FUT is more popular than FUE

[Dr. Alan Feller]

Dr feller

 

Thanks for responding, I appreciate it!

 

Although you chose not to answer the question or maybe don't know the answer that's fine!

 

Iv read micros post above, iv read almost every thread in this site in the last 4 years including his very in depth nd informative one on fue!! Trust me when I tell you I researched before and after my own fue ht!!

 

I agree that Dr's like lorenzo will have sub par results with fue,absolutely!!! All Dr's do!! But does hassan and wong, koniour,rhal,yourself have these same failures using strip? Absolute they do! ! That's my point no procedure is guaranteed success,that is a fact!!

 

We both agree that too many poor fue results are out there due to incapable,inexperienced practioners out there! If you choose poorly you will more than likely have a poor result! In both fue and strip surgeries!! Had you come on here and said there are a handful of surgeons producing high level results via fue similar to the best strip surgeries but generally strip yields better results then I would agree! Strip is more consistent with yield,but fue in right hands CAN and DOES match strip in the right hands of a proven experienced Dr! !

 

Iv had fue,am I glad I did,100% yes! I don't wish I'd gone strip, matt,Irish sailor,Chrisdav who all went strip and we're rightly very happy don't wish they had fue and I don't blame them,their results are great!!! And I know some of the above are your patients so qdos for that!!!

 

Just if I was a newbie reading this thread,especially the early part of it,it would frighten the life out of me getting fue as I would be sure it would fail and ruin my donor area,which isn't fair to people researching, it should be more of a you can get great results but all to often there not so great if you choose poorly!!!

 

And I'm glad your debating with mickey on here now as he is a very knowledgeable guy regarding hair transplantation and I look forward to continuing to see how this thread develops!!

 

"Had you come on here and said there are a handful of surgeons producing high level results via fue similar to the best strip surgeries but generally strip yields better results then I would agree! Strip is more consistent with yield,but fue in right hands CAN and DOES match strip in the right hands of a proven experienced Dr! !"

 

I will agree with this with three wrinkles. The first is that the patient must be of a very select type. So the doctor has to be honorable and not accept everyone who walks through his door. And the second is that for this patient to achieve the same look as the equivalent FUT patient more grafts will most likely have to be used due to the injury factor. And the third is that in the FUE patient more donor area has to be scarred to obtain the grafts necessary to produce FUT level results.

 

The quality of the surgeon will always make a difference. I think we can all agree on that. The most dismal FUE results are coming out of the offices of amateur doctors who really aren't performing HT full time or are start ups. I've met MANY of these doctors and they don't know what they don't know yet. Frightening. Same for FUT by the way.

 

Can we say, based on these terms, that we have reached an accord?

[hairshopeing]

Indeed we can Dr feller!!

[hairshopeing]

Don't know why ? Came up, I put a smiley face!

[Dr. Alan Feller]

Don't know why ? Came up, I put a smiley face!

 

Yeah, I ran into the same problems. Bill says they are working on the problems. All good.

Thanks.

[darlinglocks]

Dr. Feller,

 

On your post "Who is going to be more willing to post results and keep posting results: happy patients or unhappy patients? Trust me, it's happy patients"?

 

Wouldn't you agree with me that most if not all HT patients on this forum and other hair forums, want to remain anonymous? They mostly don't want friends, family, co-workers to know they had an HT procedure. Therefore, you don't see many full face pictures of them.

 

Hence, don't you agree that a 100% happy satisfied HT patient would just disappear, continue with his personal and professional life and not bothering writing on forums? I genuinely think 100% satisfied patients don't continue to post and go on with their life.

 

Who are the ones remaining on the forum?

1/ Potential patients who will have their first HT looking for the best information, doctors who perform the best results at a cost they can afford.

2/ Patients who are awaiting their full 1 Year results, seeing if they made the right choice comparing their results to others and by continually learning and asking questions.

3/ Patients who already had a HT done but now being informed are checking out to have a 2nd, 3rd, 4th procedure done either by the same doctor or another doctor following the good or bad results and comments on this doctor.

 

The best possible comment will be the end result and outcome after the 1 Year bench mark of the HT on the patient regarding yield, hairline, naturalness and density.

 

I do agree with you on the fact that patient should post more of their bad results as this will make the HT industry better for patients and doctors alike! Doctors would continue to learn and better themselves learning from the mistakes they made. Bad doctors in this industry wouldn't survive long either.

The difference between a good caring doctor and another one is the good doctor would try to correct what went wrong, learn from it, understanding that every case is unique and challenging but it will offer him great rewards when things are finally done right.

 

Regards,

[delancey]

Some clinics may be offering patients with bad results/poor growth a refund or a second surgery in return for silence/non-disclosure on the forums. Another reason why patients who have had a poor experience with some clinics just disappear.

 

Just my two cents.

[Dr Tejinder Bhatti]

Poorly done FUE procedure with pluggy look.

One year back!

If you think the world has gotten over pluggy grafts,think again.

Moral for the Day- Both FUT and FUE doctors keep churning out bad cases every single day.

[Dr Tejinder Bhatti]

Strip surgery in a 57 years old done for 3000 grafts. Guess, just about 300 grew!

Surgery done outside Asia 4 years ago.

Redo using FUE technique since he is "fully stripped out!"

The only benefit I feel of being "fully stripped out" is that the scalp donor skin is so tight that you do not need an assistant to give counter traction to the skin while harvesting using FUE technique.

See video-

 

https://www.youtube.com/edit?video_id=C1v3gbTbc64&video_referrer=watch

[Bill - Seemiller]

Dr. Bhatti and California,

 

I do appreciate and encourage your participation on this topic. However, this topic has been created to discuss and debate FUT versus FUE, not to showcase results. I am fine with you presenting a few examples in order to back up a particular point if necessary. But please don't continue presenting results on this topic just to promote your work.

 

Please go back to each post that contains results and explain what each result you've presented has to do with this topic. If they don't, please remove them from here and instead, present them in the "Results Posted by Leading Hair Transplant Clinics" section of the forum.

 

Thanks,

 

Bill

[California]

Dr. Bhatti and California,

 

I do appreciate and encourage your participation on this topic. However, this topic has been created to discuss and debate FUT versus FUE, not to showcase results. I am fine with you presenting a few examples in order to back up a particular point if necessary. But please don't continue presenting results on this topic just to promote your work.

 

Please go back to each post that contains results and explain what each result you've presented has to do with this topic. If they don't, please remove them from here and instead, present them in the "Results Posted by Leading Hair Transplant Clinics" section of the forum.

 

Thanks,

 

Bill

 

Hi Bill,

 

As everyone knows, this topic has generated a lot of interest (unfortunately not enough responses from the FUE Surgeons with the exception of Dr. Vories and Dr. Bhatti). With about 1010 responses, it is hard to keep track of this thread and the direction in which it is headed.

 

Let me put this into perspective. This FUT vs FUE debate, mainly between Dr. Feller and Dr. Bhatti got pretty intense. In the post #821 on this thread, Dr. Bhatti put out a challenge for Dr. Feller and committed to follow through with his (Dr. Bhattii's) part of the deal. The challenge was to post Patient cases in "REAL TIME". Since this topic has generated a lot of "talk" and "rhetoric", the goal was to present real time and real life DOCUMENTED Patient cases for all the members to see. Dr. Bhatti was to present the "bad FUT scar cases" that he was getting and Dr. Feller was asked to present the "bad FUE scar/result cases" that he was getting. NO digging into archives to cherry pick.....but presenting cases as they come.

Please note that this challenge has been one sided so far with Dr. Bhatti presenting Patient cases in real time and Dr. Feller not reciprocating.

 

Again, we are not "promoting" our Patient cases here......we don't need it. We were just following through with what we had committed to. If this is an issue with the Admins, then I will let Dr. Bhatti make a call on this.

 

Copy/pasting below from Dr. Bhatti's post (#821):

 

Please note that a conversation of cross recriminations is not the right way to proceed scientifically. I challenge you to share your FUE case of the day every single day till this thread is alive and kicking and I will reciprocate. Lets see what bad cases you get daily from FUE, Please post and show and so will I.

Let the members on the forum decide for themselves. Plain rhetoric has no place on this thread. Members want to see real stuff now. They are bored of your semantics.

See the TRP rating of this thread has begun to dip.

Lets breathe some life into it, Sir.

We all want to see the FUE cases you get so commonly with bad scars.

You show yours in real time and I will mine.

 

Best regards,

California

[Swooping]

I wouldn't be surprised at all if after your discussion he removes the sensational scare tactic pages from his site. It's beneath him.

 

I just clicked the link you included in your post and am shocked by that quote you put up. I couldn't believe it was accurately quoted. But it is. I am genuinely shocked by these claims. Do you believe these claims to be true? Does anybody reading this thread?

 

I don't believe this particular statement. However I do agree with multiple other points as displayed on his site. Furthermore I can imagine that Dr. Lorenzo gets the same yield numbers as top FUT practitioners .. If everyone was at his level worldwide, there wouldn't be a need for FUT anymore. Problem is that very few are. You can count them on 2 hands, probably even less. Remember this is all my opinion. I don't state them as facts.

 

However better graft quality then FUT? Doesn't make sense. But hey maybe he does have X-ray vision who knows .

 

Anyway I'm going to try call him this week and ask him some questions about FUT vs FUE. Will be interesting to hear his opinion. I think honestly he is going to agree that FUE is on par with FUT by his observations. But we'll see. Definitely going to ask him to about these studies.

[gilgamesh]

I am simply in search of the truth about a subject that has been mired in internet muck for far too long.

 

I happen to agree with this statement. But can you expound on it, please?

 

Dr. Feller, I have researched hair loss intensively for the last 15 years or so, with a growing focus on surgical hair restoration as my medical options gradually failed. I even spent some time in the more experimental side of hair loss, but ultimately was left without recourse.

 

When I turned my attention to surgical hair loss, I was stunned by the lack of recent peer reviewed, blinded research comparing the two procedures. Especially considering the massive interest in it in the lay hair loss community. Viewing the proceedings of the ISHRS, it seems to be a common topic of discussion in the medical community as well.

 

It is odd to me that a more recent study comparing the two procedures has not come out. And the only reason I can think is economic (or lack of economic) incentive.

 

And if you have a moment, can you tell us what it was in your consultations that either interested you or put you off HT?

The reasons I was dissuaded are not unique, and similar to most members on these forums who are hesitating to take the plunge:

 

- The absence of recent peer reviewed data did not convince me that FUE was at the level of strip in efficacy. When looking at it from a theoretical perspective, understanding the histology of the stem cell, it is essentially impossible for them to be equivalent.

 

 

You look at most schematic representations of the follicle stem cell and you think, "Well of course we can get most of the stem cell with FUE."

 

But a schematic representation is exactly that -- a schematic representation. If you look at stem cell specific stains on histology, the story is quite different.

 

 

What everyone is forgetting is its not just about the dermal papilla. There is too much of the stem cell that is not around the follicle. Perhaps a punch that splays (as Dr. Umar does) after it enters the skin, or the subgaleal approach of Wesley may have merit, but I have not seen anything as far as results. And as you correctly point out, there is inevitable more trauma when you pluck out follicles one by one. We can talk about the physics of it at length, but intuitively you would have to be in severe denial to not realize this.

 

And no published clinical data. None since Beehner. Lots of marketing. No data.

 

I have not seen any reasonable response from FUE advocates on this subject beyond "Well whatever, look at this patient with FUE he did well therefore your theory is wrong." Anecdotes don't make evidence.

 

- Lorenzo's name is commonly touted on these forums like a garlic rosary to ward off naysayers that say the two procedures cannot be equivalent, and certainly he has impressive results, but he also has a conservative aesthetic, and frankly, no one has duplicated his work. His fans will say it's because he is so amazing, and his detractors will say it's because he is cherry picking.

 

- For strip, my hesitation was for the same reason that everyone hesitates on strip. Great results but difficult to predict a scar. I have had members of my family who have had strip in the past with nearly imperceptible scar formation, so I would not anticipate a bad result for myself, but even then -- difficult to predict.

 

- The data can be too easily manipulated in the absence of an objective and unbiased third party. Especially for the lay public when all we are looking at is some low resolution JPG or shaky handheld video on YouTube. For example, you can count follicles differently depending on if you separate doublets and triplets, which may be the reason that some surgeons with 'lower' numbers produce more bang for the buck (ie. more impressive coverage). Dry labs are not science, they are marketing. We don't do this with cancer research, studies on HIV, or even when deciding what the best blood pressure medication. Why are we doing this with hair?

 

It has become the unfortunate tendency of the internet that whenever a dissenting opinion is presented, the chorus of voices comes out stating "troll! troll! troll!". This is equivalent to someone questioning the Bible in colonial America and having the villagers crying "witch! witch! witch!"

 

Let us stop this emotional and reactive way of thinking. It is no way to investigate science or practice medicine. Our ability to analyze thought in a rational manner has been dramatically catalyzed by the internet. In many senses, this forum epitomizes that progress, but we are not there yet.

 

Let us continue forward, instead of looking at well designed webpages and frequency of internet posts as some sort of Litmus test for the legitimacy of a procedure. Let us return to the evidence, away from inductive reasoning, and back to basic science. It is a candle in the dark in this demon haunted world, and really -- it's the only chance we have at truth.

[gbhscot]

[quote name=gilgamesh;2443354

 

When I turned my attention to surgical hair loss' date=' I was stunned by the lack of recent peer reviewed, blinded research comparing the two procedures. Especially considering the massive interest in it in the lay hair loss community. Viewing the proceedings of the ISHRS, it seems to be a common topic of discussion in the medical community as well.

 

It is odd to me that a more recent study comparing the two procedures has not come out. And the only reason I can think is economic (or lack of economic) incentive.

 

 

Let us continue forward, instead of looking at well designed webpages and frequency of internet posts as some sort of Litmus test for the legitimacy of a procedure. Let us return to the evidence, away from inductive reasoning, and back to basic science. It is a candle in the dark in this demon haunted world, and really -- it's the only chance we have at truth.

 

Great post & very true.

 

In the interest of science, I would gladly offer my own napper up as a case study in which FUE & FUT are used on separate areas & results subsequently compared as well as donor area fibrosis etc. Haven't seen many clinical trials looking at HT's though....

[Bill - Seemiller]

California,

 

Thank you for your explanation. However, did Dr. Feller agree to this challenge? If not, then plastering this thread with thousands of cases isn't going to prove anything. Unless this "challenge" was accepted, and both of you are participating in it, I'd rather not see a one-sided commentary with one physician/clinic showcasing pictures.

 

Honestly, even if Dr. Feller did agree to participate, I don't really see the point. There are plenty of cases of bad scarring in both procedures and even if there are more bad cases of scarring with FUT, what is the point anyway? It's a known fact that many patients prefer FUE because of the fear of linear scarring and/or scar stretching. Thus, posting pictures showing scar stretching or linear stars is moot since it's already a known fact and nobody is arguing against it. What people are arguing is whether or not FUE is as consistent in growth yield as FUT. That said, I would appreciate if you and the doctor would get back to debating and discussing the facts and only present pictures as appropriate if you are backing up a very specific point.

 

Thanks

 

Bill

[voxman]

Dr. Feller, I have researched hair loss intensively for the last 15 years or so, with a growing focus on surgical hair restoration as my medical options gradually failed. I even spent some time in the more experimental side of hair loss, but ultimately was left without recourse.

 

Gilgamesh, I read your post (and your others) and was quite taken with your research and your desire to see clinical and blind studies that the industry seems to lack thereof. If I am reading correctly, it appears that the current surgical procedures available are just not cutting it for you and you are at this time putting off - even abandoning?- on doing your own hair. What data would tip you over the edge and make you more secure in going under the knife, or punch, as it were?

 

I ask strictly for my own edification and study of human nature and because - from the newbies to the oldsters - there is a lot of emotion involved in most HT decisions. It seems the more you know, the less one is inclined to take the plunge.

[KO]

Furthermore I can imagine that Dr. Lorenzo gets the same yield numbers as top FUT practitioners .. If everyone was at his level worldwide, there wouldn't be a need for FUT anymore.

 

How do you know that Lorenzo gets the same yield numbers as top FUT practitioners? Do you have empirical data that suggests this? I do not believe he or any FUE surgeon gets yield matching top FUT surgeons. I think people very liberally throw around the idea that "Top FUE surgeons get the same yield as Top FUT surgeons". I would like to see some evidence presented that supports this notion.

 

As for graft quality, FUT produces grafts with supportive tissue which protects the grafts during handling, not to mention the all-important adipose tissue niche.

[fortune11]

- Lorenzo's name is commonly touted on these forums like a garlic rosary to ward off naysayers that say the two procedures cannot be equivalent, and certainly he has impressive results, but he also has a conservative aesthetic, and frankly, no one has duplicated his work. His fans will say it's because he is so amazing, and his detractors will say it's because he is cherry picking.

 

 

 

LOL, I agree w the rosary analogy. He has great results , no doubt , but not everyone can go to Lorenzo. And frankly that website link (for Lorenzo) that was posted by someone else , was utterly dreadful. Probably created by one of Lorenzo's marketing people thinking purely from a business angle, facts and logic be damned. If I didnt know any better , I would think I was reading it off one of those Turkish hair mills websites.

[KO]

Actually, to be fair, Lorenzo's work has been duplicated, by his colleagues Alejandro Chueco, Ximena Vila, Juan Couto, Erkan Demirsoy, Erdogan and others. Their work is great, however, a few things - their "showcase" results that are used as evidence for "FUE=FUT" typically employ patients with ideal donor hair characteristics. If you are a guy from the middle east, Mediterranean, or India with thick, dark, wavy hair, it could be a great fit. If you are a Northern European white dude with fine/average hair....you will not get those results! A lot of the Turkish clinics are doing patients from the Middle East, they have great hair types, so it works well for them.

 

None of them however have posted cases that match some of Hasson and Wong's best work, such as Bobman's result, or our recently banned friend Joe who used to represent them. Even Feriduni, a great FUE surgeon. Does he have an FUE result better than what Cueball35 got with FUT? (Also Feriduni)

[Dr Tejinder Bhatti]

California,

 

Honestly, even if Dr. Feller did agree to participate, I don't really see the point. There are plenty of cases of bad scarring in both procedures and even if there are more bad cases of scarring with FUT, what is the point anyway? l

 

Bill,

 

The point is that Dr. Feller was saying that bad FUE scarring is a normal occurrence. I offered an opportunity to show these cases as they come in, in real time, as he must be seeing these cases in person else he would not have any legitimate reason to make such a statment. This is what I have been doing to show the mix of cases I get on a daily basis, verified with the newspaper date in the images. These are not "results" as you put it but rather pre-operative photos to show the state of the donor region as the patient comes in. They are not cherry picked, they are not selected. They are what they are, random and mor importnatly, daily.

 

That is the very crux of the argument by Dr. Feller, that there is so much bad scarring from FUE so I have set the stage for him and I to back up at least this part of our respective points with the necessary visual evidence.

 

When he asked me to take up his challenge to disprove the 3 forces I did participate. Now it is his turn to reciprocate.

That would be a gentleman he is.

However, if you wish me to stop posting, I will honor the forum; but with a note of dissent on record.

 

Bill, As far as marketing is concerned, I don't even use a link to my website in my signature block.

 

Also, it is also a fact that I was not too eager to join this thread. You know that.

 

Best wishes.

[Melvin- Admin]

Actually, to be fair, Lorenzo's work has been duplicated, by his colleagues Alejandro Chueco, Ximena Vila, Juan Couto, Erkan Demirsoy, Erdogan and others. Their work is great, however, a few things - their "showcase" results that are used as evidence for "FUE=FUT" typically employ patients with ideal donor hair characteristics. If you are a guy from the middle east, Mediterranean, or India with thick, dark, wavy hair, it could be a great fit. If you are a Northern European white dude with fine/average hair....you will not get those results! A lot of the Turkish clinics are doing patients from the Middle East, they have great hair types, so it works well for them.

 

None of them however have posted cases that match some of Hasson and Wong's best work, such as Bobman's result, or our recently banned friend Joe who used to represent them. Even Feriduni, a great FUE surgeon. Does he have an FUE result better than what Cueball35 got with FUT? (Also Feriduni)

 

Those guys you mentioned though are not the norm they are actually the exception, I think Dr. Umar (FUE) doctor had posted even more amazing results, but then again you're talking 20,000 grafts body and scalp.

[KO]

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.

[Swooping]

How do you know that Lorenzo gets the same yield numbers as top FUT practitioners? Do you have empirical data that suggests this? I do not believe he or any FUE surgeon gets yield matching top FUT surgeons. I think people very liberally throw around the idea that "Top FUE surgeons get the same yield as Top FUT surgeons". I would like to see some evidence presented that supports this notion.

 

As for graft quality, FUT produces grafts with supportive tissue which protects the grafts during handling, not to mention the all-important adipose tissue niche.

 

 

Actually, to be fair, Lorenzo's work has been duplicated, by his colleagues Alejandro Chueco, Ximena Vila, Juan Couto, Erkan Demirsoy, Erdogan and others. Their work is great, however, a few things - their "showcase" results that are used as evidence for "FUE=FUT" typically employ patients with ideal donor hair characteristics. If you are a guy from the middle east, Mediterranean, or India with thick, dark, wavy hair, it could be a great fit. If you are a Northern European white dude with fine/average hair....you will not get those results! A lot of the Turkish clinics are doing patients from the Middle East, they have great hair types, so it works well for them.

 

None of them however have posted cases that match some of Hasson and Wong's best work, such as Bobman's result, or our recently banned friend Joe who used to represent them. Even Feriduni, a great FUE surgeon. Does he have an FUE result better than what Cueball35 got with FUT? (Also Feriduni)

 

You are correct I don't . I just randomly picked Lorenzo btw. I think more FUE doctors get very close to the yields of top FUT practitioners. However it's my opinion, nothing more then that as I stated multiple times.

 

If you think otherwise you are free to do so. But you can't present it as the truth also. That's just also your own opinion, not the truth.

 

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.

 

However what will happen is that FUE will get more and more popular until FUT will slowly die out. This is already happening in full speed. People just don't want the scar and will even happily sacrifice some yield for that .

[lileli]

Bill,

 

The point is that Dr. Feller was saying that bad FUE scarring is a normal occurrence. I offered an opportunity to show these cases as they come in, in real time, as he must be seeing these cases in person else he would not have any legitimate reason to make such a statment. This is what I have been doing to show the mix of cases I get on a daily basis, verified with the newspaper date in the images. These are not "results" as you put it but rather pre-operative photos to show the state of the donor region as the patient comes in. They are not cherry picked, they are not selected. They are what they are, random and mor importnatly, daily.

 

That is the very crux of the argument by Dr. Feller, that there is so much bad scarring from FUE so I have set the stage for him and I to back up at least this part of our respective points with the necessary visual evidence.

 

When he asked me to take up his challenge to disprove the 3 forces I did participate. Now it is his turn to reciprocate.

That would be a gentleman he is.

However, if you wish me to stop posting, I will honor the forum; but with a note of dissent on record.

 

Bill, As far as marketing is concerned, I don't even use a link to my website in my signature block.

 

Also, it is also a fact that I was not too eager to join this thread. You know that.

 

Best wishes.

 

I was enjoying seeing exactly the type of cases you were getting in and accepting. Thank you.

[Dr Tejinder Bhatti]

I was enjoying seeing exactly the type of cases you were getting in and accepting. Thank you.

 

Lileli, thank you for appreciating.

[Bill - Seemiller]

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