FUT is more popular than FUE

[Dr. Alan Feller]

question for dr feller,

 

do you have the skills and technique to do what dr bhatti is doing in that video?

 

No long winded political answers, a simple yes or no will suffice.

 

yes i do

[mav23100gunther]

I disagree with you Dr. Feller, I honestly don't believe that FUT is the most popular choice in hair restoration. I believe that it's performed more often because:

A. It's cheaper

B: you can move more grafts in one sitting.

 

In the dozens of consultations I went to with world renowned hair restoration physicians I heard the same thing. If you chose FUE you'll have to do more than one surgery to move the same amount of grafts you could do with one FUT surgery, and you'll have to break it up in to sessions. .

 

HTsoon,

 

You just nailed it. If FUT is performed more often, then doesn't that then default the procedure to "most popular"? I would say most patients would prefer to get an FUE procedure due to lack of a scar, but elect to go with FUT for a variety of reasons, some of which you mentioned above. In fact, the moving more grafts in one sitting is a pretty darn important factor. I would think the majority of patients would prefer to get the procedure in as few passes as possible, hence the popularity of the mega-session. I would have rather had mine all done the 1st pass, rather than two procedures 1 year apart. My stupidity for not going with the likes of H&W. In fact getting the procedure done in less passes would be the preferred choice.

 

So back to your statement, who is more popular, the girl who everyone would prefer to bang because she is hot but don't, or the girl who all the guys actually choose to bang because she is the better lay?

[Melvin- Admin]

Now you're a layman? In every other post you are a surgical expert ! But I'll help you out:

 

Just look at my video and compare it to Dr. Bhatti's video. Mine is regular FUE and his is speed FUE. Don't want to go by my FUE technique, fine, there are several other videos of FUE doctors doing extractions out there. Compare to those. Hint: Dr. Bhatti's is the "speed FUE" and he's proud of it.

 

Dr. Feller there you go with the word play, we were speaking hypothetically, you stated if a patient had a poor results and saw Dr. Bhattis video that it would be grounds for a class action suit here in the states. I never said I couldn't tell the difference nor did I say I was a layman, I was speaking about your average patient who's never seen a procedure performed. . With that being said the key word was poor result, I will withhold my judgement until I see the final result.

[Dr. Alan Feller]

Dr. Feller there you go with the word play, we were speaking hypothetically, you stated if a patient had a poor results and saw Dr. Bhattis video that it would be grounds for a class action suit here in the states. I never said I couldn't tell the difference nor did I say I was a layman, I was speaking about your average patient who's never seen a procedure performed. . With that being said the key word was poor result, I will withhold my judgement until I see the final result.

 

You are not a layman?

[Swooping]

HTsoon,

 

You just nailed it. If FUT is performed more often, then doesn't that then default the procedure to "most popular"? I would say most patients would prefer to get an FUE procedure due to lack of a scar, but elect to go with FUT for a variety of reasons, some of which you mentioned above. In fact, the moving more grafts in one sitting is a pretty darn important factor. I would think the majority of patients would prefer to get the procedure in as few passes as possible, hence the popularity of the mega-session. I would have rather had mine all done the 1st pass, rather than two procedures 1 year apart. My stupidity for not going with the likes of H&W. In fact getting the procedure done in less passes would be the preferred choice.

 

So back to your statement, who is more popular, the girl who everyone would prefer to bang because she is hot but don't, or the girl who all the guys actually choose to bang because she is the better lay?

 

The only data we have and you neglect it, hilarious. If you have troubles interpreting statistical data/graphs I can explain it a detailed manner?

 

Can't wait till the next one. My guess will be that FUE will approach 65-70% . That will be end of next year basically. Two years later than the statistics of 2014. Just see the growth in these years, amazing isn't it?

 

 

 

[Melvin- Admin]

HTsoon,

 

You just nailed it. If FUT is performed more often, then doesn't that then default the procedure to "most popular"? I would say most patients would prefer to get an FUE procedure due to lack of a scar, but elect to go with FUT for a variety of reasons, some of which you mentioned above. In fact, the moving more grafts in one sitting is a pretty darn important factor. I would think the majority of patients would prefer to get the procedure in as few passes as possible, hence the popularity of the mega-session. I would have rather had mine all done the 1st pass, rather than two procedures 1 year apart. My stupidity for not going with the likes of H&W. In fact getting the procedure done in less passes would be the preferred choice.

 

So back to your statement, who is more popular, the girl who everyone would prefer to bang because she is hot but don't, or the girl who all the guys actually choose to bang because she is the better lay?

 

I'd like to answer your question the girl who everyone wants to bang is more popular.

here's another analogy, who's more popular the hot girl that guys want to bang but they can't, because she's high maintenance and they can't afford to take her out.

 

Or the girl who everyone bangs cause she puts out easy and all you have to do is buy her a happy meal.Popularity is defined by popular choice not necessity.

 

I think anybody would rather get their procedure done in one sitting, unfortunately for high Norwood guys like myself that's usually not the case even in strip procedures, so personally I thought what would I rather do have 3 less invasive FUE procedures that are the least noticeable to the general public i.e coworkers, or two FUT procedures that would carry the risk of bad scarring and would require more time off work and would be more obvious to the general public. These are my personal reasons for my specific situation, I've said it before in this thread but I'll say it again, if you're a lower Norwood guy who wears his hair long your better off getting FUT because you'll be able to get a full restoration in one sitting.

 

However, if you're a high Norwood guy who will require several procedures you're better off doing FUE in small sessions, this will achieve a better overall aesthetic result in my opinion. Not to mention less time off of work with less detectability.

[Melvin- Admin]

You are not a layman?

 

I may not be a physician but I have done enough research to consider myself well versed in hair restoration. I also believe I have done more research then the average patient. But this is typical from you, it's another word game played on specifics, just like you did when you called Seth a representative of an FUE clinic, you knew very well what would be assumed without mentioning the clinics name or stating he was paid.

[lorenzo]

This is all about ego and not about fact. People opinion will not change regardless of how you present it.

Right or wrong 95% of posters will not change their opinion. Posters pick and choose what they want to respond to making it very difficult for an actually person researching to understand anything.

[Yonex]

What is the 'Golden Harvest Technique' ?

 

Is this a new FUE technique or a sales gimmicky thing?

[Melvin- Admin]

A lot of physicians name their particular technique using FUE, for example Dr. Diep calls his technique DFC (Diep FUE curve). They're not necessarily gimmicks just names to distinguish their personal technique.

Here are the pros and cons presented by Dr. Diep a recommended physician on this site, please note Dr. Diep performs both techniques regularly in his practice.

 

The advantages of strip harvesting method are:

 

1.Less expensive

2.Mega session, transplanting up to 5,000 grafts per session

3.Used to treat moderate to severe hair loss

 

The disadvantages of strip harvesting method are:

 

1.More invasive

2.Numbness at the surgical donor site

3.Fine linear scar on the back of the head

4.More painful during recovery period

5.More bleeding

6.More chances of infection

 

The FUE hair transplant advantages are:

 

1.NO VISIBLE LINEAR SCAR after recovery

2.Less invasive

3.Minimal bleeding at donor site

4.No nerve numbness

5.Less painful during recovery period

6.Used to treat mild to moderate hair loss

 

 

The FUE hair transplant disadvantages are:

 

1.More expensive

2.More time consuming

3.More demanding on the skill and time of the surgeon

4.Approximately 2500 grafts can be transplanted per session

5.Rare cyst formation which normally resolve by itself

 

I think it's important to note nowhere does this physician state the yield is lower with FUE. Also it's important to note this physician is not bias towards either procedure because he performs both regularly.

http://www.mhtaclinic.com/fue-procedures/fue-vs-strip-harvesting/

[1978matt]

I'm not sure how he failed. He responded to the three forces and provided his own view on that study . Dr Vieira just explained his position.he's confident enough to guarantee 90 percent growth. I would like to ask all does who have gotten more Than 4000 grafts via fue to tell us if they have visible scars and what was the growth like. This thread needs to get back on track and I think having members discus their experiences will be helpful

 

He said he had overcome the 3 detrimental forces and proceeded to show us an awful video of the grafts being stretched while in the process of being forcibly removed. Vories just made comments in relation to his own experiences with the two procedures and a bit about graft placement being critical. I don't recall him attempting to question much, if anything, of the initial post.

 

Karadeniz's opinion would have been great but he is no longer affiliated with the forum...

 

He has a good video on youtube titled 'Is FUE a newer and better technique than FUT? - Hair Transplant Myths Dispelled '. Well worth a watch. That will tell you all you need to know about where he stands on the topic.

 

Forget about matt. He got hurt and angry when I said that FUT was brutal. Probably the only emotional guy out here. Just confirmation bias.

If you have proper studies however, then please do show them.

 

You're the one posting nasty comments not me!...as an aside, I see yesterday on another thread a patient of your doc has just been offered free grafts to fix his poor results. I bet he is feeling angry and emotional.

 

Matt

 

To be fair most Dr's successful at fue don't need to debate this or refute Dr fellers claims, their results already do that!

 

And to be fair there hasn't been and strip surgeons on here either backing up Dr fellers claims, so by that rationale I take it strip surgery must be a failure also? Of course not, they don't need to they go about their business! I think most Dr's couldn't be bothered what Dr feller claims or says as it won't effect ghem or their business!

 

There's nothing to be gained by a doctor coming on here to support Dr Feller. Why would they? The FUE guru's have shown the type of response they can expect:

 

- derogatory comments about their techniques

- derogatory comments about their results

- jibes about their bedside manner

- negative comments about their authority on the topic

- conspiracy theories

 

I mean why would they bother?

 

On the other hand there is plenty of incentive for an FUE doc to come on here. Look at all the support they would have and think of how much extra business it would bring in.

[Swooping]

Holy cow guys. It's even more clear than ever how FUE is crushing in and literally overtaking FUT like a goddamn beast. I'll give FUT less than 5 years before becoming a small niche, and eventually it will die out almost completely. That is my opinion. But the statistics say all. Be your own judge and look at the following graph;

 

 

Source: ISHRS: Hair Transplantation More Popular Than Ever | Bernstein Medical

 

Procedure

While Follicular Unit Transplant (FUT) procedures accounted for over half of all hair transplants, Follicular Unit Extraction (FUE) is gaining rapidly, with a 51% increase over the 2012 results (from 32.2% in 2012 to 48.5% in 2014). See the chart:

 

 

 

Look especially at the last years how FUE took off and how much troubles it had in the beginning. The biggest increase was between 2012 and 2014 and FUE gained 16.3% territory.

 

But yeah this data coupled with the indicative online movement of all big (inter)national forums don't say anything I guess right guys ?

Edited August 29, 2015 by Swooping

[Melvin- Admin]

 

You're the one posting nasty comments not me!...as an aside, I see yesterday on another thread a patient of your doc has just been offered free grafts to fix his poor results. I bet he is feeling angry

 

Matt no one has been as nasty on this thread as you, you resorted to personal attacks and several times have mentioned other members and spoken harshly on their results (including myself) just to get your point across, it's been in poor taste and uncalled for in my opinion.

Not to mention every physician has had a patient with poor growth even your beloved Dr. Feller has said this, so I don't see how pointing out another members poor results is going to do anything for your argument, does it make you feel better about yourself?

[home1212]

every reputable HT doc or clinic performs both procedures, including H&W which was previously FUT only .. that alone should tell you something about how consumers and their demand of a more refined, less invasive surgical technique is driving change in the industry

[hairshopeing]

Matt

I totally disagree it's the strip Drs who need the work not the fur Drs!! Strip is still mainly a preferred method in America! If any Drs need to convince the current batch of potential patients it's the strip guys!!

 

Several representatives who worked for ht drs prior to any procedure have chosen fue as their method of surgery, rhals rep Matt and sharpio s rep Matt both chose fue I know of 2 others who I can't disclose as its not been made public who were reps before being patients both chose fue, so to be fair I'm sure the Drs wouldn't have performed surgeries on their own reps if they thought that type of procedure was flawed or would have a poor outcome!

 

You had a great result from strip so I can understand you would champion that procedure, as you made your choice and it worked out well, I equally am happy with my fue and wouldn't change my choice if I had to do it again! So when a Dr explains how fue won't work and how your donor can't be shaved down to a low guard without it being obvious surgery has been performed I would quite rightly question this as my own situation is the opposite of this!!

 

As said even hassan and Wong who are probably the most well known and respected surgeons in regard to strip have now started doing and documenting their fue!! And I'm sure if successful will start to do it regularly!!!

 

Every one can throw a dart right? So if everyone practised regularly would wveryone be world class?

 

Nope, is it because darts have improved in the last 15 years, has technology with darts moves on?

Nope, just like everything in life some people have just got a knack, a talent for it! Golf,tennis,cosmetic surgery of any type, we can all drive, right? Can we all become Lewis Hamilton? No we can't! So some Drs may just excel at fue!

 

And for the record looks like Lewis Hamilton has had a very successful fue himself!!

[Dr Tejinder Bhatti]

Dear Dr. Feller,

 

The extent at which you go to insult professionalism and ethics is astounding. You must present proof that the three forces you state are so detrimental that they cannot be overcome. You have had over 100 pages of opportunity to do so yet instead of satisfying the demand of proof by the scientific method you point fingers (very shaky ones at that) and present hypothetical, if not fantastical, ideas that involve CLASS ACTION LAWSUITS??? Absolutley astounding behaviour from a "professional".

 

The issue regarding my video is one of efficiency. It was shot, impromptu, and uploaded. With time I had it shortened because fifteen minutes is just too long. In fact, ten minutes is too long but I wanted to maintain the integrity of the documentation. The "blur" effect forces attention on the surgery. Finally, the edit allowed the addition of new information such as the type of forceps we use that were specifically designed to PREVENT crushing of grafts. Had you attended a conference in the past ten years you would know more about such tools that make survivability easier to achieve.

 

What you fail to understand is that whatever you say about my technique is irrelevant because you have not proven your initial points about how the forces you are discussing are so detrimental that a steady hand cannot overcome them. To introduce the subject of class action lawsuits is beneath you, sir, but perhaps understandable when there is nothing else to say. Fortunately such references do not apply to me because one thing is missing from such a scenario that would make such lawsuits worthy of consideration. That missing ingredient is a list of unhappy patients and that sir is why everything you have presented thus far is nothing more than conjecture. Your "facts" are conjecture. Your detrimental forces are conjecture as is your critique of my procedure. You however have an obviously shaky hand which explains why FUE is not a good procedure for your patients and why you and Dr. Blake have orchestrated this campaign to spread fear and doubt about FUE while your mFUE is the perfect, and patent pending I might add, solution to the woes of the hair transplant patient community; woes that are so horrible that no one actually knows they exist! "FUE scarring with FUT yield" even though FUE scarring is "worse" than FUT. How does that work again?

 

I implore you, sir. Prove that "compression, torsion, traction" are detrimental to every FUE practioner to the point that they cannot be overcome. Prove that Dr. Feriduni, whom Spex also represents, Dr. Lupanzula, Dr. Lorenzo, Dr. Erdogan, Dr. Bisanga, Dr. Mwamba, Dr. Vories, Dr. Diep, Dr. Rahal, Dr. Devroye, Dr. Karadeniz, Dr. Umar and the many other doctors (now including respected Dr. Hasson and Dr. Wong) that have added FUE to a significant level in their practice or have COMPLETELY switched to FUE entirely, are wrong. Prove that all of these esteemed doctors do not have better hands, stable hands, compared to you and the forces you say are impossible to overcome with conventional tools has not been overcome. Prove that these forces are negative enough to warrant the need for special tools that have yet to be invented. Prove your points, sir. You have not, you cannot and you shall not, and until then this is simply an emotional outburst because of your shrinking surgical schedule and a marketing endeavor for your Hail Mary for relevance.

 

Mr. Home1212,

 

 

every reputable HT doc or clinic performs both procedures, including H&W which was previously FUT only .. that alone should tell you something about how consumers and their demand of a more refined, less invasive surgical technique is driving change in the industry

 

Indeed, very well said. Dr. Hasson and Dr. Wong were the last recognized and respected stalwarts of FUT in the industry and yet here we are. They have recently posted a lovely preliminary photoset showing over 1000 grafts performed in a single day. Surely, if FUE was riddled with so many forces of detriment that cannot be overcome then they would have continued their path of offering excellent FUT only, yes? Could it be that they have used their considerbale dexterous abilities to overcome such insurmountable obstacles as "torsion, compression, traction"? I believe they have and the very existence of FUE in thier practice, to the point of it being advertised on their website, nullifies the very facade of this "debate."

 

Mr. Swooping just posted a very telling graph, which echoes the information and the trend that was mentioned from the meeting in San Francisco in 2013. FUE is on the rise and FUT is on the decline with only a 1.5 percent usage gap between the two methods. The 2015 survey is based on information gathered from 2014 so with the increasing adotpion rate year over year I proclaime 2015 as "The Year of FUE" as it will be revealed in the next meeting that this is the year that FUE is overtaking FUT as the "most popular" procedure.

 

Dr. Feller will dismiss this information as invalid for one reason or another. He and his new partner Dr. Blake have already said so in previous posts. The problem is that while there may be flaws in the numbers of the survey, it is still a survey, which is far more than Dr. Feller and Dr. Bloxham have presented as a counter.

 

Good day.

[voxman]

 

 

 

Oh sure, now you bring data and an ISHRS study into the argument. This kind of takes all the fun out of it.

[Melvin- Admin]

Holy cow guys. It's even more clear than ever how FUE is crushing in and literally overtaking FUT like a goddamn beast. I'll give FUT less than 5 years before becoming a small niche, and eventually it will die out almost completely. That is my opinion. But the statistics say all. Be your own judge and look at the following graph;

 

 

Source: ISHRS: Hair Transplantation More Popular Than Ever | Bernstein Medical

 

Procedure

While Follicular Unit Transplant (FUT) procedures accounted for over half of all hair transplants, Follicular Unit Extraction (FUE) is gaining rapidly, with a 51% increase over the 2012 results (from 32.2% in 2012 to 48.5% in 2014). See the chart:

 

 

 

Look especially at the last years how FUE took off and how much troubles it had in the beginning. The biggest increase was between 2012 and 2014 and FUE gained 16.3% territory.

 

But yeah this data coupled with the indicative online movement of all big (inter)national forums don't say anything I guess right guys ?

 

But FUE hasn't improved since its began back in 2002, but but the yield is poor, but but my mFUE technique is better. Guys don't pay attention to this evidence it's a mere distraction guys don't pay attention to it annnnnnd end sarcasm.

[Dr. Alan Feller]

 

Dear Dr. Feller,

 

The issue regarding my video is one of efficiency. It was shot, impromptu, and uploaded. With time I had it shortened because fifteen minutes is just too long. In fact, ten minutes is too long but I wanted to maintain the integrity of the documentation. The "blur" effect forces attention on the surgery. Finally, the edit allowed the addition of new information such as the type of forceps we use that were specifically designed to PREVENT crushing of grafts. Had you attended a conference in the past ten years you would know more about such tools that make survivability easier to achieve..

 

This is not a very believable explanation.

 

It is apparent that you failed to realize how you were obviously mishandling grafts by tearing them out and how easily even a lay person could spot it. So after I commented on it you blurred out the offensive use of forceps and slipped the edited version into an older post so that it wouldn't be noticed. There can be no "efficient" reason for this maneuver. Neither you nor your reps made reference to it because you didn't want it known.

 

Since you are so keen on bringing up the names of our colleagues without their knowledge or permission to support your viewpoints, why don't you contact them and let them comment on your video (the un-blurred version)?

 

If you wish I can contact them for you and ask them to participate. Would you like me to do that?

 

 

Edited August 30, 2015 by Dr. Alan Feller

[Dr Tejinder Bhatti]

Dear Dr. Feller,

 

Since you are so keen on bringing up the names of our colleagues without their knowledge or permission to support your viewpoints, why don't you contact them and let them comment on your video (the un-blurred version)?

 

If you wish I can contact them for you and ask them to participate. Would you like me to do that?

 

According to you they all have viewed this thread and they already know of it's existence so why would you have to contact them? You will do what you wish to do. I am not in a position to stop you. However, I did not mention the names of our colleagues to support my position. It was to reinforce the question of validity of your own position as you have yet to satisfy the scientific method. Instead you would like to focus on my video, which you believe is a weak point to continue addressing and by doing so that you somehow "win". I believe you should, as you say, "stay on point" and address why you have not, cannot, prove the three forces of compression, torsion and traction as being insurmountable. To say that it is negates the work of our esteemed colleagues and myself, which counter to your many angles of attack, appear to be making a lot of patients quite happy.

 

I suspect you will continue to play games and try to deflect from your original intent. Clearly we are seeing evidence that FUE is more popular than FUT due to the increasing rate of adoption. We also clearly see that you cannot prove your points but instead you can certainly beat your chest and finally it is clear that you can stay on point when the purpose serves your interest but you cannot stay on point once challenged with legitimate inquiry.

 

Prove your forces are detrimental. Prove they cannot be overcome. Prove that everyone that is successful with FUE is not as successful as you claim. Prove that the detrimental forces are so detrimental that all of the satisfied patients by all of the clinics that are known for their great work are in fact rare examples which thereby represents a massive, industry wide fraud of which you have decided to speak out against.

[lileli]

I don't think this exchange is helpful. Dr. Feller, I would be more suspicious if Dr. Bhatti completely got rid of the original video but he did not. Despite "bad"technique Dr. Bhatti still gets good results, why and how is that possible if his technique is so brutal? I do believe that FUT allows for the grafts to be better supported but clearly many doctors have found tricks or techniques to still get good results despite the three forces. Granted, this thread was very helpful at first because it provided us with more education. Education I have never read about or received else where.

[TakingThePlunge]

Why some hair transplants are successful and some are not has never been an easy question to answer. Perhaps if every clinic recorded every procedure and made those videos publicly available we could narrow down the number of subpar cases (strip or FUE) that could legitimately be attributed to the enigmatic "x-factor". Of course, that's not going to happen so there is always going to be some degree of speculation.

 

Much has been made of the video Dr. Bhatti shared demonstrating his technique. It's been called "rushed", "brutal", etc.

 

Recently, Dr. Feller posed a question about how one might feel if they were the patient depicted in the video and received a poor result. It will be months before anyone knows what this patient's results will be but I would like to pose the opposite question. What conclusions might we draw from this example if the patient has a desirable result?

 

If the patient gets a great result can we then conclude that this protocol, regardless of how it may appear, works consistently to produce quality results for Dr. Bhatti and his team?

 

Or, will it be attributed to a reverse x-factor..."this particular patient clearly has superhuman physiology that allowed his follicular unit grafts to survive the detrimental effects of the brutal forces applied to them and produce an appealing result but..."

 

As I've said before in another post, we may very well never know this patient's results.. He chose not to identify himself and, even if Dr. Bhatti obtains photo documentation that shows a good result, there will be those that will claim it's a different guy....etc., etc.

 

I've never been a strip detractor. I'm happy with the procure. I've never been an FUE fanboy either. I consider myself to be pragmatic and cautious and I have had good experiences with both.

 

I had subpar growth with my first strip. I was a slow grower and had kinky/wiry hair for a time with both my strips. It all turned out well in the end and I was very satisfied with the results. But, with my FUE growth came more quickly and the hair is straight and soft just like my existing hair. Still have 6 months left before I can judge the final results.

 

I don't claim that my experience with either of these procedures is representative of a "normal" case and I won't go into the details of each of my procedures because I've done that and anyone interested can view my hair restoration website but, what I have seen, read, heard and personally experienced has shown me that we cannot generalize about the quality of results with either procedure. We need to look at those results (good or bad) in context.

 

I do believe that top FUE clinics, many of whom are recommended by our community, have narrowed the gap in yield between strip and FUE consistently enough as to make it a viable alternative for many patients.

[Melvin- Admin]

Why some hair transplants are successful and some are not has never been an easy question to answer. Perhaps if every clinic recorded every procedure and made those videos publicly available we could narrow down the number of subpar cases (strip or FUE) that could legitimately be attributed to the enigmatic "x-factor". Of course, that's not going to happen so there is always going to be some degree of speculation.

 

Much has been made of the video Dr. Bhatti shared demonstrating his technique. It's been called "rushed", "brutal", etc.

 

Recently, Dr. Feller posed a question about how one might feel if they were the patient depicted in the video and received a poor result. It will be months before anyone knows what this patient's results will be but I would like to pose the opposite question. What conclusions might we draw from this example if the patient has a desirable result?

 

If the patient gets a great result can we then conclude that this protocol, regardless of how it may appear, works consistently to produce quality results for Dr. Bhatti and his team?

 

Or, will it be attributed to a reverse x-factor..."this particular patient clearly has superhuman physiology that allowed his follicular unit grafts to survive the detrimental effects of the brutal forces applied to them and produce an appealing result but..."

 

As I've said before in another post, we may very well never know this patient's results.. He chose not to identify himself and, even if Dr. Bhatti obtains photo documentation that shows a good result, there will be those that will claim it's a different guy....etc., etc.

 

I've never been a strip detractor. I'm happy with the procure. I've never been an FUE fanboy either. I consider myself to be pragmatic and cautious and I have had good experiences with both.

 

I had subpar growth with my first strip. I was a slow grower and had kinky/wiry hair for a time with both my strips. It all turned out well in the end and I was very satisfied with the results. But, with my FUE growth came more quickly and the hair is straight and soft just like my existing hair. Still have 6 months left before I can judge the final results.

 

I don't claim that my experience with either of these procedures is representative of a "normal" case and I won't go into the details of each of my procedures because I've done that and anyone interested can view my hair restoration website but, what I have seen, read, heard and personally experienced has shown me that we cannot generalize about the quality of results with either procedure. We need to look at those results (good or bad) in context.

 

I do believe that top FUE clinics, many of whom are recommended by our community, have narrowed the gap in yield between strip and FUE consistently enough as to make it a viable alternative for many patients.

 

Very astute observation David, and great question, what if this patient achieves a fantastic result, I believe Bill posed the same question that if a physician is able to get a good result in half the time wouldn't that add to the procedure. I'd also like to piggy back on what you said about the kinky and wiry hair, according to Dr. Feller's partner this only occurs in FUE, however you stated that you got this from 2 strip surgeries, which is interesting, but im glad it sorted itself out for you. I completely agree with your views as well. I also believe that the yield between top FUE surgeons is comparable to FUT surgeons and that the difference in yield is insignificant cosmetically.

[Dr. Alan Feller]

Why some hair transplants are successful and some are not has never been an easy question to answer. Perhaps if every clinic recorded every procedure and made those videos publicly available we could narrow down the number of subpar cases (strip or FUE) that could legitimately be attributed to the enigmatic "x-factor". Of course, that's not going to happen so there is always going to be some degree of speculation.

 

Much has been made of the video Dr. Bhatti shared demonstrating his technique. It's been called "rushed", "brutal", etc.

 

Recently, Dr. Feller posed a question about how one might feel if they were the patient depicted in the video and received a poor result. It will be months before anyone knows what this patient's results will be but I would like to pose the opposite question. What conclusions might we draw from this example if the patient has a desirable result?

 

If the patient gets a great result can we then conclude that this protocol, regardless of how it may appear, works consistently to produce quality results for Dr. Bhatti and his team?

 

Or, will it be attributed to a reverse x-factor..."this particular patient clearly has superhuman physiology that allowed his follicular unit grafts to survive the detrimental effects of the brutal forces applied to them and produce an appealing result but..."

 

As I've said before in another post, we may very well never know this patient's results.. He chose not to identify himself and, even if Dr. Bhatti obtains photo documentation that shows a good result, there will be those that will claim it's a different guy....etc., etc.

 

I've never been a strip detractor. I'm happy with the procure. I've never been an FUE fanboy either. I consider myself to be pragmatic and cautious and I have had good experiences with both.

 

I had subpar growth with my first strip. I was a slow grower and had kinky/wiry hair for a time with both my strips. It all turned out well in the end and I was very satisfied with the results. But, with my FUE growth came more quickly and the hair is straight and soft just like my existing hair. Still have 6 months left before I can judge the final results.

 

I don't claim that my experience with either of these procedures is representative of a "normal" case and I won't go into the details of each of my procedures because I've done that and anyone interested can view my hair restoration website but, what I have seen, read, heard and personally experienced has shown me that we cannot generalize about the quality of results with either procedure. We need to look at those results (good or bad) in context.

 

I do believe that top FUE clinics, many of whom are recommended by our community, have narrowed the gap in yield between strip and FUE consistently enough as to make it a viable alternative for many patients.

 

David, Dr. Bhatti has just been exposed in a literal cover up the likes of which has never been seen on this site and you have nothing to say about it? This is not conjecture or supposition, it just happened in undisputed reality but nothing from you? Really?

 

The proof of two of the three detrimental forces he claims don't even exist are right in his own video. But he only realized it AFTER I made him aware of it. So he tried to cover it up by editing them out. Don't you see that?

 

Edited August 30, 2015 by Dr. Alan Feller

[mahhong]

Let me start by saying I'm a fan of both Dr. Feller and Dr. Bhatti's work. This has been an interesting and at times informative debate, but it's also a sort of circular one.

 

I think it's clear that Dr. Feller's assertion that FUT likely produces more consistent yields and exposes grafts to less potential problem is true - that's almost self evident. However it is also equally true that the "fundamental forces" argument doesn't hold up quite so well. It's clear that talented FUE surgeons are mitigating these issues and producing great results and good yields. Consistently as good as FUT? That's almost impossible to know short of a genuine scientific study of various clinics and their outcomes.

 

I think it's also clear that FUT and FUE are much closer in popularity, with FUE seemingly on the rise and FUT possibly on the decline (at least as a ratio to FUE). Whether or not this is a good thing is another difficult aspect of this debate to draw conclusions about, but I think Dr. Feller's postulations do not quite hold up to scrutiny here.

 

I applaud Dr. Feller for researching and designing the mFUE technique. Regardless of its eventual place in the clinic, any doctor willing to look at ways of pushing the envelope should be applauded. I too have some questions about its function, particularly as FUE scarring would appear to be one of the negatives according to Dr. Feller. One must ask the obvious question - if FUT is so clearly the gold standard, why attempt to innovate this way?

 

It's a shame this thread has derailed somewhat, both between doctors and layman posters. It's very clear a back and forth discussion isn't going to conclude the issue. Every doctor has reasons to believe in their position regarding FUT/FUE and we must simply conclude that all the top recommended doctors are producing fairly consistent and quality results regardless of whether they perform FUE and/or FUT.

 

The only way to try and advance this discussion meaningfully is scientifically. Some sort of blinded or controlled study would actually be very interesting and probably very useful too. I have no doubt this would be difficult to achieve as it would require funding, impartiality and cooperation from a plethora of clinics, but I cannot see how the argument could be settled otherwise. At 128 pages it would appear nobody has really budged and for obvious reasons - there is no data to back up assertions. Each doctor feels confident they are producing consistent results and offering the best to their patients.

 

I think David, the moderator, makes a good and obvious point - there is no best. There is no right or wrong. There may be generalisations about yield and scarring and practices to be inferred but there and pros and cons and, like it or not, it's easy to see why FUE is growing in popularity whatever the outcomes. I do not think FUE would be growing in popularity at this rate if the results were consistently sub-par or undesirable. Perhaps we need a few more years to see what really happens?

 

At the risk of sounding glib, I think those on either side must agree to disagree. From what I consider an impartial perspective, I cannot see how this debate could move forward.