Jump to content

FUT is more popular than FUE


Recommended Posts

  • Senior Member

According to the ISHRS Census for 2015 the main increase in FUE is down to automated devices, i.e. ARTAS. That has risen over 10% in the last 2 years. Manual methods only went up by less than 4%. A small rise compared to what happened between 2010-2013.

 

'Automated' in previous surveys appeared to include motorised devices but I think these have now been grouped in the 'manual' category.

 

So I would deduce that doctors jumping on the ARTAS bandwagon is the main reason for the rise in market share.

4,312 FUT grafts (7,676 hairs) with Ray Konior, MD - August 2013

1,145 FUE grafts (3,152 hairs) with Ray Konior, MD - August 2018

763 FUE grafts (2,094 hairs) with Ray Konior, MD - January 2020

Proscar 1.25mg every 3rd day

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Regular Member
What data would tip you over the edge and make you more secure in going under the knife, or punch, as it were?

 

A good peer reviewed study that showed the two procedures as equivalent would make me schedule my surgery almost immediately. Until then, I am reluctant to waste follicles for reduced scar risk, regardless of what the pictures say.

 

I could, for example, very easily list a series of links to patients with poor outcomes from the the elite physicians of hair loss, and it would make many of the former claims seem absurd. But who cares? That means as much to me as viewing their successes -- nothing. The plural of anecdote is not data. It's just one man's experience cherry picking from their own patient database. The patient submitted cases are the strength of this forum, but in the past even they have been circumspect (clinics pressuring patients with good outcomes to post their photos online, offering them discounts or follow up treatment at a discounted rate if they do so, IP addresses overlapping between clinics and 'patients' etc.)

 

Simple thought experiment: ask yourself this, does your Instagram or FB profile really reflect your life? Does your Twitter account really reflect how witty you are in an average conversation? How about if people were willing to pay you hundres of thousands of dollars based on what you posted online? Would you post a fair sampling of your data? Can somebody even be objective about that? Forget about it.

 

I am all for scientific progress. But too many times throughout human history, capitalism has created pseudoscientific progress in the name of the almighty dollar.

 

Let us be aware of this motivation on both sides any time a discussion like this perks up. When you come across anyone who claims to have too many of the 'right' answers about hair loss, they are either 1) lying to you or 2) lying to themselves.

 

I don't know which is worse, but I do know this: both are disheartening, especially when it comes from those who have sworn to heal for a living.

 

That is not an allegation against any of the posters on this thread, but rather a sincere piece of advice for the surgical hair loss community as a whole.

 

It's time for a change in hair loss. Time for something new. This is an abusive relationship that has gone on too long. The reason the research is not out there is because we, as consumers, have not stood up for ourselves and demanded it.

 

The hair loss industry thinks we're too stupid to even care when a procedure has been scientifically proven before we are willing to try it.

 

Are we? Are you? I know I'm not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Senior Member
People just don't want the scar and will even happily sacrifice some yield for that ;).

 

 

Tell that to a high norwood with limited donor supply. I get the scar issue, but you are downplaying how big of a deal maximising ones donar supply of lifetime grafts really is and should be. As long as going with FUT until being stripped out provides a greater number of lifetime grafts, then you are gravely mistaken about FUT dying. I would accept the scar anyday of the week if it can provide me with the max number of lifetime grafts (which FUT does). If FUE provided one with the same number of lifetime grafts, and only resulted in SOME yield being sacrificed, then I think you would have a valid point, but that is not the case at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Regular Member

The evidence in studies isn't going to come. It's too hard to set those up, to many variables. I would be impressed if you could think of a study that isn't going to flawed and will answer the question in the FUE vs FUT debate. The answer is never going to come.

 

This, by the way, is an incorrect statement.

 

The study would be easy to setup, similar ones have been done throughout the academic history of medicine on, literally, every procedure that exists in surgery. And every time there has been resistance from those doing the old technique that would not go away until the new procedure was shown, in peer reviewed and blinded studies, to be superior. This is the nature of scientific progress. I have already given a rough outline of the method elsewhere.

 

The issue is not the complexity of the study, it is the lack of incentive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dr. Bhatti,

 

Thank you for replying to my concern. Given your last post, I'm inclined to agree that your posts showing the donor area is appropriate to the discussion. I suggest however, that in each post you explain and remind the community why you are posting these on this topic. As previously stated, this topic is highly popular and is updated on a minute by minute basis. Thus, it is extremely difficult to follow everything going on and thus, members may be wondering why you are posting these pictures. An explanation on each post would help.

 

Dr. Feller,

 

It wouldn't hurt to indulge Dr. Bhatti and post examples of donor sites that you see on a regular basis that back up your claims as well.

 

Thanks,

 

Bill

 

Bill,

You are missing what he is writing and claiming. I have made no claims other than those that I posed to Dr. Bhatti who refused to answer them about 50 pages back.

 

Once again I have to break down Dr. Bhatti's distortions, evasions, and disingenuousness.

 

 

Dr. Bhatti's "challenge" is not a "challenge" It's a straw dummy. He might as well challenge me to compare how many Indian people walk past his door in India as I have Indian people pass my door in Great Neck, NY. It's nonsensical. I'll explain:

 

99% of the HT patients in the world have had their surgery via FUT, so obviously if a patient is going to walk into his or my office the chances are astronomically higher that it's going to be an FUT patient. So how does posting that online on a daily basis with the day's copy of the "Tribune" mean anything other than the fact that there are more FUT patients in the world compared to FUE? It's disingenuous and he knows it.

 

I also don't claim to fix the scarring left by FUE. Nobody does. Nobody seeks me out to repair their moth eaten donor areas because I don't offer it. These people are unfixable. He knows this, but is challenging me to produce patients who've come to me for such repairs.

 

He, on the other hand claims to be "repairing" FUT patients in those so-called "challenge" photos he has posted and is implying he has sooooo many patients coming to him for this. Problem is, not one of the patients he showed after his "repair surgery" had their linear scars addressed! He may have added hair to recipient areas via FUE, but that is not "repair" work as he claims. So the photos have no validity or connection to what he's claiming when he posts them.

 

So what's the point of showing shaved down donor areas to reveal linear scars? His after photos only show recently punched out grafts via FUE. So what? Am I to show recently stitched FUT incisions? What purpose does that serve? None.

 

In another version of his challenge, because as usual he changes reality as he moves along, he wanted to compare the scars from my FUE megasessions to his on a daily basis. But he knows I don't do FUE megasessions for the reasons I've stated only about 100 times on this thread. He knows this. So how exactly is that a "challenge"?

 

So what he's really doing is showing photos of the eeeevil strip scars, the more hideous the better, to scare the public and try to come across as the patient's savior. But his after photos do not show a "saved" paitent. They do not show a "repaired" recipient area nor repaired donor scar. They just show an immediate post op donor area with a copy of the Tribune for some reason slapped in front of it. So what?

 

His only goal is to show horrible strip scars with no information as to why those scars may be as bad as they are. So it just becomes a war of who can put up more horrible scar pictures. Well that's easy. If you want me to indulge him I will. Here are some hideous FUE scars:

 

2whmudg.jpg

 

21kw802.jpg

 

1212zh4.jpg

 

e7ikv6.jpg

 

2ufvslu.jpg

 

20igco8.jpg

 

103wl20.jpg

 

2dka8eq.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Senior Member
Tell that to a high norwood with limited donor supply. I get the scar issue, but you are downplaying how big of a deal maximising ones donar supply of lifetime grafts really is and should be. As long as going with FUT until being stripped out provides a greater number of lifetime grafts, then you are gravely mistaken about FUT dying. I would accept the scar anyday of the week if it can provide me with the max number of lifetime grafts (which FUT does). If FUE provided one with the same number of lifetime grafts, and only resulted in SOME yield being sacrificed, then I think you would have a valid point, but that is not the case at all.

 

You are correct. And if you want to for FUT because of that, that's your choice. However the people you talk about are a minority group who really need to maximize their donor supply. FUT is already heading into a "niche" treatment for a small group of people.

 

I just browsed yesterday on a big international forum and came across a topic which was called "FUT or FUE". I can tell you that approximately 90 to 95% of the people were calling FUT "old fashioned", "brutal" and the "scar" was mentioned extremely often. Again open your eyes on the international forums. The beauty with this question is that everyone does see the same unless they don't want to. Look at the ISHRS census which show the growth of FUE. If you want I can make topics on big international forums to lure a discussion about FUT vs FUE? I can tell you that almost everyone will say the same thing about FUT.

 

Even people like Spencer seem to agree with this all. Spencer being founder of the IAHRS. That's a very bold statement for someone like Spencer, you can understand why.

 

Anyway the beauty of this question is that time will tell ;).

 

This, by the way, is an incorrect statement.

 

The study would be easy to setup, similar ones have been done throughout the academic history of medicine on, literally, every procedure that exists in surgery. And every time there has been resistance from those doing the old technique that would not go away until the new procedure was shown, in peer reviewed and blinded studies, to be superior. This is the nature of scientific progress. I have already given a rough outline of the method elsewhere.

 

The issue is not the complexity of the study, it is the lack of incentive.

 

Easy to setup? I don't think so, it will be far from easy. I can't seem to find your "rough" outlines of the method besides that you want a "good" peer reviewed study. That's easy to say.

 

Can you sketch a more detailed study which would answer the FUT vs FUE debate (yield), and would be easy to set up? Pretty impressive if you could make it happen.

 

You already start out well by mentioning the following point;

 

"Objective and unbiased third party.". I think we all know how easy it is to get a double blind peer reviewed study through which suffers from heavy bias. John P. A. Ioannidis has written an excellent piece about this which expands more deeply on all;

 

PLOS Medicine: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False.

Most downloaded paper on PLOS.

 

Anyway how further?

Edited by David - Moderator

Proud to be a representative of world elite hair transplant surgeon Dr. Bisanga - BHR Clinic.

Hairtransplantelite.com

YouTube

Online consultations: damian@bhrclinic.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Senior Member
A good peer reviewed study that showed the two procedures as equivalent would make me schedule my surgery almost immediately. Until then, I am reluctant to waste follicles for reduced scar risk, regardless of what the pictures say.

 

 

Sadly, I have no idea if your wish list will happen soon.

 

But hey, you're only 45 now so who knows what will happen in the next 20 years or so!

 

Does your Twitter account really reflect how witty you are in an average conversation?

 

Nothing in the virtual world could reflect that! ;)

I'm serious.  Just look at my face.

 

My Hair Regimen: Lather, Rinse, Repeat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Senior Member

I replied to both gunther and gilgamesh. However my message is pending approval. I assume this is because of an outbound link to PLOS medicine? If one of the moderators could correct this, thanks:cool:.

Proud to be a representative of world elite hair transplant surgeon Dr. Bisanga - BHR Clinic.

Hairtransplantelite.com

YouTube

Online consultations: damian@bhrclinic.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Senior Member

@ Doctor Feller...can you provide examples what you would deem to be the normal scarring & donor area from an FUT procedure of roughly 4000 grafts?

 

@Dr. Bhatti, can you do the same for an FUE procedure.

 

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dr. Feller and Dr. Bhatti,

 

It's obvious that you both have very different approaches to how to handle this discussion and are proposing various challenges back-and-forth to one another. while the publishers and moderators are doing their best to mom there and even participate in this topic, we cannot always read and view every comment being made. And we certainly cannot keep going back and forth with both of you as to whether or not your posts are appropriate and who challenged who to what. Thus I ask that you both use good judgment when responding and do your best to stick to the topic at hand.

 

I think Dr. Feller made a good point in his last post and at this point I do not think that any additional photos showing FUE or FUT scarring are necessary unless it backs up another very specific point being made. But at this point, let's stick to the actual debate and the facts and hopefully potential he find some common ground, which I'm not so sure will happen in this decade :-).

 

I look forward to both of your continued participation and involvement and I do hope that everyone can work to create an environment of respect and appreciation for those providing their own experience and input.

 

Best wishes,

 

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Senior Member
WELL DONE! WELL DONE!!!

 

Even though you are not actually performing the procedure I can see that you have conceptualized them enough to understand the forces in play. Very impressive for a non-practitioner indeed.

 

Let me go down your list:

Neograft: Agree on every word. I'll also add that it is marketed as a 'turn key" system to allow non HT specialists to get into the field without all that pesky training, experience, and need to create, pay, and train a staff of technicians. I have seen this device in action and was appalled by it. Only Dr. Bhatti's recent video made me gasp more since seeing the Neograft in action.

Neograft does not address the three detrimental forces.

 

ARTAS: Agree on every word. However, your use of the word "compression" isn't the same as mine. But, you do bring up a force exclusive to ARTAS that I had not identified which is indeed a compressive force that bends the follicle as the cutting surface descends into the skin creating the perfect set up for a side shear. The ARTAS only scores the graft. Why do you need to spend a hundred grand or more when you can do it more gently and swiftly with a manual punch for fifty bucks? An experienced HT practitioner competent in manual FUE has no use for such a machine.

ARTAS does not address the three detrimental forces.

 

The compression force that I refer to is the squeeze on the graft applied with the forceps in preparation to pull the graft free from the lower dermis. The greater the pull, the greater the compression force.

 

Harris Safe system: Agree on every word. But I will add that it does help control side shearing, but at the cost of greater torsional damage. I actually experimented with duller punches for the same reason he did, which was a good idea, but in the end it didn't really help in most patients.

SAFE system does not address the three detrimental forces.

 

I never used the CIT punch, but I think I saw a comparison between it and one of my punches and it was found to be even sharper. Well, if that's true then it's a damn sharp punch. And as Rassman discussed 13 years ago a very sharp punch is a requirement for FUE for the reasons you cited. Less torsion. But it has no effect on the needed compressive force of the forceps nor the traction force required to tear it free. So this could be considered an improvement, but sharp punches are hardly an advance. Nevertheless, I agree with the benefits of a sharper punch over a duller punch. Especially if we incorporate your definition of compression (which we need to rename to include in the list of FUE detrimental forces. I'll leave it to you to name it and we'll use your terminology moving forward).

 

Dr. Lorenzo is the only FUE-only doctor I have met and not had an argument/debate with. Despite the hideously inaccurate things mentioned on his website, he himself in person was very candid and accurate about the differences between FUE and FUT. Actually, I found him to be breath of very fresh air. He is also the only FUE doctor other than myself who came up with what could be called a refinement in FUE technique. His method or "tricks" as he calls them allow for a better distribution of force during the "delivery" process of FUE. It is well thought out and has actual practical application. In short, it works and is an "advance" in my book. HOWEVER, while his forceps compression force is reduced in this manner, it has almost no effect on the traction force. I say almost because it does force the doctor to be more patient to allow the graft to break free at its own pace thus reducing to some extent the traction damage-but not force. These tricks have no effect at all on the torsion force at all. It is a "trick" that allows the practitioner to extract faster with less damage, and that's good. Unfortunately, even these tricks still do not elevate FUE to the level of FUT in reliability and consistency. But at least it's better than ripping them out wholesale without regard for compression damage in the name of speed. I have utilized this technique myself since meeting with Dr. Lorenzo to speed up my own procedures, but still chide at the traction and torsion damage. An advantageous trade off though.

 

My punch and my perforation technique are the only true "advances" that I know of that actually address any or all of the three main detrimental forces. And they are simple. Not hundreds of thousands of dollars and very common sense.

 

My punch is called a "relieved" punch which means it gets wider as the graft moves past the cutting surface into the punch. This makes it harder for a seal to be formed and thus weakens the cohesion between the graft and the punch. So when the punch is turned the graft won't turn as much with it. This relieves Torsional damage. But even with this advance, torsional damage is still a force to be reckoned with. Just look at the amount of decapitations or "capping" that occurs during all FUE procedures. This is an immediate transection that is a direct result of torsion force and still happens with my punch, albeit to a lesser degree.

 

A sharper punch like the CIT you described also reduces torsion because of the fewer turns necessary and the less twisting required to work the edge down to the 3 mm point.

 

Then there is my perforation technique. Which is simply a needle pushed to the bottom of the graft before it is pulled to reduce the strength of the tissue and thus the traction force necessary to tear it free.

 

See the animation and demonstration in the links.(I"ll put these in later)

 

http://fellermedicaldata.com/fellermedical/video%20for%20site/FUE/animation/fueanimation.gif

 

The problems with my techniques is that they don't speed up the procedure. Putting my punch on a motor does. So I built one and marketed it. But over time I found I could do a better and faster job manually.

 

We need a completely new way to look at the problem. But I'm about out of ideas. But if you or anyone else can come up with a way to reduce the three detrimental forces AND speed the process up you will be an overnight hero and multibillionaire.

 

You have some homework now, Mickey. You need to come up with a term other than "compression" to describe what happens when the punch pushes down the graft while still in the skin that causes it to bend thus allowing a greater chance of shear damage.

 

Thank you for the very kind words Doctor, much appreciated. Great to hear a doctor's views on the various FUE devices out there also. I will come up with a term, might take a few days because I don't want to come up with something that is laughable lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Senior Member
. However the people you talk about are a minority group who really need to maximize their donor supply. FUT is already heading into a "niche" treatment for a small group of people.

 

?

 

 

Hi Swooping,

 

Thats very short sighted, I would imagine that the majority of patients SHOULD need to maximize their lifetime donor supply. I'm a lower NW, and around 4,000 total grafts for my 1st and 2nd HT procedures combined puts me in a solid position for the next decade hopefully. But as I have an average donor supply, that only leaves 2,000 - 3,000 grafts in the bank. If I progress to a higher NW, then I suspect I will be in trouble later on, and no, I will not just bank on BHT. If people really believe that they don't need to maximize their donor supply, then I feel very sad for folks who will find themselves tapped out later on. My experience from consultations with recommended surgeons, is to plan for the future, and that means treatment plans that utilizes grafts effectively, and saves a good number for future hair loss. Even the more aggressive surgeons such as Rahal took a long term view in my recommendation. Whilst I think we would all love to have generous lifetime donor supply of grafts, the start reality is a) the majority just dont, and b) its really difficult to truly know whether one won't progress to a higher NW. In fact I would be shocked if there are many recommended surgeons who would advise patients that they don't need to maximise donor supplies. Even H&W had a long-terms plan for me.

 

Sorry buddy, but I think you are dead wrong here

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mav,

We can't go to the September ISHRS meeting because we have the entire week booked with patients most of whom booked almost a year ago.

 

As far as presenting mFUE, while Dr. Bloxham made a presentation with some very broad strokes online, there are some aspects that we still can't discuss yet as it will interfere with the patent process.

 

Dr. Feller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Senior Member
I can tell you that approximately 90 to 95% of the people were calling FUT "old fashioned", "brutal" and the "scar" was mentioned extremely often.

 

We all know about the scar. I wouldn't go so far to call FUT "Old fashioned", but I get it, I really do.

 

In terms of brutal, I can think of many other elective surgeries that are brutal - so what? Lasik is pretty butal, they clamp your eyes open, cut a flap in your eyball, and then laser the hell out of the outer tissue of your eyeball. Thats way more brutal than cutting a piece of scalp out of the back of a person's scalp, thats for sure, but once again - who cares if its brutal if it works and does the trick. Nobody has suffered a serious injury from it have they? worst complication is the stretching of the scar. Hell, even getting a root canal is pretty dam brutal. What about a prostate exam?

Edited by mav23100gunther
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Senior Member
Mav,

We can't go to the September ISHRS meeting because we have the entire week booked with patients most of whom booked almost a year ago.

 

As far as presenting mFUE, while Dr. Bloxham made a presentation with some very broad strokes online, there are some aspects that we still can't discuss yet as it will interfere with the patent process.

 

Dr. Feller

 

Thanks Dr. Feller, wow, didn't realize you had a year-long waitlist.

Edited by mav23100gunther
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Senior Member
Hi Swooping,

 

Thats very short sighted, I would imagine that the majority of patients SHOULD need to maximize their lifetime donor supply. I'm a lower NW, and around 4,000 total grafts for my 1st and 2nd HT procedures combined puts me in a solid position for the next decade hopefully. But as I have an average donor supply, that only leaves 2,000 - 3,000 grafts in the bank. If I progress to a higher NW, then I suspect I will be in trouble later on, and no, I will not just bank on BHT. If people really believe that they don't need to maximize their donor supply, then I feel very sad for folks who will find themselves tapped out later on. My experience from consultations with recommended surgeons, is to plan for the future, and that means treatment plans that utilizes grafts effectively, and saves a good number for future hair loss. Even the more aggressive surgeons such as Rahal took a long term view in my recommendation. Whilst I think we would all love to have generous lifetime donor supply of grafts, the start reality is a) the majority just dont, and b) its really difficult to truly know whether one won't progress to a higher NW. In fact I would be shocked if there are many recommended surgeons who would advise patients that they don't need to maximise donor supplies. Even H&W had a long-terms plan for me.

 

Sorry buddy, but I think you are dead wrong here

 

What do you think that the average guy who goes for a hair transplant is going in with a "mindset" to fully maximize their donor area? Think again.

 

You make it almost sound as if the market gets dictated by supply instead of demand.

 

If you think that the best way to go for you is to maximize your donor then go ahead. That's your personal choice. Many people have a way other outlook on these things or are in a different situation. Not everyone thinks the same as you do.

 

Hey and if things go wrong with FUE in the future at least one can shave down as a way out. With FUT not so much ;).

Proud to be a representative of world elite hair transplant surgeon Dr. Bisanga - BHR Clinic.

Hairtransplantelite.com

YouTube

Online consultations: damian@bhrclinic.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Senior Member
What do you think that the average guy who goes for a hair transplant is going in with a "mindset" to fully maximize their donor area? Think again.

.

 

Once they get educated that hair loss is progressive and donor supply is finite - then hell yes, I would hope they do have that mindset. I think the issue becomes that FUE only surgeons don't explecitly state that FUE results in less lifetime grafts than strip FUT. I certainly wasn't offered up this information at any of my consultations until I specifically asked. I think you are under-estimating the number of higher NW patients walking into procedures who can't quite get the coverage they hope for due to limited grafts. It also gets murky where it seems that with the exception of H&W and a few other strip masters, you could probably get a higher number of grafts moved in a one FUE mega-procedure (over 2 days) than with strip in a single session where laxity plays a role resulting in the need to wait a year to go again. But once again, this is short-sighted. I'm actually surprized the lifetime donor supply factor isn't brought up more in this debate. If its unlikely that lifetime grafts won't keep you covered, then why wouldn't you fight for every last graft? Like I said before, if getting a linier scar gets me an addition couple of of thousand grafts over my lifetime, and keep my head covered for an extra 5 to 10 years - then hell yeah!

 

I do respect your difference of opinion though

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Senior Member
Once they get educated that hair loss is progressive and donor supply is finite - then hell yes, I would hope they do have that mindset. I think the issue becomes that FUE only surgeons don't explecitly state that FUE results in less lifetime grafts than strip FUT. I certainly wasn't offered up this information at any of my consultations until I specifically asked. I think you are under-estimating the number of higher NW patients walking into procedures who can't quite get the coverage they hope for due to limited grafts. It also gets murky where it seems that with the exception of H&W and a few other strip masters, you could probably get a higher number of grafts moved in a one FUE mega-procedure (over 2 days) than with strip in a single session where laxity plays a role resulting in the need to wait a year to go again. But once again, this is short-sighted. I'm actually surprized the lifetime donor supply factor isn't brought up more in this debate. If its unlikely that lifetime grafts won't keep you covered, then why wouldn't you fight for every last graft? Like I said before, if getting a linier scar gets me an addition couple of of thousand grafts over my lifetime, and keep my head covered for an extra 5 to 10 years - then hell yeah!

 

I do respect your difference of opinion though

 

Well I agree completely with you that the smartest or rather most safe thing to do would be to maximize your life grafts. But some people don't think like that. Ask yourself this question. More and more people undergo surgery today without being on finasteride. That is pretty risky right if your hair loss isn't stabilized? Most surgeons will recommend patients finasteride before undertaking a hair transplant. Yet enough people especially nowadays neglect this and have surgery anyway without finasteride.

 

I do however completely agree that many people , in fact the masses are unaware that a FUT + FUE combo yields most grafts lifetime. I have rarely seen this brought up on other forums for example. Perhaps more people would re-think their options if they were proper educated about this?

Proud to be a representative of world elite hair transplant surgeon Dr. Bisanga - BHR Clinic.

Hairtransplantelite.com

YouTube

Online consultations: damian@bhrclinic.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
They are not that unusual as H&W has quite a big portfolio of "Wow"results. But my point stands, has FUE ever produced results on par with that? That 20k graft case of Umar was not cosmetically on the same plane as these guys.

 

H&W have had patients from Spain and Italy, when they get to handle those hair types, the results are even more striking than what FUE practitioners do.

 

I disagree a complete restoration for guys Norwood 6/7 is not common FUT or FUE. Most guys don't possess the donor capacity. When comparing H&W results to let's say Dr. Lorenzo's YouTube channel, I still think Dr. Lorenzo has a better overall aesthetic result because there is no linear scar. In my opinion cosmetically a good FUT result will never be on the same plane as a good FUE result, because they don't have freedom of hairstyles, I personally don't like hairstyles that involve having your hair on the side longer than a two guard. That's just my opinion though, hairstyles like Joe, Dr. Feller might be suitable for some guys but it's not a style I would ever want.


I’m a paid admin for Hair Transplant Network. I do not receive any compensation from any clinic. My comments are not medical advice.

Check out my final hair transplant and topical dutasteride journey

View my thread

Topical dutasteride journey 

Melvin- Managing Publisher and Forum Moderator for the Hair Transplant Network, the Coalition Hair Loss Learning Center, and the Hair Loss Q&A Blog.

Follow our Social Media: Facebook, Instagram, Linkedin, and YouTube.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
Once they get educated that hair loss is progressive and donor supply is finite - then hell yes, I would hope they do have that mindset. I think the issue becomes that FUE only surgeons don't explecitly state that FUE results in less lifetime grafts than strip FUT. I certainly wasn't offered up this information at any of my consultations until I specifically asked. I think you are under-estimating the number of higher NW patients walking into procedures who can't quite get the coverage they hope for due to limited grafts. It also gets murky where it seems that with the exception of H&W and a few other strip masters, you could probably get a higher number of grafts moved in a one FUE mega-procedure (over 2 days) than with strip in a single session where laxity plays a role resulting in the need to wait a year to go again. But once again, this is short-sighted. I'm actually surprized the lifetime donor supply factor isn't brought up more in this debate. If its unlikely that lifetime grafts won't keep you covered, then why wouldn't you fight for every last graft? Like I said before, if getting a linier scar gets me an addition couple of of thousand grafts over my lifetime, and keep my head covered for an extra 5 to 10 years - then hell yeah!

 

I do respect your difference of opinion though

 

Mav,

Lifetime grafts do not change from FUT to FUE, because there is no universal donor zone, the safe donor area varies from individual to individual, a Norwood 7 guy thins everywhere on his head, a guy who will die Norwood 3 will not thin on the upper occipital region considered not safe. If an FUE surgeon reviews the patients family history, age, donor density, there is no reason why an FUE would have less grafts than an FUT. The only time this would occur is if the patient is extreme bald, in which case the same would be true with FUT. Universal donor zones are not universal.


I’m a paid admin for Hair Transplant Network. I do not receive any compensation from any clinic. My comments are not medical advice.

Check out my final hair transplant and topical dutasteride journey

View my thread

Topical dutasteride journey 

Melvin- Managing Publisher and Forum Moderator for the Hair Transplant Network, the Coalition Hair Loss Learning Center, and the Hair Loss Q&A Blog.

Follow our Social Media: Facebook, Instagram, Linkedin, and YouTube.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Senior Member

Hi Bill,

 

With regards to the photo challenge;

 

I think Dr Bhatti is actually challenging Dr Feller to show whether his patients actually have the FUE scarring he talks about as if it is common occurrence. The fact that Dr Feller has to dig into his library pics to show an FUE scarred patient kind of invalidates his own argument.

 

Dr Feller talks of seeing many failed FUES previously in this thread, all Dr Bhatti is asking for is for Dr Feller to show the proof that these FUES have indeed left the moth eaten donor areas he emphatically talks about and for him to at least show some real-time evidence rather than constantly referring to his library pictures.

 

Surely if the FUE scarring is such an issue for Dr Feller, he will at least encounter this problem on a regular basis, is it not possible to post the patient pic alongside proof of the date to validate his argument and let is all see what the fuss is all over. I am not saying that FUE scars do not exist, they almost certainly do but are they common enough to make such a fuss over?

 

As for patients not coming into Dr Feller's office for FUE scar repairs: patients will not necessary come to Dr Feller for FUE scar repairs as Dr Feller clearly states. However they may be coming for FUT because FUE has not worked for them, surely Dr Feller can understand this as it is the concept he is championing throughout this thread. So, I personally would like to see pics of the FUE donor areas of patients who are now resorting to FUT.

 

I think the above comparisons are valid for this thread, after all the thread title is "FUT is more popular than FUE".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...