FUT is more popular than FUE

[Bill - Seemiller]

Mav,

 

Thanks for pointing out that one of the links on my website doesn't work. I'll see if I can find the link and fix it when I have a chance.

 

Thanks again,

 

Bill

[Dr Blake Bloxham]

Bill's mFUE questions:

 

1. Approximately how large are the mini-strips that are being harvested? How wide and how long?

 

It depends. Don't you love that answer? I never specified a size of the punch grafts we take with the elliptical punch because it's not round, so the only way to fairly compare it to a round punch would be to compute the surface area. I don't know if anyone here has ever tried to calculate the surface area of an ellipse -- I hadn't -- but it's not fun.

 

The circular punches range in size. Just like traditional FUE punches do. They are several millimeters in diameter. We are still trying different ones to find that "sweet spot" where we maximize grafts and minimize scarring. Dr Lindsey found his initially, but then he started experimenting with the elliptical punches more.

 

However, we are using round punches for the two larger mFUE procedures we have coming up.

 

2. How will these wounds be closed? Will sutures or staples be used?

 

Initially, we used staples and Dr Lindsey used sutures. What we found was that the scarring we got from the staple punctures was actually more significant that the mFUE scar, so we're going to use sutures for the time being. However, there are still numerous ways to close the sites and we will see what is best in time. For now, it seems like sutures.

 

3. How far apart will each mini-strip be taken from one another?

 

It depends on how many we take. They are still very small, so they really don't have to be very far apart. The beauty of the mFUE graft size, however, is that they will be more spread out which means less connection of subdermal scarring under the scalp. This is confluence of scar tissue is what causes issues during secondary procedures in traditional FUE procedures.

 

However, I think the absolutely minimum distance we would leave between each punch site would be the width of the punch IE: punch of X mm, then a space of X mm, then another punch of X mm.

 

4. Is there any formula or science to the strategic placement of the strips?

 

We're designing a grid to mark out the donor region. This will help us do several things: 1) place the punches appropriate distances apart; 2) designate the areas of virgin scalp we did not harvest from so we can use this during future procedures; 3) allow us to figure out EXACTLY how we will close the punch sites (vertical, horizontal, at a 45 degree angle, etc) so the scarring blends with the natural direction of the hairs and is minimized.

 

5. While a single linear scar is eliminated during mFUE, wouldn't a bunch of mini linear scars replace a single large one?

 

It's diffuse, non-linear scarring throughout the donor the same as we see in FUE. See below:

 

6. Do you have any photos to date that you can show of the donor area immediately after surgery and/or when it's completely healed/matured?

 

Yes:

 

Here is an example of the wounds closed right after

 

 

This comes from Dr Lindsey. Generally, the punches would be more spread out, but he was doing this for a specific reason in this case (scar repair via mFUE).

 

Here is an example of them healing:

 

 

And here are some matured results:

 

 

 

 

 

Skip to 3:19 in this video to see Dr Lindsey comb through the patient's post mFUE donor shaved to a 2:

 

 

Skip to 3:42 in this video to watch Dr. Lindsey remove an mFUE graft and discuss the procedure as he does so:

 

 

Another procedural mFUE video from Dr Lindsey:

 

 

Note: he's using the largest elliptical punch we considered in these videos.

Edited August 7, 2015 by DrBlakeBloxham

[Dr Blake Bloxham]

Tommy,

 

I agree. It wasn't my intent. mFUE was brought up by someone else and the thread kind of went off on a tangent. But there are already multiple threads dedicated specifically to mFUE, so I'll answer questions here but refrain from taking the thread off course.

[Bill - Seemiller]

Blake,

 

I find the videos very instructional and helpful which lead me to several more questions. However, so as to not take this topic too much further off course, I will wait to discuss them with you privately. Thanks again for sharing this and I look forward to see how it evolves over time.

 

Guys,

 

I apologize for taking the tread off course a bit, but since mFUE is another alternative to both strip and FUE, I don't think it's too far off topic to discuss this here. That said, we can bring the topic back to strip versus FUE.

 

All the Best,

 

Bill

[Dr Blake Bloxham]

Bill,

 

Before you go, I have one last question for you:

 

Earlier in this thread, you stated that the only advantage of the FUE technique over FUT is the lack of the linear scar.

 

So I must ask: What do you see as the disadvantage of a procedure that offers all the benefits of FUT, but removes, as many others have stated, it's only disadvantage: the linear scar?

 

This is the crux of what we're aiming for with mFUE. However, the technique is still very much in it's early phases and we are always looking for ways to improve. Anything you see as a potential disadvantage of "strip without the linear scar" would be helpful.

[Spanker]

Great video. My big concer in this is transection. Dr. L may be making it look really easy and there may be more to it, but it looks fairly blind. What's the percentage of transected grafts during the extraction phase in mFUE, FUE, and FUSS respectively at your clinic?

[Spanker]

FWIW, I have not ruled out mFUE for myself when/if I ever get stripped out. Its early on and am looking forward to seeing in depth results.

[chrisis]

Hi Blake,

 

Which I first consulted for my surgery back in 2012, I was told by Dr. Feller that I wasn't an FUE candidate. After much deliberation, I eventually opted for FUE surgery with Dr. Feriduni and I'm really happy I made that decision. One of the reasons I was so keen on FUE is because I like to keep the back and sides of my hair very short, as the "undercut" hairstyle is the most popular current hairstyle for men, e.g.

 

 

(this is pretty close to how I have my hair)

 

My question is, how close could you shave without these mFUE incisions being visible? In my case I can shave down to guard #1 and nobody can see any of the FUE scarring, not even my hairdresser who knows I've been for surgery. We always use a guard #1 in the donor region and it looks great.

 

My FUE was performed with a 0.85mm manual punch, so I'm curious, how would an mFUE extraction compare with these dimensions? As I'm sure you're aware, FUE doctors strive for a balance between minimising transection rates and visible scarring, so hole punch size is a very important consideration. This would apply to mFUE too, so if you can provide typical dimensions of an mFUE extraction, it would give us an idea about how the scarring would look, and whether a grade #1 undercut hairstyle would be possible with this technique.

[Bill - Seemiller]

Bill,

 

Before you go, I have one last question for you:

 

Earlier in this thread, you stated that the only advantage of the FUE technique over FUT is the lack of the linear scar.

 

So I must ask: What do you see as the disadvantage of a procedure that offers all the benefits of FUT, but removes, as many others have stated, it's only disadvantage: the linear scar?

 

This is the crux of what we're aiming for with mFUE. However, the technique is still very much in it's early phases and we are always looking for ways to improve. Anything you see as a potential disadvantage of "strip without the linear scar" would be helpful.

Blake,

 

You're not asking the right question. I, like everyone else, am still learning the details of this procedure and what it offers. Like others, I am wondering about transection rates, in particular to follicles on the outskirts of the graft; healing; how the scarring will appear when the donor area matures when hair is worn at extremely short lengths; etc.

 

My main concern however, is with the name of the procedure. Maybe that sounds trivial because at the end of the day, it's just a name. But like "scar5" said on the mFUE topic, the only real resemblance this procedure has to FUE is that a punch is used to harvest the follicles. In FUE, follicular units are harvested one by one. This is not the case here.

 

Instead, the punches appear to be producing what looks like large slit grafts, slot grafts or round grafts. See Dr. Ron Shapiro's article on "Understanding Hair Transplant Grafts and Terminology". After the larger graft is harvested, they are further broken down into follicular units under microscopes. As a result, I think the procedure deserves it's own unique name.

 

You know I like you and respect you a lot Blake. So I hope you can take my comments as constructive criticism and understand that I'm not trying to discredit or dismiss what you have to say. And while I am open to the viability and efficacy of this procedure and am intrigued as to how things will develop with time, I feel that "mFUE" is inadequately titled and deserves it's own unique name. But that's just my opinion :-).

 

But to answer your question, even though it's not really the correct one - I certainly see no disadvantages to a procedure that produces the yield of strip while minimizing the appearance of scarring like FUE on a consistent basis if that's indeed what this procedure offers. Of course, that is yet to be determined and believe me, I hope it does. I just think it should be named more appropriately :-).

 

Bill

[Dr Blake Bloxham]

Spanker,

 

Transection was something we worked on extensively. Initially, we saw higher rates of transection when utilizing the smallest punches. We eventually went up incrementally with the circular punches until we found one that was large enough to do a few things: 1) help us isolate boarders void of follicles 2) help us use the size of the sharpened punch to act like a blade in the tissue -- meaning that it creates a pressure wave in the fluid-like sub-epidermal tissues that moves follicles aside the same way a blade does during strip extraction.

 

This was before we started experimenting with the elliptical punches that truly create the "pressure wave" effect I described above because they were rocked back and forth and not twisted or rotated.

 

As far as the actual transection rates go, I don't have solid numbers yet. I do feel confident saying a few things: 1) transection will always be the least with strip. The visualization is just perfect. You can literally cut around individual follicles. Beautiful! 2) There is still the potential for some slight transection with mFUE, BUT remember that it can only be around the perimeter of the punch. All the grafts in the middle cannot be transected. And we've worked to get the transection with mFUE quite low, and still have tricks up our sleeve to reduce it further -- IE using saline tumescence to help move any follicles around the perimeter out of the way. 3) Transection with FUE will be much higher, and the risk of transection is applied to each individual graft every time you punch.

Edited August 7, 2015 by DrBlakeBloxham

[Dr Blake Bloxham]

Hey Bill,

 

Great points. And, again, I hope you didn't come off antagonistic or defensive either. I'm actually always happy to have the opportunity to talk about the technique. It seems like you actually brought up some points that required clarification. Clearly other members were wondering the same, so I need to clear this up. I'll keep answering the questions and updating you guys.

 

And I do apologize if anything I said came off rude, defensive, etc. It wasn't my intent. Often times it's easy to over analyze or over interpret things written on the forums. I think I did that here, and it was my mistake.

 

Back to your new questions ...

 

We could always change the name, but I feel like it's started to be integrated into the lexicon now, so that ship may have sailed! Haha.

 

I still do feel like it's the best way to describe what we do. Maybe telling the origin story will help shed further light:

 

This procedure was first tried by Dr Feller several years ago. He had a "stripped out" patient who either had FUE in the past and was looking for more or was coming in for some FUE touch up work. Regardless, the guy's scalp was particularly fibrotic and it seemed like he may not be a candidate for FUE. Those of you who know Dr Feller may know he's an inventor and engineer, so he wanted to figure out a way to address this problem. He knew this patient had follicles available to "steal" that couldn't be reached by a strip. But his scalp was too fibrotic for a good FUE yield. So he decided to try a larger punch (circular in this case) and then just close up the defect left behind. He tried it, and it worked! The guy grew well and he thought he found a new technique to extract additional grafts in stripped out patients.

 

Then he had another thought: what would happen if we tried this in virgin scalp? The reason why it worked in the fibrotic scalp was because it overcame the forces FUE was placing on these weak, anchored grafts. So he talked to Dr Lindsey about it and they started trying it out. I jumped on board and added a few things, and the rest, I guess, is history.

 

Because Dr Feller had tried the mini-strip method before -- where he literally did take out multiple small strips with a scalpel like normal -- and it just didn't heal right, this new approach felt very different than a "mini strip" procedure. Because it was technically a spin on the FUE he was trying to go on that guy, "modified FUE" just kind of stuck.

 

But, again, we're always open to ideas. What other names do you guys think may work?

[Spanker]

That's great you are working on the transection rate. I'd be very interesting to get the real numbers and I know, like with FUE that it will vary on the pt. This brings up a good point. I would then say that the yield of mFUE is not quite that FUSS. Here is why: when I consider yield, it is what is percentage of grafts is pulled from the donor and then lives and grows in the recipient. This has been a long time fue concern of mine, and that is, what is the yield of extracted grafts, NOT planted grafts. I consider capped and damaged grafts that may not me implanted to go against the yield rate, and I'm not sure everyone thinks that way.

[Melvin- Admin]

From hearing the name I'd assume mechanical follicular unit extraction, makes me think of something like artas.

[Dr Blake Bloxham]

Spanker,

 

"Yield" with FUE is a very tricky subject. Many people assume that 100% - transection rate = yield. So, if a surgeon says they have a 10% transection rate with FUE, they must have a 90% growth rate or yield. Like you said, this isn't the case. Yield is how many of the grafts you implanted that actually grew. You may remove an FUE graft without transection, but it could be crushed, internally twisted, or too skeletonized to survive, and this isn't going to grow. This also doesn't take sites scored versus grafts successfully delivered into account, but I digress.

 

It's honestly difficult for me to say assertively that yield with be 100% equal to strip. Is there potential for some additional transection along the outside of the mFUE punch graft? Yes. How much? I'm not sure yet, BUT I do think it's minimal based on what I've seen and mFUE yield and strip yield will be very, very, very comparable.

 

We did work on a lot of these issues before. Particularly transection because it did occur with the slightly smaller punches we were using before. We seem to have found a "sweet spot" with the sizes, and the elliptical punch really, really eliminates it. But there are other theoretical benefits to using the circular to the elliptical, so we will likely tailor the shape and size of the punch to the patient much like we do with standard FUE punches.

 

It seems like I may have not covered some of the info in my initial mFUE thread, however. Maybe I should make a new one to address this stuff and field other questions?

[Spanker]

Hey Bill,

 

Great points. And, again, I hope you didn't come off antagonistic or defensive either. I'm actually always happy to have the opportunity to talk about the technique. It seems like you actually brought up some points that required clarification. Clearly other members were wondering the same, so I need to clear this up. I'll keep answering the questions and updating you guys.

 

And I do apologize if anything I said came off rude, defensive, etc. It wasn't my intent. Often times it's easy to over analyze or over interpret things written on the forums. I think I did that here, and it was my mistake.

 

Back to your new questions ...

 

We could always change the name, but I feel like it's started to be integrated into the lexicon now, so that ship may have sailed! Haha.

 

I still do feel like it's the best way to describe what we do. Maybe telling the origin story will help shed further light:

 

This procedure was first tried by Dr Feller several years ago. He had a "stripped out" patient who either had FUE in the past and was looking for more or was coming in for some FUE touch up work. Regardless, the guy's scalp was particularly fibrotic and it seemed like he may not be a candidate for FUE. Those of you who know Dr Feller may know he's an inventor and engineer, so he wanted to figure out a way to address this problem. He knew this patient had follicles available to "steal" that couldn't be reached by a strip. But his scalp was too fibrotic for a good FUE yield. So he decided to try a larger punch (circular in this case) and then just close up the defect left behind. He tried it, and it worked! The guy grew well and he thought he found a new technique to extract additional grafts in stripped out patients.

 

Then he had another thought: what would happen if we tried this in virgin scalp? The reason why it worked in the fibrotic scalp was because it overcame the forces FUE was placing on these weak, anchored grafts. So he talked to Dr Lindsey about it and they started trying it out. I jumped on board and added a few things, and the rest, I guess, is history.

 

Because Dr Feller had tried the mini-strip method before -- where he literally did take out multiple small strips with a scalpel like normal -- and it just didn't heal right, this new approach felt very different than a "mini strip" procedure. Because it was technically a spin on the FUE he was trying to go on that guy, "modified FUE" just kind of stuck.

 

But, again, we're always open to ideas. What other names do you guys think may work?

 

PSE! Come on man. I want my claim to game to be coining a term. You can pay me back in 20 years by doing the procedure on me at a comped price. :-P

[wazaam]

"My main concern however, is with the name of the procedure. Maybe that sounds trivial because at the end of the day, it's just a name. But like "scar5" said on the mFUE topic, the only real resemblance this procedure has to FUE is that a punch is used to harvest the follicles. In FUE, follicular units are harvested one by one. This is not the case here."

Bill this is a great point as many have stated MFUT makes more sense. I think this is a strategic marketing as the clinic like many others in the industry are well aware of the popularity of FUE at this juncture.

 

 

Dr Feller & Dr Bloxham I have several questions (requests) that I would like you to respond to. I have asked previously and they have all been ignored.

 

1. What is the surgical protocol for FUE at Feller/Bloxham

Extractions carried out by;

Extraction Device;

Incisions;

Implantation;

Avg Number of grafts placed in patient per day;

 

2. Please describe the surgical protocol at the clinic for mFUE (anticipated if more applicable).

 

3. Please post some FUE results from Dr Feller. It was suggested that Dr. Feller carries out 70-80 FUE case per year but I haven't been able to locate any. Please include some larger FUE results 2000-4000 graft cases. If you could just post to this thread that would make it convenient for the many followers.

 

4. What is the pricing structure for mFUE?

 

5. I find it very disconcerting that the patient rep for the clinic Spex clearly disagrees with Dr. Feller's assessment of FUE yield. Dr Feller your response was something along the lines that you don't think much of it?

 

If you could please elaborate on this please. I would think the patient rep and the doctor being represented would share comparable views on the topic.

 

 

This is as been a very informative thread. My hopes are that Dr Bhatti & Dr Feller continue to contribute and educate prospective patients.

[HairLostYears]

Dr. Feller totally nailed it for me. It's not the scar that's so off-putting to me about strip, it's the procedure itself.

 

I first saw anything about hair transplantation when an ex was watching Jon and Kate and Jon got a free strip done somewhere. After the cut, the surgeon then showed him what had just been excised from the back of his head.

 

Ughhh.

 

It seemed akin to Native Americans stringing up strips of buffalo meat to hang in the sun to dry. I don't want any jerky torn from the back of my head even once, much less to be "stripped out" of it!

[Dr Tejinder Bhatti]

Dr. Bhatti,

 

Thanks for chiming in with your initial thoughts. I hope this will be the beginning of an intellectual discussion and debate that is both educational and respectful. In your opinion, how have you either overcome or been able to work around the extraneous forces that Dr. Feller stated are placed on the follicle during the harvesting process. What improvements to the FUE technique do you feel have been made over the last 5 to 10 years or since its inception? What do you feel is the success rate versus the failure rate of FUE in your hands at your clinic? I think answering these questions will provide a good starting point for debate and discussion.

 

I look forward to your response.

 

Bill

 

Torsion- Torsion was a significant force on the FUE grafts till better instruments came in and surgeons practising FUE became more skilled at minimally invasive FUE harvest. Torsion can be prevented by controlling the speed of the punch as it enters the skin, using the dull punch and by properly centered cutting edge with minimal wobble. The Safe Scribe and the Harris punches have minimised this force in my practice. However there is an occasional graft that undergoes torsion and this happens when we go deeper than half the length of the follicle (more than 2-2.5mm below the skin). . It is just a feeling of “give” when the skin is breached and it can be appreciated after you have done several FUE cases. If we go further deep, the graft undergoes torsion akin to being wringed squeezed and mangled. Such a graft shall not grow. 2-2.5 mm minimal depth FUE incisions is why we call the technique as minimal invasive. On the contrary, in FUT, the knife has to reach just beneath the level of the roots (5-6 mm and more) always and everytime.

 

Traction- Follicles pop out effortlessly while harvesting and are gathered with special FUE harvesting forceps which are gentler due to special serrations which do not crush the bulge of the follicle when it is held. Furthermore, the “2-hand grasp technique” distributes the forces on the follicle while extracting. Theoretically it is agreed that more traction is exerted on the FUE follicle but as long as the graft grows where is the problem!

 

Skeletonisation- Yes the graft has less amount of surrounding bulk but since the bulge and stem cells are intact, it is unfair, discriminatory and derogatory to call our fashionable grafts “skeletonised”. I seek permission to call it “SIZE 0” (VANITY SIZE). Why have the extra fat when you don’t need it! However, there is no evidence that bulky grafts survive better if both are stored in ideal conditions and have an out of body time of lesser than 4-5 hours. In fact the more thin the graft, the more density can be achieved in the recipient area per sq cm which is an added advantage of FUE.

 

Compression- This is specific to the use of implanter pens and I do not have a lot of experience with this placement technique.

[Dr Tejinder Bhatti]

Dr. Bhatti,

 

Thanks for chiming in with your initial thoughts. I hope this will be the beginning of an intellectual discussion and debate that is both educational and respectful. In your opinion, how have you either overcome or been able to work around the extraneous forces that Dr. Feller stated are placed on the follicle during the harvesting process. What improvements to the FUE technique do you feel have been made over the last 5 to 10 years or since its inception? What do you feel is the success rate versus the failure rate of FUE in your hands at your clinic? I think answering these questions will provide a good starting point for debate and discussion.

 

I look forward to your response.

 

Bill

The advances have been in skill, philosophy and technique:

 

1. Punches that are customised to the case- dull, sharp.

2. Finer punches aerodynamically designed of sizes 0.75-0.95 mm.

3. Efficient motorised harvesting systems- Jim Harris' Safe Scribe, etc.

4. Realisation of the importance of magnification- 4.5-6.0 x

5. Wisdom of harvesting zone- the safe zone, density of harvest, etc.

6. Collective skill development amongst the FUE community leading to ability to do megasessions.

7. Better Understanding of limitations of use vis-a vis FUT.

8. Better Understanding of extraordinary benefits over its sister harvesting technique.

9. ARTAS.

10. Its emergence as a solid standalone technique.

[Dr Tejinder Bhatti]

Dr. Bhatti,

 

Thanks for chiming in with your initial thoughts. I hope this will be the beginning of an intellectual discussion and debate that is both educational and respectful. In your opinion, how have you either overcome or been able to work around the extraneous forces that Dr. Feller stated are placed on the follicle during the harvesting process. What improvements to the FUE technique do you feel have been made over the last 5 to 10 years or since its inception? What do you feel is the success rate versus the failure rate of FUE in your hands at your clinic? I think answering these questions will provide a good starting point for debate and discussion.

 

I look forward to your response.

 

Bill

 

A case that will fail happens only if the case has not been selected properly. Otherwise over 95% patients are happy with their FUE result at my clinic. Towards achieving this level of satisfaction we do rigorous counseling and almost 50% patients seeking the procedure are not found fit for the hair transplant and counseled accordingly.

 

The following are the Red Flags-

 

1. Extensive balding coupled with a less than satisfactory donor region- scalp, body.

2. Body dysmorphia

3. Young age group

4. Irrational objectives

5. Uncontrolled diabetes

6. Afro-textured hair with severe hooking of the root.

 

1-5 are the same as any FUT surgeon would keep in mind too.

[irishsailor]

But, again, we're always open to ideas. What other names do you guys think may work?

 

Hi Dr bloxham. I'm not sure why so many people have a problem with the name. Like with the battle of FUE vs Strip, I don't think your going to put a smile on everyone's face regardless of what you call the procedure.

 

At the end of the day it's 'middle of the road FUT. it's a combo of the best of both techniques.

 

'MORFUT'

 

Check in the post please:D

[Dr. Alan Feller]

Dr. Bhatti,

First I want to thank you for engaging in this discussion. You are the very first and only to do so to date. So your participation is noted and appreciated.

 

I want to get into the points you made in your previous posts. But I want to proceed step by step so that these posts don't become ridiculously long and filled with multiple topics. I want to focus our discussion if that is ok with you.

 

I read your comments and would like to ask you simply:

 

Are you agreeing that the three detrimental forces of FUE (Torsion, Traction, Compression) exist in your opinion and are present during each of your FUE procedures?

 

Thank you.

Dr. Feller

[tommygun]

I hope this does not digress further into a word "gotcha" game. I've always found that is the sign of a weak debate.

 

As a lay person, I would like to thank Dr Batti and Dr Feller for engaging and providing great information based upon their experience. This topic is awesome.

[adonix]

Dr. Bhatti,

First I want to thank you for engaging in this discussion. You are the very first and only to do so to date. So your participation is noted and appreciated.

 

I want to get into the points you made in your previous posts. But I want to proceed step by step so that these posts don't become ridiculously long and filled with multiple topics. I want to focus our discussion if that is ok with you.

 

I read your comments and would like to ask you simply:

 

Are you agreeing that the three detrimental forces of FUE (Torsion, Traction, Compression) exist in your opinion and are present during each of your FUE procedures?

 

Thank you.

Dr. Feller

 

Dr. Feller, I think dr. Bhatti already answered that question in his previous post. The forces are not detrimental in hands of qualified and experienced surgeons.

 

Lets be fair here, I saw many of your results, and I saw many of dr. Bhatti's results, and I do not see much difference in yield, coverage, etc.

 

Only difference is that you limit your procedures to <2,500 grafts per surgery, while dr. Bhatti does cases of >3,000 grafts regularly.

 

Cheers

[mav23100gunther]

Dr. Feller, I think dr. Bhatti already answered that question in his previous post. The forces are not detrimental in hands of qualified and experienced surgeons.

 

Lets be fair here, I saw many of your results, and I saw many of dr. Bhatti's results, and I do not see much difference in yield, coverage, etc.

 

Only difference is that you limit your procedures to <2,500 grafts per surgery, while dr. Bhatti does cases of >3,000 grafts regularly.

 

Cheers

 

 

Honestly, although I appriciate this input, I feel Dr Bhatti has danced around the claims made by Dr Feller, and hasn't really refuted much of anything, specifically disproving the theory that besides the linier scar, FUT is a better procedure than FUE. Still awaiting Dr Bhatti's view on lifetime donar supply, yield, and cherry picking of grafts of FUE as compared to FUT. He also hasn't explicitly stated that he has successfully overcome the three forces. No disrespect to the doctor, but in my opinion he is dancing around the topic rather than addressing it head-on. Sort of like our dear politicians do.