A really basic question that it seems no one is asking

[FUEmylife]

Hello, I'm new here, though I have been researching hair loss for quite a long while.

 

I have spent quite a bit of time looking for an actual BLINDED, peer-reviewed study comparing FUT and FUE that has come out since any of the newer techniques have been published.

 

I want to see people evaluating hair loss recovery not knowing which type of surgery the patient received.

 

This seems very easy to do. High resolution photos in person instead of low quality JPGs and movies on the internet. The funding needed would be minimal, as I am sure many patients would happily volunteer.

 

Why hasn't this study been done? Honestly, with a good statistician and a few clinics offering the option to their patients to enroll, it seems like it would be quite simple.

 

The only answer I can come up with is that the scientific community does not think it is an issue that needs to be addressed. Obviously, from the forums here, it seems like it would have quite a large audience.

 

I have read through every article I could find on pubmed. The closest I got was an article quoted by Dr. Wesley, but it was very old.

 

Have there been any more recent studies?

 

If not, why not? Ulterior motives? It does seem that when you see a study on a drug, it is often a new drug that is under patent.

 

But when you see a new study on a surgical procedure, there are certainly surgeons practicing the older procedure who have an ulterior motive to not want to have to learn a new procedure, particularly if they are older and at the end of the career. Yet medical science marches on.

 

When they said they didn't have to crack your chest anymore to fix your coronary arteries, I am sure there were some surgeons that were unhappy. Yet it still moved forward, and lo and behold: David Letterman and Bill Clinton are somehow still alive.

 

How come this study doesn't exist for FUE? Or if I am ignorant, someone please point me in the right direction. The internet has a way of humbling, and this seems like a remarkably well informd community.

 

Please, someone tell me that I overlooked a study. Don't point me in the direction of some doctor's internet marketing. I want a blinded study.

 

If it doesn't exist, then...FUE me and what the FUT.

[BullDogs93]

The treatments are conducted differently, it is impossible to make them blind because you would know if a strip was cut into your head or if individual grafts were extracted.

 

A lot of Doctors perform both FUE and FUT. it is more likely the hairs you extract from FUT are from a stable donor zone that is part of the reason the yield is higher. with FUE you are more likely be transplanting hairs that are DHT susceptible in the future.

[FUEmylife]

The treatments are conducted differently, it is impossible to make them blind because you would know if a strip was cut into your head or if individual grafts were extracted.

 

A lot of Doctors perform both FUE and FUT. it is more likely the hairs you extract from FUT are from a stable donor zone that is part of the reason the yield is higher. with FUE you are more likely be transplanting hairs that are DHT susceptible in the future.

 

The patient would know, but I mean the person examining the recipient site (not the donor) after healing was complete. Or a sham surgery could be incorporated. Easy study. Done time and time again with many other surgical procedures (ie. breast implants, cardiac stents vs bypass, etc.).

 

Only reason it is not being done that I can think of is because of economic interest, but the question then is whose?

 

I just can't reason my way through that doing something blindly or by 'feel' works as well as directly seeing it, and the complete absence of scentific data behind the claims of some of the forum junkies here really makes me pause. No matter how many times he tried, Ray Charles could never get a perfect shave. Also, Lorenzo seems to be the only one with consistently high yields, but his hairlines leave much to be desired.

 

I might as well start rubbing RU58841 on my head and wearing a laser helmet.

Edited August 16, 2015 by FUEmylife
typo

[Dr Blake Bloxham]

FUE,

 

More objective science and rigorous study is always welcome. Setting up traditional scientific studies -- double blind, placebo, et cetera -- has always been difficult in surgery. This tends to create a lot of "long term outcome" studies in surgery. However, these, by definition, aren't released until years to decades after the techniques being studied are first trialed. But this does not excuse the need for studies.

 

I'm pretty certain the ISHRS has grants available for studies. Perhaps you could contact someone from the ISHRS about the idea of looking at this further?

[gilgamesh]

FUE,

 

More objective science and rigorous study is always welcome. Setting up traditional scientific studies -- double blind, placebo, et cetera -- has always been difficult in surgery. This tends to create a lot of "long term outcome" studies in surgery. However, these, by definition, aren't released until years to decades after the techniques being studied are first trialed. But this does not excuse the need for studies.

 

Blake, a search on medline through the NIH data base shows that most studies are not decades long, but instead start with short term outcomes and then progress. If decades were needed for any new surgical technique to be vetted, medical research would come to a standstill.

 

The answer to 99 out of a 100 questions is: money. Who makes money if FUE is shown to be equivalent to FUT? Who loses money? Where does funding usually come from for trials of surgical procedures? Especially cosmetic ones?

 

I think a great example of how quickly medical research can progress on high impact issues in cosmetics is the silicon versus saline breast implant debate. Who funded the research? Why? And why did the tide turn back?

 

Like politics, medical research in the United States pretends it is not intimately based on economics, but unfortunately, like politics, that is the fundamental problem. The reason the study doesn't exist is the same reason dutasteride hasn't been approved for hair loss yet. There is no one with enough potential economic gain to make it worth their while to invest.

 

If you notice, the companies that make most FUE specific devices also have major products in the FUT market. There is no competition, it's a monopoly from their stand point. They would rather devote the funds to something more worth their while -- ie. profitable. While the study is not complex, the resources of surgeons, patients, and statisticians need to be coordinated. And it's hard to get government funding for cosmetic procedures in healthy patients.

[Bobman]

I always find it fascinating when we allow our male-analytical-brains to get trenched into the manusha of some rather interesting topics. This topic for example is a great......example.

 

If you did your research. Understand the basic differences in what HT techniques you're looking into. AND more importantly that you found the RIGHT F'n Doctor(s)...flip a coin, make a choice...pull the trigger and get 'r done. An "important step" most dance around for years. But, like i say...the Universe works the way it works. Do what feels right. PEACE!

 

PS: :cool:

This is just an observation not directed at anyone specific GEORGE....i mean, what? (jk)

[gilgamesh]

flip a coin, make a choice...pull the trigger and get 'r done.

 

 

Researching my decisions before I make them has worked out quite well for me. I don't think any of us would be here if we did not share that sentiment. And this isn't 'manusha' -- I am talking about most fundamental question of surgical hair restoration that we are dealing with at the moment.

 

But as you said, to each their own.

[voxman]

...pull the trigger and get 'r done.

PS: :cool:

This is just an observation not directed at anyone specific GEORGE....i mean, what? (jk)

 

You got it Bob. This is all good but if it's just academics...Meh.