asked myself when I decided to stop doing large FUE procedures.

 

If you stacked the best FUT surgery against the best FUE surgery assuming experienced, truly caring, and detail oriented doctors on both sides, then the most likely yields would be as follows:

 

FUT 97%

FUE 75%

 

Thanks Doctor.

[Dr Tejinder Bhatti]

I was among those urging Dr Feller to address the "expanding crown " issue raised by Dr Bhatti and I found Dr Feller's explanation satisfactory.

 

When I posted on this forum in 2004 after my first HT (FUT), one of the highlights of my story that I was excited about was the apparent "facelift " that my forehead got and all the lines just disappeared . But alas , over the next few months my scalp adjusted and the wrinkles etc came back. So it was more the "rubber band " effect , only in slow motion. Same problem also exists with a lot of these nip and tuck surgeries , where immediate results look good but then over time skin sags / expands again.

.

 

"fortune 11", it is unusual that the forces are transferred that far. You seem to have a soft pliable scalp to have experienced this. However if it did happen and the wrinkles came back after 30 days, the stress was transmitted elsewhere- some other place bore the brunt- either the crown expanded a bit or the strip scar became wider. Forces get transmitted since the whole edifice of the scalp is based on loose areolar tissue which glides easily and hence any tension will be transmitted to areas far removed.

After a facelift a plastic surgeon conceals his scars behind the ear and in the temple area. These scars are along relaxed skin tension lines. This is the reason why facelifts need to be revised only after 6 years when skin folds reappear.

However, in the case of the strip, the scar undergoes maximum tension when muscles under the skin that are directed at right angles to the scar, contract to exert their pull.

In most tight scalps, the patient complains of a widening of the scalp after the procedure. Please do not misunderstand here when I say the crown stretches- not all crowns stretch. Also only 40% of the stretching force is transmitted elsewhere. That is what I said in my earlier post and what Dr Feller misquoted.

I request members who are undergoing strip surgery to measure their crowns before and after the procedure. That is when the truth will come out.

Take for example this patient whose procedure I did today after one strip surgery done at the clinic of a ‘recommended’ FUT surgeon.

He complained that his crown became larger and just after one procedure.

To validate that I do not refer back to my library for such posts I have taken his picture alongwith today morning’s newspaper!

[hairshopeing]

So the best of the best would only get 75% in YOUR OPINION Dr feller! I disagree, as I'm sure others will but opinions are opinions and no more!! I'd agree your strip would be fairly accurate though but BOTH procedure would vary dramatically! !

[fortune11]

"fortune 11", it is unusual that the forces are transferred that far. You seem to have a soft pliable scalp to have experienced this. However if it did happen and the wrinkles came back after 30 days, the stress was transmitted elsewhere- some other place bore the brunt- either the crown expanded a bit or the strip scar became wider. Forces get transmitted since the whole edifice of the scalp is based on loose areolar tissue which glides easily and hence any tension will be transmitted to areas far removed.

After a facelift a plastic surgeon conceals his scars behind the ear and in the temple area. These scars are along relaxed skin tension lines. This is the reason why facelifts need to be revised only after 6 years when skin folds reappear.

However, in the case of the strip, the scar undergoes maximum tension when muscles under the skin that are directed at right angles to the scar, contract to exert their pull.

In most tight scalps, the patient complains of a widening of the scalp after the procedure. Please do not misunderstand here when I say the crown stretches- not all crowns stretch. Also only 40% of the stretching force is transmitted elsewhere. That is what I said in my earlier post and what Dr Feller misquoted.

I request members who are undergoing strip surgery to measure their crowns before and after the procedure. That is when the truth will come out.

Take for example this patient whose procedure I did today after one strip surgery done at the clinic of a ‘recommended’ FUT surgeon.

He complained that his crown became larger and just after one procedure.

To validate that I do not refer back to my library for such posts I have taken his picture alongwith today morning’s newspaper!

 

Thank you Dr Bhatti , the point about tension being transmitted along a different angle versus perpendicular (in the case of strip) is interesting.

 

I think one factor why patients feel their crown expands could also be because their hair on the sides and back continues to drop (progression from NW5-6-7) and thats also what may give the appearance of a crown stretching.

 

I do think scalp laxity is a very important issue when it comes to strip , especially when it comes to mega sessions.

[Mick50]

To be honest if no other FUE docs get involved in this thread I pretty much think it has run its course for providing any more useful information for us as patients, we all know Dr Fellers

stance on the matter and as laymen we can't in reality argue the case either way, all we know is our experience be it good or bad

 

Fair play to Dr Bhatti for for his input just a shame there weren't more doctors willing to participate I don't think its just this thread and it's content why they shy away I think most of them perceive getting involved in online debates leaves them open for attack in some way I suppose they just prefer to let their results do the talking.

[Dr Tejinder Bhatti]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[fortune11]

To be honest if no other FUE docs get involved in this thread I pretty much think it has run its course for providing any more useful information for us as patients, we all know Dr Fellers

stance on the matter and as laymen we can't in reality argue the case either way, all we know is our experience be it good or bad

 

Fair play to Dr Bhatti for for his input just a shame there weren't more doctors willing to participate I don't think its just this thread and it's content why they shy away I think most of them perceive getting involved in online debates leaves them open for attack in some way I suppose they just prefer to let their results do the talking.

 

Agree, involvement of other FUE docs would make it a lot more interesting at this stage. Wish there was some way to get Dr Lorenzo to post here.

[hairshopeing]

Why would lorenzo bother? He showcases his results very regularly with HD videos,all angles,wet,dry, comb through shaven donors zoomed on and out on showing amazing transformations!! The likes of him and feriduni are booked up for upto 12 months or more in advance so why would he bother,

His results are all he needs to put out there, results are all that matters in the end! He doesn't need the business, so you see apple constantly trying to point out the flaws in android? Nope, they don't need to, they stick to what there good at!! The top ranking fue Dr's won't be remotely threatened by this thread or Dr feller,they will just keep doing what their doing!!! We all know if you want good fue then you don't usually go to the states, koniour I'd imagine would be good, haven't seen any matured results yet but probably will be good, vories seems to be the most consistent out there at the moment along with diep who seems good also apart from that not that many! The laws stopping tech involvement mean that most Dr's can't perform larger sessions there hence why Dr feller sees poor results I'd imagine! Europe and particularly Belgium and Turkey seem to lead the way with fue and Manchester when lorenzo was there for a year!

[fortune11]

I think we can all agree that visually at least , there does not seem to be much difference between results of top FUE docs and top FUT docs.

 

However, simple mathematics of it, majority of HT patients are not going to top FUE and top FUE docs given the bandwidth issues. Even there , I concede you will get the occasional failure which will be generally get blamed on the patient characteristics.

 

Therefore , for broad quality issues, for the market as a whole, what is important is the next tier down , here is where you will see the most variation and here is where you may see these topics being raised by Dr Feller regarding extraction and placement techniques as becoming more relevant, at least on a VISUAL level (not withstanding all the additional forces which impact FUE yield, etc).

 

I am not including the hair mills here who maybe considered as the bottom tier - but even there , despite the assembly line methods , you will get some good results , just from laws of probability (large numbers).

[PupDaddy]

Mickey,

I think it is an excellent question and the most on-point question raised since the start of this thread. It is this question that I asked myself when I decided to stop doing large FUE procedures.

 

If you stacked the best FUT surgery against the best FUE surgery assuming experienced, truly caring, and detail oriented doctors on both sides, then the most likely yields would be as follows:

 

FUT 97%

FUE 75%

 

Translating those percentages into numbers (and assuming that Dr. Feller is correct), here is a comparison of the most likely results of various sized restorations if performed by the best of the best ht docs:

 

 

2,000 grafts FUT = 1,940 growing fu’s (60 wasted fu’s)

 

2,000 grafts FUE = 1,500 growing fu’s (500 wasted fu’s)

 

 

3,000 graft FUT transplant = 2,910 growing fu’s (90 wasted fu’s)

 

3,000 graft FUE transplant = 2,250 growing fu’s (750 wasted fu’s)

 

 

 

4,000 graft FUT transplant = 3,880 growing fu’s (120 wasted fu’s)

 

4,000 graft FUE transplant = 3,000 growing fu’s (1,000 wasted fu’s)

 

 

 

5,000 graft FUT transplant = 4,850 growing fu’s (150 wasted fu’s)

 

5,000 graft FUE transplant = 3,750 growing fu’s (1,250 wasted fu’s)

 

 

Assuming that the average transplanted follicular unit contains 2 hairs, multiply the wasted fu’s per procedure x 2 to arrive at the number of hairs squandered by procedure:

 

2,000 graft transplant = 120 wasted hairs FUT vs. 1,000 wasted hairs FUE

 

3,000 graft transplant = 180 wasted hairs FUT vs. 1,500 wasted hairs FUE

 

4,000 graft transplant = 240 wasted hairs FUT vs. 2,000 wasted hairs FUE

 

5,000 graft transplant = 300 wasted hairs FUT vs. 2,500 wasted hairs FUE

[Melvin- Admin]

Translating those percentages into numbers (and assuming that Dr. Feller is correct), here is a comparison of the most likely results of various sized restorations if performed by the best of the best ht docs:

 

 

2,000 grafts FUT = 1,940 growing fu’s (60 wasted fu’s)

 

2,000 grafts FUE = 1,500 growing fu’s (500 wasted fu’s)

 

 

3,000 graft FUT transplant = 2,910 growing fu’s (90 wasted fu’s)

 

3,000 graft FUE transplant = 2,250 growing fu’s (750 wasted fu’s)

 

 

 

4,000 graft FUT transplant = 3,880 growing fu’s (120 wasted fu’s)

 

4,000 graft FUE transplant = 3,000 growing fu’s (1,000 wasted fu’s)

 

 

 

5,000 graft FUT transplant = 4,850 growing fu’s (150 wasted fu’s)

 

5,000 graft FUE transplant = 3,750 growing fu’s (1,250 wasted fu’s)

 

 

Assuming that the average transplanted follicular unit contains 2 hairs, multiply the wasted fu’s per procedure x 2 to arrive at the number of hairs squandered by procedure:

 

2,000 graft transplant = 120 wasted hairs FUT vs. 1,000 wasted hairs FUE

 

3,000 graft transplant = 180 wasted hairs FUT vs. 1,500 wasted hairs FUE

 

4,000 graft transplant = 240 wasted hairs FUT vs. 2,000 wasted hairs FUE

 

5,000 graft transplant = 300 wasted hairs FUT vs. 2,500 wasted hairs FUE

 

Please ask Dr.feller where he came up with those percentages, was it a controlled study? If so where was the study published? If it's just opinion your assumed percentages is worth absolutely zero. Take Dr. Lorenzo's results graft wise and compare it to Dr. Fellers, tell me that Dr. Lorenzo is only getting 75% compared to 90% of Dr. Feller, assumed percentages is absolutely useless, using actual results is the only way one can base a solid opinion other than a controlled study. So what we should do is gather results from both physicians utilizing 2,500 grafts, 3,500 grafts and 4,500 grafts, let's compare 10 results from each category, then we can see if there is an exceptional visible difference in yield.