Senior Member darlinglocks Posted August 16, 2015 Senior Member Share Posted August 16, 2015 When someone puts a video on this forum confirming Dr. Bhatti's vue, it is removed! When someone speaks highly of his experience with Dr. Bhatti it is criticised or you are named a "Shill" When someone puts a comment in a private chat to Dr. Bhatti, it is read and removed! Seriously a problem with the freedom of speech and a serious breach of privacy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Senior Member Dr Tejinder Bhatti Posted August 16, 2015 Senior Member Share Posted August 16, 2015 With respect Dr. Bhatti, please publish your results in a peer reviewed blinded study. If you did so, it would be groundbreaking. Showing a video of your surgery or individually selected patients does not constitute evidence. To clarify, the "truth" I speak of that is staring us in the face is the hand of Dr. Feller and his unusually long and unbalanced FUE punch extension, which, consequently does not appear to be in use by any FUE practioner that I know of nor have I heard of it either. But the real truth that you and the other respected readers should consider is the result that is achieved on a consistent basis by top FUE physicians. The argument being presented here by Dr. Feller is entirely academic, if that, and amounts to nothing more than the opinion of one doctor with zero evidence to support, much less prove, his assertions. This is the fact, not the lone opinions he presents. I cannot stress enough that in science and medicine claims must be reinforced by the scientific method. If the claims being made here were presented in a proper medical venue as they have been in these 70 plus pages of drivel Dr. Feller would have been shown the door for lack of evidence, not to mention misconduct. But this is a forum "for and by patients" but in reality it is also a marketing vehicle in which claims do not necessarily need to be so scrutinized as validation tends to come in the form of anonymous approval and is not subject to proper medical and scientific inspection. In medicine, debates are not won by determining who is the loudest and wittiest, it is determined by a centuries old investigative ethic that starts with an idea and is supported by repeated observation and logical deduction. That is the truth and is why video and photos are so supportive of this process. The video I presented was not a 'cherry picked' production. As Bill requested it was made in direct response just two days ago. My photos, as numerous as they are, are no more selective than any other clinic and I feel honored to have any photos at all as it only indicates patient satisfaction. However, in addition to my own photos there are plenty of those offered by my patients independently of what is found on my website and that is the ulimate compliment, not to mention validation, of what I and my wonderful team accomplish on a regular basis. I could scream, bully and kick about this for 70 plus pages but I'd rather just show the evidence. For instance- 3750 grafts. Patient recently posted a 2.5 year post-op update http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/169005-hair-restoration-procedure-w-dr-tejinder-bhatti.html ................................................................................................... 1821 grafts. 4 months post-op http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/178929-1821-grafts-%7C-dr-tejinder-bhatti-%7C-march-23rd-2015-a-3.html .................................................................................................... 2412 grafts for David (HRN Moderator). 5 months post-op update http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/178637-dr-tejinder-bhatti-2412-fue-february-23-2015-a.html ....................................................................................................... 3305 grafts. 7 months pos-op http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/178931-my-fue-dr-tejinder-bhatti-oct-2014-a-11.html ............................................................................................................. 2640 grafts. 4 months post-op http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/178898-dr-bhatti-20-year-old-patient-2640-grafts-4.html ....................................................................................................... 2560 grafts for a female Patient. 1 year post-op http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/180338-dr-bhatti-2560-fue-grafts-female-patient.html ............................................................................................................ 1854 grafts. 5 months post-op http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/178723-my-hair-transplant-dr-tejinder-bhatti-1854-grafts-fue-february-24-2015-a-3.html ..................................................................................... 2364 grafts. 16 month post-op update Hair Restoration Websites ............................................................................................. 3567 grafts. 8 months post-op http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/180047-dr-bhatti-3567-fue-grafts.html ................................................................................................. 2712 grafts. 10 months post-op http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/179986-2712-fue-dr-tejinder-bhatti-10-months-update.html ............................................................................................................... 4000 grafts. 15 months post-op http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/167897-hair-transplant-dr-tejinder-bhatti-darling-buds-chandigarh-india.html ............................................................................................................. 3678 grafts. 1 year post-op http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/178911-dr-bhatti-3678-fue-grafts-single-session.html ........................................................................................................ 2812 grafts. 10 months post-op http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/178924-dr-bhatti-2810-fue-grafts-define-hairline.html ............................................................................................................. 3700 grafts. 2 years post-op http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/178355-dr-bhatti-3700-fue-grafts-restore-hairline-crown-area.html ................................................................................................... 2883 grafts. 2 year post-op http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/178372-dr-bhatti-2883-fue-grafts-indian-celebrity-patient.html ....................................................................................................... 1766 grafts. 7.5 months post-op http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/178268-dr-bhatti-1766-fue-grafts-restore-hairline.html ................................................................................................................... 2453 grafts. 6 months post-op http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/176579-dr-bhatti-2453-grafts-traction-alopecia-patient.html ................................................................................................................... 2472 grafts. 11 months post-op http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/177612-dr-bhatti-2472-fue-grafts-type-3-patient.html .............................................................................................................. 2432 grafts. 6 months post-op http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/175802-my-hair-transplant-2432-fue-grafts-done-dr-tejinder-bhatti-5.html ........................................................................................................ 1106 grafts http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/177597-dr-bhatti-1106-fue-grafts-hairline-definition-temple-point-restoration.html ........................................................................................................... 3420 grafts. 6 months post-op http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/175073-dr-bhatti-3420-grafts-2.html ................................................................................................................... 876 grafts. 15 monhths post-op http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/177260-dr-bhatti-876-fue-grafts-restore-hairline.html ............................................................................................................... 1394 grafts. 9.5 months post-op http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/177038-9-5months-update-dr-bhatti-i-am-happy.html ................................................................................................... 3000 grafts. 8 months post-op http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/176934-dr-bhatti-3000-fue-grafts-single-session.html ........................................................................................................ 800 grafts. 8 months post-op http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/176081-dr-bhatti-800-fue-grafts-burn-patient.html ........................................................................................................... 2675 grafts. 10 months post-op http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/176578-dr-bhatti-2675-grafts-type-3-patient.html ............................................................................................................... 2304 grafts. 4 months post-pp http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/174644-2304-grafts-fue-dr-bhatti.html ......................................................................................................... 4346 grafts. 12 months post-op http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/170853-4346-fue-grafts-dr-bhatti-india.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Senior Member Sethticles Posted August 16, 2015 Senior Member Share Posted August 16, 2015 When someone speaks highly of his experience with Dr. Bhatti it is criticised or you are named a "Shill" you forgot to mention - overzealous, peanut, angry, depressed, a person who attacks, and finally if someone speaks highly of his experience with Dr Bhatti - he is investigated, Dr Bhatti you are a gentleman, a professional and a kind outstanding surgeon. June 2013 - 3000 FUE Dr Bhatti Oct 2013 - 1000 FUE Dr Bhatti Oct 2015 - 785 FUE Dr Bhatti Dr. Bhatti's Recommendation Profile on the Hair Transplant Network My story and photos can be seen here http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/Sethticles/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Senior Member hairshopeing Posted August 16, 2015 Senior Member Share Posted August 16, 2015 Everyone should check out the thread updated today best fue surgeons on that thread page 2 there is a link to Dr kesser check out his results via fue, that's right results! !! Seems the 3 forces which stop fue growth aren't so evident here! If that's not strip like yield or better I don't know what is! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Senior Member hairshopeing Posted August 16, 2015 Senior Member Share Posted August 16, 2015 http://bellicapelli.forumfree.it/?f=7790178 Check out this link, what do you think Dr feller? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Senior Member darlinglocks Posted August 16, 2015 Senior Member Share Posted August 16, 2015 (edited) You are 100% correct Sethticles! Thank you for mentioning the rest Dr Bhatti you are a gentleman, a professional and a kind outstanding surgeon. I totally agree. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise! Edited August 16, 2015 by darlinglocks Spelling mistake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Senior Member FUE2014 Posted August 16, 2015 Senior Member Share Posted August 16, 2015 Here is a post from 2012 from another hair loss site from Dr Feriduni's clinic re FUE yields... Out of my personal experience, we don't see any difference in yield between FUE and FUT in cases up to 2000 FU. In some FUE cases, we even sometimes get a higher yield because of the "cherry picking" of the double and triple units. In FUT we have a high number of follicular units available per session, within FUE we are limited to an amount of 3000-3500 per session. The next image shows our personal indication in selecting patients for FUE treatments. ImageShack - FHC - dia 6.jpg Please accept my sincere apologies in the delay of my response. Kindest regards, Cristian --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Medical & Patient Service Manager at the Dr. Feriduni Hair Clinic All opinions expressed on this forum are my own, all medical specifications will be discussed with Dr. Feriduni before posting. Feel free to ask me any questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Senior Member Dr Tejinder Bhatti Posted August 16, 2015 Senior Member Share Posted August 16, 2015 Here is a post from 2012 from another hair loss site from Dr Feriduni's clinic re FUE yields... Out of my personal experience, we don't see any difference in yield between FUE and FUT in cases up to 2000 FU. In some FUE cases, we even sometimes get a higher yield because of the "cherry picking" of the double and triple units. In FUT we have a high number of follicular units available per session, within FUE we are limited to an amount of 3000-3500 per session. The next image shows our personal indication in selecting patients for FUE treatments. ImageShack - FHC - dia 6.jpg Please accept my sincere apologies in the delay of my response. Kindest regards, Cristian --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Medical & Patient Service Manager at the Dr. Feriduni Hair Clinic All opinions expressed on this forum are my own, all medical specifications will be discussed with Dr. Feriduni before posting. Feel free to ask me any questions. Ofcourse, Dr Feriduni is a great FUE surgeon. But more importantly, a gentleman and a good human being. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Senior Member hairshopeing Posted August 16, 2015 Senior Member Share Posted August 16, 2015 I agree Dr feriduni is a top fue surgeon and one of the nicest people I have met!! A real gentleman and a man of his word!! That's why he's booked sooooooo far in advance!! Great strip surgeon too!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Senior Member Dr Tejinder Bhatti Posted August 16, 2015 Senior Member Share Posted August 16, 2015 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. Spanker, 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. " The Beehner study was focusing on skinny vs. chubby grafts for implantation with the focus being from FUSS. FUE was not a factor in this study so while one may make "assumptions" it is better to have actual involvement of the procedure you wish to critique rather than draw conclusions from an unrelated study. Writing in a text book versus viewing quantifiable results with one's own eyes is hardly the preferred method of observational science, which is what hair restoration is all about. Had you been at the 2013 conference in San Francisco you would have learned about the patient described by Dr. Limmer. One half of his patient's scalp was addressed via FUSS, the other side via FUE. The point of the discussion was to showcase the first, and to that time, the only side by side direct comparison of methods on the same patient by the same hand. The results favored the side that was addressed via FUE. The result was fuller, had stronger visible density and coverage than that of the side that received the FUSS procedure. To say that such an experiment would be invalid due to the high degree of variance "from inch to inch on the scalp in the same person" discredits every successful hair transplant result on the planet. If we are to believe such a variance exists, to the degree that it would affect any final outcome, then it is indicating that the theory of donor dominance is rubbish and that the recipient sites overwhelmingly influence the result, not the viability of the donor hair being transplanted. Your methodology is of extreme suspect. Best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Senior Member Britanium Posted August 16, 2015 Senior Member Share Posted August 16, 2015 Dr Bhatti I'm curious to know what you think typical yield is with BHT? I guess its lower than what can be expected of FUE and FUT but how much lower can be expected.? I may just have been lucky but I got a very good yield with both my FUT and FUE results at a guess I would say 95% each time. And I had a different dr too. I like the fact you can get stripped out on FUT and move on to FUE that's just what I done. Which now leaves me with BHT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Senior Member voxman Posted August 16, 2015 Senior Member Share Posted August 16, 2015 This thread would so be over if someone just called up every HT surgeon in the world tomorrow afternoon. If every doctor who performed a hair transplant surgery tomorrow were to check in on this forum and tell us what HT surgery they performed on that particular day you would find 99.9% would be FUT, not FUE. I'm serious. Just look at my face. My Hair Regimen: Lather, Rinse, Repeat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Blake Bloxham Posted August 16, 2015 Share Posted August 16, 2015 John, I'm not sure if you saw it, but I pulled a few BHT facts out of the most recent edition of the text. Here's an earlier post I made explaining: Thanks for sharing! You actually inspired me to go to the Unger hair transplantation text to get some exact percentages on body hair transplant success rates. The authors admit that studies investigating BHT are limited, but they do share a few interesting things: -Leg hair grafts yield the poorest growth results. As the density of transplanted leg hair on the scalp increased (from 24 leg hair follicles/square cm to 49 follicles/cm^2) yield decreased from 38% to an abysmal 4%. -The studies looking at back, chest, and beard were very, very small -- less than 200 FUGs examined altogether. -Based on the data, however, similar results were seen: the higher density the grafts were implanted and the larger number harvested, the lower the yield. -Technically, chest hair grafts had the highest yield in the study. But the size of grafts they looked at was too small -- in my opinion -- to really form an opinion (28 FUGs) -Beard grafts had a 63% growth rate and back hair grafts had a 47% growth rate -The authors note that the follicles did retain their donor characteristics -- with respect to cycling and hair shaft size/description -They also note that the most common complication was scarring in the donor extraction sites You also brought up the "food for thought" comment about patients who would otherwise have no other options without BHT. This absolutely does give them a shot, but allow me to play devil's advocate for a moment: Let's say you have a patient with poor donor and ample body hair supply. You are able to transplant 1,000 grafts from the scalp and 1,000 from the beard, axilla, and legs. Using some ROUGH estimates from the numbers I quoted earlier, let's say you got and average yield of 49%. (mean of 47% for back, 63% for beard, and 38% for leg hair -- which is the highest yield the authors noted for leg hair). You're now seeing slightly less than 500 of these BHT follicles growing. Now, the cosmetic difference 500 grafts would make in the scalp would probably be mediocre at best. Now, this wouldn't be that big of a deal IF it didn't expose the patient to scarring in the extraction zones. If he -- especially if he has darker-toned skin -- experienced decent subdermal fibrotic or superficial hypopigmented scarring in his face, chest, and legs, was the coverage obtained from the 500 graft yield worth it? So, again, this would be playing "devil's advocate" but it's all important discussion when considering BHT in a patient. Long story short, you're risking scarring in very prominent areas of the body (IE the face/chin/neck) for yields 30-45% that seem to decrease as density increases. Also remember that these grafts retain their native characteristics. Beard follicles cycle and grow like beard follicles in the scalp; chest like chest; et cetera. This is why I don't think BHT is realistic option for the vast majority of patients. Dr. Blake Bloxham is recommended by the Hair Transplant Network. Hair restoration physician - Feller and Bloxham Hair Transplantation Previously "Future_HT_Doc" or "Blake_Bloxham" - forum co-moderator and editorial assistant for the Hair Transplant Network, Hair Restoration Network, Hair Loss Q&A blog, and Hair Loss Learning Center. Click here to read my previous answers to hair loss and hair restoration questions, editorials, commentaries, and educational articles. Now practicing hair transplant surgery with Coalition hair restoration physician Dr Alan Feller at our New York practice: Feller and Bloxham Hair Transplantation. Please note: my advice does not constitute as medical advice. All medical questions and concerns should be addressed by a personal physician. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Senior Member 1978matt Posted August 16, 2015 Senior Member Share Posted August 16, 2015 Dr Feller, I've noticed that some of the better FUE surgeons often transplant higher numbers of hairs per graft, for example 2.4-2.6 FUE whereas similar FUT seems to average 1.8-2.2. I wondered whether this might be a 'trick' that is used to compensate for a proportion of hairs that do not grow? I think this could be a reason why FUE appears 'consistent' on the forums. Sometimes you see unnecessarily high density results where everything came together. Regards Matt 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 More sharing options...
Senior Member newbie33 Posted August 16, 2015 Senior Member Share Posted August 16, 2015 This thread would so be over if someone just called up every HT surgeon in the world tomorrow afternoon. I've got a pretty good phone tariff, Voxman. So if you could just get me their numbers... Dr Bhatti, apologies if I've already missed this answer. But, on average, what yield do you think a) your FUE results achieve b) the 'best' FUE surgeons achieve, and, if you wish, c) the best strip surgeons achieve? A couple of years ago I had a consultation with Dr Feriduni. I was too stupid to have a set of written questions and note the answers, but I seem to recall he said something along the lines that his FUE yield results were similar to strip - though he seemed also to infer it might be slightly lower with FUE. Cristian (FUE2014) - out of curiosity, have you had a HT? If so, is it documented anywhere? It's all here: http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/181125-ive-read-entire-forum-so-you-dont-have.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Blake Bloxham Posted August 16, 2015 Share Posted August 16, 2015 Results of Dr Beehner's Study: Just for the sake of disclosure, I wanted to share the results of the Dr Beehner study: Dr Beehner's study, which looked at survival rates of skeletonized (IE FUE) versus "chubby" (IE non-FUE) grafts, found the following: Survival of skeletonized multi-haired FUGs was 68.7% at the 19th month mark. In comparison, "chubby" multi-haired grafts had an 88% survival rate. Survival of skeletonized single hair FUGs was 48% at 19 months. Survival of "chubby" singles was 98%. Averages (this is me doing the analysis here): Skeletonized graft survival: 58.35% "Chubby" graft survival: 93% Dr. Blake Bloxham is recommended by the Hair Transplant Network. Hair restoration physician - Feller and Bloxham Hair Transplantation Previously "Future_HT_Doc" or "Blake_Bloxham" - forum co-moderator and editorial assistant for the Hair Transplant Network, Hair Restoration Network, Hair Loss Q&A blog, and Hair Loss Learning Center. Click here to read my previous answers to hair loss and hair restoration questions, editorials, commentaries, and educational articles. Now practicing hair transplant surgery with Coalition hair restoration physician Dr Alan Feller at our New York practice: Feller and Bloxham Hair Transplantation. Please note: my advice does not constitute as medical advice. All medical questions and concerns should be addressed by a personal physician. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Senior Member Britanium Posted August 16, 2015 Senior Member Share Posted August 16, 2015 Thank you Blake for the BHT information. It would seem beard grafts are the best to use. Even then the yield is low compared to FUT and FUE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Alan Feller Posted August 16, 2015 Author Share Posted August 16, 2015 (edited) I gave Dr. Bhatti multiple chances to debate me on specific points of the FUE procedure and he refused to engage; choosing instead to answer my questions with three of his own that were unrelated and off topic to distract from not answering my questions directly. Then he officially resigned the debate. Understandable since he was in an untenable position. But quitting never looks good so he thought putting up a video of how he performs his FUE procedure would impress the public and somehow demonstrate that grafts are indeed not subjected to more damage during FUE. But it backfired. He underestimated how much the lay public could see for themselves. What he really demonstrated was a procedure that is clearly not only more injurious than FUT, but far more injurious than even the standard FUE that I and other practitioners perform. And why is this so? Well for one obvious reason at least: SPEED. What is going on in that video is not a debatable issue. It is prima facia proof of what I have been saying on this thread, and even this site, for 14 years about the FUE procedure in general. FUE grafts are twisted, squeezed, pulled and even yanked violently during the FUE procedure; whereas none of this trauma is visited on any FUT graft. But he already posted his video to some hideous reviews and can't take it down. Notice not a single complimentary comment from anyone- including his vocal supporters, paid reps, or fellow FUE megasession colleagues. Dr. Vories ? Any comments? So the best he could do now is to post as many before/after pictures as he can to get as far away from that video as he can. Sure, he can show a stack of before/after result-which are of course handpicked and try to imply the ends justify the means. But before/after photos don't show how many grafts are wasted due to the trauma of the procedure. And to deny the trauma would be to deny what can easily be seen in that video. And that's impossible. Even to the lay eye. This is why I say that no matter how good or bad an FUE result looks, the equivalent FUT would have been better with less graft waste and less donor damage. And the reason for this is supported by his video itself. FUT grafts do not go through the gauntlet the FUE grafts in his video do. Now, he can go into long long posts where he dissembles reality and sets up straw dummies to knock down and attack me personally to save face, but that video does all the talking. Edited August 16, 2015 by Dr. Alan Feller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Blake Bloxham Posted August 16, 2015 Share Posted August 16, 2015 Sure! Beard hair grafts, if I'm remembering correctly, also have an anagen phase that's closest to scalp follicles (albeit still shorter) and the most similar shaft characteristics (especially in guys with coarse hair). How many FUGs did you have extracted via FUE after you were "stripped out?" Seems like you're looking for more follicles? Dr. Blake Bloxham is recommended by the Hair Transplant Network. Hair restoration physician - Feller and Bloxham Hair Transplantation Previously "Future_HT_Doc" or "Blake_Bloxham" - forum co-moderator and editorial assistant for the Hair Transplant Network, Hair Restoration Network, Hair Loss Q&A blog, and Hair Loss Learning Center. Click here to read my previous answers to hair loss and hair restoration questions, editorials, commentaries, and educational articles. Now practicing hair transplant surgery with Coalition hair restoration physician Dr Alan Feller at our New York practice: Feller and Bloxham Hair Transplantation. Please note: my advice does not constitute as medical advice. All medical questions and concerns should be addressed by a personal physician. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Senior Member Britanium Posted August 16, 2015 Senior Member Share Posted August 16, 2015 Blake I will email you if that's ok? Don't want to go off topic. For the record I'm a fan of FUT and FUE... and am keen to see mFUE too ! I have hair greed so would be happy to use any method :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Alan Feller Posted August 16, 2015 Author Share Posted August 16, 2015 Dr Feller, I've noticed that some of the better FUE surgeons often transplant higher numbers of hairs per graft, for example 2.4-2.6 FUE whereas similar FUT seems to average 1.8-2.2. I wondered whether this might be a 'trick' that is used to compensate for a proportion of hairs that do not grow? I think this could be a reason why FUE appears 'consistent' on the forums. Sometimes you see unnecessarily high density results where everything came together. Regards Matt Matt, FUE "appears' consistent on the forums because they are handpicked results and the poorer results posted by patients are simply ignored. I'm not sure of the reality of those numbers you posted. But that said it's an interesting theory you put forward. It would explain why the moth-eaten effect becomes so prominent in so many of these FUE patients after even just one session. But it works against the FUE practitioner because if in fact they really are "cherry" picking multis, then what's left for the second FUE procedure? Or FUT procedure for that matter? In reality, Matt, having performed FUE since 2001 I can say that FUE doctors target multi hair grafts because it's easier and more reliable to grab them. If one of the follicles is damaged during the extraction at least there are another one or two still left in it to justify the effort and get SOMETHING out to implant. When you go for singles you only get one shot. Break it and it's over. A multi gives you a second and sometimes third chance. But at what price? It's that price that is being ignored here. FUE doctors know what's going on, but they aren't talking. They just point to happy patients and say everything is hunky dory. Remember when plug, scalp reductions, and flaps were in fashion. These practitioners did the very same thing. Simply point to the results of their happy patients and say the results speak for themselves and therefore there are no problems with the technique. Where are these techniques today? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Regular Member stairstre Posted August 16, 2015 Regular Member Share Posted August 16, 2015 (edited) Dr. Feller, Adonix, That patient of mine from five years ago is exactly the reason why I identified and try to minimize the three detrimental forces of FUE. Look at the post op photo of that case. Absolutely beautiful. Looks no different than my typical dense FUT cases. But the growth was easily only about 50%. Why? I removed the grafts with the greatest of care. By 2010 I already had 9 years of FUE experience under my belt. I had even created my own tools and protocols and was included in Unger/Shaprio's HT text specifically for FUE. I showed Dr. Unger himself how to remove his first FUE. I had given lectures and demonstrations at ISHRS meetings and for other doctors in my clinic and theirs. By all accounts I knew what I was doing. So why the poor results? The answer had to be damage during the extractions themselves OR his particular physiology. The so-called "X" factor. Assuming it was somehow my fault I just offered him another surgery for free to fill it in and thicken it up. He accepted. But this time I decided to use a larger punch. I think I went from a .9mm punch to 1.0mm punch. Or, I decided not to do any trimming of the grafts once removed from the donor area as I usually did. Or maybe both. I'm not sure because it was five years ago, but the idea was to not do the exact same thing I had during the first surgery. If you read the link to the website he even mentions my change of strategy for him. And even after a second beautiful procedure his results still weren't on par with FUT. But, he was sure the second procedure grew better than the first. So that helped to confirm that indeed the FUE was too harsh on the grafts causing a lower yield. Less trauma on the grafts during round two and thus better yield. I never did see the final results of the second surgery-but obviously he still wasn't happy. By then he wanted to try his luck with another surgeon, and I don't blame him. Unfortunately, he only posted as far as 4 months after his surgery with my friend Dr. Rahal- who himself did his first FUE in my office. Then the patient stopped posting. So perhaps he finally grew well and moved on; or, his results were no better than mine and he just gave up. I should think, however, that he would have posted a triumphant conclusion if that was the case. But I don't know. Throughout this whole situation I couldn't help but thinking that if he had FUT he would have been "one and done". Also though, could another FUE doctor do a better job than I? If so, how? What could I have done differently. I honestly could not say. But I know for a fact that nobody else could do anything differently either. Not then and not now. And that is part of the point I am trying to make in these FUE posts. If someone claims they can do a better job than I did on this patient through the use of better instruments or technique then it is their obligation to prove how and with what. But to date nobody has. To improve his yield on the second round I reduced the detrimental FUE forces by increasing the size of the punch, leaving more bulk around the grafts, and slowing down the extraction process considerably. And it worked. So how in the world can the FUE-only megasessionist do better by decreasing the size of the punch, stripping the bulk away down to skeletonization, and speeding up the extraction process? The answer is, they can't. Luckily, SOME patients have very tolerant grafts and fortunately there are some very dedicated and skilled FUE practitioners out there. When those two combine you get some VERY impressive results. But no matter how good or bad those FUE results are, for the reasons stated above, FUT would have looked better and with far less risk. But MOST FUE practitioners are not that dedicated nor gifted. Instead, they will sacrifice their patient's donor area by 50% to get enough grafts out to complete the case. The patient of course would have absolutely no idea how much of their donor area was sacrificed. But I do, because I've seen these patients in my office. They may have been given a thousand grafts, but the entire donor area had been extracted from leaving a fibrotic mess. It is the "success to failure" ratio that counts. Am I the only doctor on here with FUE patients that have grown poorly? I think not. There are some doctors very very close to this thread who have more than one RECENT patient right now showing their poor FUE results and sharing their disappointment. Difference is, I don't claim FUE has been perfected and that therefore failure was due to the stars or that it was the patient's physiology that was at fault. I am one of the only capable and experienced FUE doctors to admit openly that there are basic detriments inherent to the procedure of FUE and therefore should not be offered as a substitute for strip. I am also a capable and experienced FUT surgeon so I am not dependent on a single modality for my livelihood and can be more transparent than those who do rely on just one modality. Look at that patient you posted of mine and ask yourself if this result is exclusive to Dr. Feller or to all FUE practitioners. The guy you’re talking about is “hookhairs.” Looks like it was YOUR FUE technique that was the problem Dr. Feller. He has two FAILED FUE with you and then decided to schedule with Dr. Rahal. Joe posted his result a few months back. Dr. Rahal nailed it after YOU failed 2x. His result is great, http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/176272-update-must-see-rahal-fue-results-1413-grafts.html How can you explain this? Two FAILED FUE with you. And a HOMERUN with Dr. Rahal – same patient. I can In my opinion you’re only a strip doctor who was never able to master FUE. You’re desperate. Your practice is hurting. You’re doing FUE wrong. This patient proves it. Maybe you should call Dr. Rahal or Feriduni for some FUE tips? Edited August 16, 2015 by stairstre Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Alan Feller Posted August 16, 2015 Author Share Posted August 16, 2015 (edited) Dr. Feller, The guy you’re talking about is “hookhairs.” Looks like it was YOUR FUE technique that was the problem Dr. Feller. He has two FAILED FUE with you and then decided to schedule with Dr. Rahal. Joe posted his result a few months back. Dr. Rahal nailed it after YOU failed 2x. His result is great, http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/176272-update-must-see-rahal-fue-results-1413-grafts.html How can you explain this? Two FAILED FUE with you. And a HOMERUN with Dr. Rahal – same patient. I can In my opinion you’re only a strip doctor who was never able to master FUE. You’re desperate. Your practice is hurting. You’re doing FUE wrong. This patient proves it. Maybe you should call Dr. Rahal or Feriduni for some FUE tips? Sure, I explain it easily because there is more than a bit of misinformation here. In fact I thank you for posting it as it is a prime example of what I'm talking about. And while I thank you for your effort, I doubt Dr. Rahal will be so grateful. I performed a procedure on him that did grow, didn't fail, to the tune of about 50%. I did another procedure on him for free that also grew, didn't fail, to the tune of better than 50% according to the patient himself. If you read his own blog you will see that he claimed his second procedure grew better than his first and that he was happy at that point, but disappeared after that. But his result shows up in Dr. Rahals presentation of the patient at 4 months. That is not his recent HT with Dr. Rahal that grew that fast. Rather, it's the grafts from my procedures. So no fail here. But notice that the patient also required two procedures of FUE on top of my two procedures. And that is my point here. If he just had strip of about 1600 grafts he would have been "one and done". Instead, he needed FOUR FUE procedures to get a cosmetic result. Even if you want to label me an FUE incompetent, are you going to say the same for Dr. R ? Are there not more than at least one of his own very recent FUE patients posting very vocally on this very site with poor FUE results? Yet you chose an obscure patient of mine who hasn't been on this site in years to focus on. A patient who wrote clearly in his own blog that he wouldn't tolerate people trying to use his case to slag me. Hmmmm. But let's say you're right. Then I'm doing something wrong during the FUE surgery. But what? I am as careful as one can get during these procedures and not a single practitioner has demonstrated that they are doing anything differently. Not in technique and not in instrumentation. The fact is, I am not doing anything differently, it's just that FUE will grow better in some than in others. But always less than that for FUT. Also, if you look at the after photos, the most important area of scalp in this particular case is not viewable. Rather it has been covered by native hair swept in from behind. Do you see that my friend? What makes debating on these websites so difficult is the "gotcha" mentality and "team" mentality of some posters to be "right" instead of analyzing issues and discussing them actively. Believe it or not, I'M ON YOUR SIDE LOOKING OUT FOR YOU ! Transparency is the very best defense against deception, willful ignorance, or outright fraud. Shall I now list every FUE doctor and their poorly grown and dissatisfied patients ? Should I expect you to "play fair" and do this yourself in the interest of fairness since you chose to single me out? The difference between me and other FUE doctors is that I don't shy away from telling you the reality of what's going on. I am transparent. Can the others say that? Or should we indeed post a list and see how they respond to it? Edited August 16, 2015 by Dr. Alan Feller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Regular Member stairstre Posted August 16, 2015 Regular Member Share Posted August 16, 2015 OR… Dr. Bhatti has a point and your FUE technique is wrong Dr. Feller? Seriously, call Dr. Koray, Bhatti or any other Turkish FUE doctor for some FUE tips. You clearly need them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Senior Member Mick50 Posted August 16, 2015 Senior Member Share Posted August 16, 2015 Ha ,just had an interesting some might say perverse thought how about if Dr Feller were to offer someone an FUE mega transplant pro bono just to prove his theory I wonder if anyone would volunteer . just adding a bit of humour here it gets a bit dark on this thread sometimes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now