The Truth On FUE Vs FUT ?

[Torn]

Has there ever been an actual conclusive study done on this subject ? And if not, why not ? I am in the process of deciding between the two. Or for that matter possibly going with both. And I find it all very confusing when one says one thing, and another says the complete opposite.

 

On a similar note I often hear of 'top docs' who produce better yields. And I wonder, exactly how do they know this ? I went to a so called 'top doc' and frankly I was very disappointed by the results. I mention this only because having gone through the process with this doc I noticed he never accurately evaluated my density before or after. Yet I was told by him, my yield was good. By what measure ? When I went to the forums to speak of it I was pretty much shouted down.

 

I say this only because how can docs be considered 'top docs' producing 'high yields' if they are not actually evaluating the before and after density of their patients. To then be able to produce hard numbers. Or at least it didn't happen this time in my case. Was I the exception ?

 

That and or making claims one method (FUE/FUT) is superior to another. How exactly is this determined ? And if there are conclusive studies why is this still hotly debated ?

 

This post is not about my bad experience but the personal insight it gave me in that how are some of these claims made ? FUT yields more that FUE. OK, well then exactly how much ? Is this consistent ? How did you come that opinion ?

 

I'll conclude by saying that maybe more studies are needed.

[MAGNUMpi]

Good post. Lots of interesting questions.

are conclusive studies why is this still hotly debated ?

Because there are so many variables. Everything has to do with:

Your personal hair loss

Your personal hair characteristics

The doctor you visit

The day the doctor/techs are having

Pure luck

Yes the FUT vs FUE debate is a funny one, and it exists because there is no definitive answer on the subject. There are good and bad results coming from every single doctor, regardless of whether he is considered a "top Doc". But the more you learn about the different procedures the better you can potentially address your personal situation.

If you are a NW 5+ you might want to look at FUT if you are okay with the scar and all its issues.

If you are a NW 2/3 and your hair loss is stable you might want to look at FUE.

Sorry you got shut down about your past results. You should re-post and give it another shot. There are good people here on the forum who can help access your situation and give you some good feedback that might help.

I didnt answer all your questions. Hope some more people will jump in and get to some I missed.

[Torn]

Good post. Lots of interesting questions.

 

Because there are so many variables. Everything has to do with:

Your personal hair loss

Your personal hair characteristics

The doctor you visit

The day the doctor/techs are having

Pure luck

Yes the FUT vs FUE debate is a funny one, and it exists because there is no definitive answer on the subject. There are good and bad results coming from every single doctor, regardless of whether he is considered a "top Doc". But the more you learn about the different procedures the better you can potentially address your personal situation.

If you are a NW 5+ you might want to look at FUT if you are okay with the scar and all its issues.

If you are a NW 2/3 and your hair loss is stable you might want to look at FUE.

Sorry you got shut down about your past results. You should re-post and give it another shot. There are good people here on the forum who can help access your situation and give you some good feedback that might help.

I didnt answer all your questions. Hope some more people will jump in and get to some I missed.

 

 

 

Thanks for the informative reply Magnum. With so many variables and lack of any definitive studies it is not an easy process. Even with a so called 'top doc'.

[voxman]

If results were guaranteed and uniform on every case, there would be no debate or opinion. It would just 'be'. Unfortunately, the procedures and results are subject to circumstances not under control and even then, extremely subjective.

 

It's not just the HT industry either. When a Top Doc tells you they 'think they got all the cancer' following an operation, but still put you on chemo and radiation to 'make sure', that's preventative measures against the many variables involved in management of a disease.

 

It's not easy or foolproof.

[Spanker]

Results are about yield, naturalness, and hair mass. The doc controls the first to a degree, the second fully, and the last not at all.

 

Hair mass has is about pie r2 x height (or length in this case) This is what blocks the light from hitting your scalp making you not look bald.

 

A thick haired person with a high average hair count per follicular unit will have a killer result with much less hair and even much less yield. That's one reason I think Turkish docs shine. You can't look at a result and tell what kind of yield a guy got withou knowing a lot of factors about the pt, unless it's shaved short and he was largely bald preop.

 

Forums are filled with people who can and can't see this.

 

As far as your yield point, I can only say that I feel that there is a big difference in "top" docs and a good doc, but it doesn't cone from yield, it comes from artistry. There are a lot of high yield docs whose results aren't on par with other physicians.

[BadBeat]

Paging Dr. Feller.....Dr. Feller

[darlinglocks]

I do agree with you Spanker....

[newbie33]

Torn, the very points you make are the things that have prevented me from getting a HT. There is just too much marketing/opinion and too little proper science behind all of this.

 

Yes, there are many individual factors unique to each patient that make up a whole HT result. But some of those factors can be objectively measured. Yield is one. It is possible to count how many grafts you attempt to take out using FUE. It's possible to count how many you transect or partially transect. It's possible to count how many you place. It's possible (especially if placed in totally bald areas) to count how many grow.

 

I know this does not make the end result. But it would at least give people some comfort that on the average X percent of grafts grow using Y technique with Dr Z (Not a forum recommended doctor).

 

As far as I can make out, the answers you'll get about this from each doctor are largely their judgement of how many grafts grow. And while that counts for something, it's a subjective measure of something which could be counted objectively. I'd love to be corrected about this, so please jump in if I'm wrong...

[Spanker]

Torn, the very points you make are the things that have prevented me from getting a HT. There is just too much marketing/opinion and too little proper science behind all of this.

 

Yes, there are many individual factors unique to each patient that make up a whole HT result. But some of those factors can be objectively measured. Yield is one. It is possible to count how many grafts you attempt to take out using FUE. It's possible to count how many you transect or partially transect. It's possible to count how many you place. It's possible (especially if placed in totally bald areas) to count how many grow.

 

I know this does not make the end result. But it would at least give people some comfort that on the average X percent of grafts grow using Y technique with Dr Z (Not a forum recommended doctor).

 

As far as I can make out, the answers you'll get about this from each doctor are largely their judgement of how many grafts grow. And while that counts for something, it's a subjective measure of something which could be counted objectively. I'd love to be corrected about this, so please jump in if I'm wrong...

While most patients have hair planted in hair, doctors do enough totally bald areas that they can get a good grasp on what their growth rates are. Also, I've seen fut studies on the past that mark off an area with a tattoo fit and measured the density. It's been done, it's just not feasible to do to each pt.