Current trend of poor FUE results on HRN

[JON86]

The fue vs fut battle is the worst thing about this site. Both have their place but I don't understand why others have to feel they need to control people to choose one or the other. It's a personal decision that everyone must come to decide. Who cares what procedure is more labor intensive? It does not mean it's better. There are tons of guys on here that have had good fut results and also bad fut results. The most discouraging thing is how fue is overhyped as a no pain scarless procedure. Everyone has to come to their own conclusion. I personally have been back and forth dealing with what procedure is best for me and I am saying best for me. I personally trust I would get a better result with Konior or Hasson on a strip then I would with Diep or any of the other Fue doctors I have dealt with. I for one am not trusting my head to techs. But those that choose fue I do not discourage your decision.

[esrec]

These debates are painful. Both procedures have their place. One is more tempermental, the other is more invasive. Pick your poison.

[Stig]

So you have never actually performed either procedure.

 

I agree with Feller, strip is more labor intensive for the surgeon than FUE. For the majority of top FUE clinics, especially in Turkey and Europe, the technicians are the ones performing 100% of the extractions, whilst with strip, the surgeon has to spend 45 mins to an hour removing the strip. With FUE, the surgeon can just walk between the 3 or 4 or 5 patients and check-in on the extraction process, maybe even check the news.

 

In all seriousness, I think Feller was referring to FUT being more labor intensive as a whole. I.e with FUE, you really just need one or two techs and the surgeon, whilst for strip you have a larger team of techs dissecting the strips.

[Sam23]

In my opinion as consumer ( who is regretting doing HT in first place)

 

Yield vs yield / FUT win and Fue chances of yield failure is high more than 40%

 

Scar vs scar Fue win and FUT chances of non noticable scars is zero

 

Now yield vs scar here the time will judge, if you progress more your scar is most important than yield, if you do not progress, yield will win, and nobody will not progress

 

With FUT you are more a slave to meds in order to stop baldness you do not have chances anymore so you will do strip and another strip cuz you know your head is already distort

 

With FUE, you can stop the meds anytime you want and stop fighting and let it go ( if your scars are small and not noticeable)

 

The judgement should not only be on the surgery as standalone, but the time also should be taken in consideration

If I m happy FUT for 2 or 3 years, with meds maybe 7 or 8 years and later the gens win and baldness continue, so even if i have yield now i will be always afraid and worry from my scar because shaving is not option anymore i m stuck whether goood results or bad results no exit here, most of terror stories on the net from FUT not becasue the surgery was not succeful but becasue of time, after 10 years when their baldness continue they find out this is a stupid decision they ever made

 

But with new small FUE, whethere bad yield or baldness continue with time, the chance to shave everything and let it go is quit high, (comparing to FUT) and we have seen a lot of examples. So after 10 years with FUE you can still shave and be more like any normal guy

 

 

I m regretting doing HT in first place, but i still have a hope that i can shave everything in the future without problems and i saw many examples, it is probable but with FUT hell no

 

 

This my opinion as a consumer and how i compare things, and i think most of people think in the same way because the future is not guaranteed whethere with FUT or FUE

[LondonHTseeker]

I agree with Feller

 

What a surprise.

Edited November 17, 2015 by LondonHTseeker

[Stig]

What a surprise.

 

Hahaha - you are alright London!

[Garageland]

Lol....you guys.

[tommygun]

Why does FUE cost more in the US when compared to FUT in the US?

 

*not compared to any other countries with different laws...etc. Just the US.

[wylie]

I have.

 

Greetings to everyone involved in this thread. I have read it in it's entirety with great interest but it appears the topic has veered from the original issue presented by Mr. FUE2014.

 

I believe there is indeed a body of poor results but it has to do more with the incredible influx of clinics that are now offering FUE with a very low, seemingly non-existent, surgical standard. If clinics have a high standard for surigical performance, enough years of experience and do not allow unlicenced technicians to perform the procedure then FUE is a wonderful modern alternative to FUSS with a strong expected outcome.

 

In my experience in India, the market is very similar to that of Turkey, where hundreds of clinics open with little to no experience and potentially without a doctor in sight. It is an epidemic really, and hits at the core problem with FUE. It is too easy for lay persons or inexperienced medical personnel to get involved and bring down the average success rate. A similar issue is occuring in the United States to a lesser degree. Automated machines are being marketed to clinics as an adjunct to their existing practices where they perform other medical cosmetic procedures. This too brings down the overall quality of results. There is no passion, there is no dediction, there is no specialization. In India, I am an anomaly in that I am one of the small handful (and that is being generous) of doctors that performs FUE myself and because I do the procedure myself I am able to control every aspect of the procedure.

 

Having performed many FUSS procedures over the years I am happy that I have switched to FUE only and I can say without hesitation that FUE is much more labor intenstive. I do not know of any of my colleagues that have also performed both to a respectable degree that will disagree with me, present company excluded of course. FUSS does have it's own set of skills and requirements, of course with great skill, but it is not as intensive as FUE. To compare, a proper strip is removed with a scalpel that incises the flesh to separate it from the donor scalp. Suturing is the standard for closure but staples are used by some to speed the process further. Some strips will take 20 minutes to remove but if safely and properly performed the strip removal process takes 45 minutes to an hour. Once completed the doctor can take a break or move on to the second, third or fourth patient while the technicians dissect the tissue to get to the follicular units.

 

FUE extraction however cannot be peformed in 45 minutes even in small cases. I get no such break after such a short amount of work. FUE extraction takes hours and the process is repetitive and requires extreme concentration, not to mention eye-hand coordination, over the course of several hours. This is not seen in strip excision. If performed properly and at an appropriate clinic there is much more direct involvement between doctor and patient with FUE than compared to strip thus there is more intensive work for the doctor overall.

 

FUE can never be supplanted by FUSS. The genie, as they say, is out of the bottle but it is imperative for patients to perform their diligence properly and to do their best not to be distracted by marketing and interaction that deflects from the points you wish to investigate. Does your clinic have consistent results or when you push for answers about results do you keep getting excuses?

 

Mr. FUE2014, I hope I have answered your question and shed some light on the issue with another point of view.

 

That is a great answer, and thanks for your insight Dr. Bhatti.

[wylie]

Why does FUE cost more in the US when compared to FUT in the US?

 

*not compared to any other countries with different laws...etc. Just the US.

 

Fewer people perform FUE in the U.S., therefore these select few can set the price higher. Once more and more doctors learn how to perform it (and many new doctors are learning how to perform it every day, with dollar signs practically popping out of their eyeballs) you can expect the price to come down.

 

You cannot, however, expect the quality to go up. You will be hearing of more and more FUE failures as doctors navigate the learning curve.

[newbie33]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Dr Feller is talking about strip being more labour intensive as an end-to-end process. Dr Bhatti and others are talking about fue being more labour intensive for the doctor. And that's in relation to how they perform these procedures, which as we know would be different.

 

Either way, neither seem to be suggesting labour intensity is the reason why results turn out poorly. You're all ascribing motives for why the clinic/business would prefer to perform the least labour intensive task. So it's a bit of a red herring if we go back to the original question, which was about - actually, nobody cares about the original question, do they?

[Sethticles]

choose your clinic wisely and you'll be a happy chappy with NO SCAR and with a great survival rate

[mikeey]

I think FUE is more Labour intensive , considering that A STRIP is almost extracted in 10 mins , and for FUE the graft punch , manual or otherwise takes almost an hour

[LondonHTseeker]

Hahaha - you are alright London!

 

[Melvin- Admin]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Dr Feller is talking about strip being more labour intensive as an end-to-end process. Dr Bhatti and others are talking about fue being more labour intensive for the doctor. And that's in relation to how they perform these procedures, which as we know would be different.

 

Either way, neither seem to be suggesting labour intensity is the reason why results turn out poorly. You're all ascribing motives for why the clinic/business would prefer to perform the least labour intensive task. So it's a bit of a red herring if we go back to the original question, which was about - actually, nobody cares about the original question, do they?

 

Once again newbie dead on, I would like to just add that no surgery is scarless, while we all strive for the best scarring+yield it is simply not possible with FUE due to the sub dermal scarring that occurs and the insurmountable amount of trauma to the grafts, unfortunately there is no "cake and eat it too" procedure, FUE provides 0.00000006% growth rate in comparison to 150% growth rate for FUT. So in essence 1,000 grafts implanted via FUT will yield a 4,000 graft result, compared to 7,000 grafts via FUE that will yield -700 graft results. I thoroughly enjoy your participation in these discussions. Please be sure to check out feller and bloxhams website:)

[Sethticles]

Once again newbie dead on, I would like to just add that no surgery is scarless, while we all strive for the best scarring+yield it is simply not possible with FUE due to the sub dermal scarring that occurs and the insurmountable amount of trauma to the grafts, unfortunately there is no "cake and eat it too" procedure, FUE provides 0.00000006% growth rate in comparison to 150% growth rate for FUT. So in essence 1,000 grafts implanted via FUT will yield a 4,000 graft result, compared to 7,000 grafts via FUE that will yield -700 graft results. I thoroughly enjoy your participation in these discussions. Please be sure to check out feller and bloxhams website:)

 

yes quite true although you're missing adjunct

[wylie]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Dr Feller is talking about strip being more labour intensive as an end-to-end process. Dr Bhatti and others are talking about fue being more labour intensive for the doctor. And that's in relation to how they perform these procedures, which as we know would be different.

 

 

 

That doesn't even make sense.

[MrGio-WHTCClinic]

Disagree.

All things being equal, FUT produces the most consistent and reliable results due to the order of magnitude decrease in extraction trauma compared to FUE.

 

To claim it is the FUE surgeons experience rather than the increased trauma of the procedure is to ignore the elephant in the room. And we're talking BIG pachyderm here.

 

All things are equal among FUE and FUT, especially aesthetic results. However, hairs per graft are more likely to be more with FUE. The surgeons who are newest to FUE don't produce the level of consistency in aesthetically pleasing results. The level of trauma is as good as the surgeon's skill set and training allows. The leaders in FUE all have one thing in common; experience, which can't be taught. One surgeon will present a better yield and consistently minimal trauma.

 

To further my opinion, there are surgeons who innovate, and there are surgeon's who rely on their name. To separate the best from average, training, instrumentation, and artistic ability are key.

 

Poor FUE signifies poor practices, attention to detail, and training. If one surgeon is better at FUE or FUT, that surgeon will produce the better result. The entire reason for FUE is a matter of donor results. Current poor FUE results are performed by clinics and surgeons who are newest to performing the method. FUE is not better than FUT, the difference is merely a matter of expectations in the donor.

 

We can compare the differences among the most versatile surgeons with new surgeons and see that experience is a leading common denominator. Furthermore, expert surgeons can remove poor aesthetic FUT and FUE results. Think about it; in this community, FUE results are best represented by the most experienced surgeons and clinics.

 

Experience separates the majority of good FUE results, bad FUE results, and ugliest FUE results. We can study and observe how yield, transection, and aesthetic quality are produced very similarly among results in the hands of good surgeons who posses the versatility. Learning curve can be an issue for new FUE surgeons. The investment of time and determination to perform the physically exerting work is demanded by FUE, and that may be the factor that separates many poor FUE surgeons and their FUE results. That said, be mindful of the differences in geographical locations of today's acceptable FUE practices and results.

 

FUE is an extraction process that is far more complicated than FUT. FUE requires specific protocols in handling of grafts, graft storage, and instruments with the technique. There are simply great FUT surgeons who perform poor FUE. Poor FUE means improper growth angles, misplaced grafts, and high graft transection.

 

The best aesthetic surgeon practicing FUE and FUT is the evidence that no one technique can be performed to be more superior; results are specific to a surgeon's ability, training, and education. That said, don't look at the doctors who charge cheap and produce cheap, economics is irrelevant in this thread.

 

Lastly, various FUT clinics have technicians handling and dissecting grafts while FUE is more dependent on the surgeons skill for graft removal.

 

These are reasons for the trend of 'poor' FUE results; skills, training, artistic ability. In consideration of poor FUE, experience is above all.

[Sethticles]

essentially a great FUE surgeon is superior to FUT because of the ZERO scarring, thus choose your surgeon wisely

[Yaz89]

essentially a great FUE surgeon is superior to FUT because of the ZERO scarring, thus choose your surgeon wisely

 

Even a great FUE surgeon cannot predict the scarring. Because there IS scarring in FUE. Straight, honest truth...

[esrec]

The zero scarring narrative is a dangerous one that should be avoided. It's not accurate.

 

Happy for everyone that achieves great yield + minimal if not extremely minimal scarring with FUE, but even 300 "miniature barely visibile scars" in a best case scenario are still scars.

 

Minimally Invasive is probably a safer description.

[1978matt]

What do people think of this result?

 

http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/177363-hair-transplant-dr-bhatti-oct-14-part-2-procedure-11.html

 

and from a doctor who does his own extractions.

[esrec]

What do people think of this result?

 

http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/177363-hair-transplant-dr-bhatti-oct-14-part-2-procedure-11.html

 

and from a doctor who does his own extractions.

 

Objection....leading.

[Melvin- Admin]

What do people think of this result?

 

http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/177363-hair-transplant-dr-bhatti-oct-14-part-2-procedure-11.html

 

and from a doctor who does his own extractions.

 

Wow Matt you never cease to amaze me seriously, the OP was happy with his result and here you are cherry picking cases to bash on to prove your point or to feel better about yourself not sure which one probably a bit of both. I think it's a big improvement from where he started and if he's happy who am I to say otherwise, I think it's pretty shameful you've resorted to picking at other members results who are happy btw to push your agenda.

 

Also, look at his first post you see he lowered his hairline a considerable amount and only used 2,300 grafts 400 of which were beard hair, so scalp hair only 1,900.

[newbie33]

That doesn't even make sense.

 

Or you didn't understand it, which is not necessarily the same thing. But seeing as you put it so nicely, let me explain further.

 

The end-to-end process for strip - that is to say every single step of the procedure, such as extracting the strip, stitching the wound, etc.. - usually involves a whole bunch of techs in a stage of that process. Overall, I would think it a fairly labour intensive affair, as a number of techs are required to spend hours splicing up the grafts into individual units. But the doctor's work might not necessarily be more than 3 or 4 of those end-to-end process man hours.

 

In FUE, I would hope the doctor would do the extractions, and if using an implanter pen, then making the incisions. The doctor in that set-up is doing maybe up to 8 or more hours of the work. So it's very labour intensive for the doctor - more so than in a standard strip. But the overall labour intensity, i.e. the total number of man hours worked on the entire end-to-end procedure, might be lower than a strip performed as above.

 

But there is no standard way of doing fue, and neither doctor as far as I read specifically said they were referring to their labour, or the labour involved in getting the entire thing done. I've just posited that both of them were referring to a different definition - Feller on the overall labour required and Bhatti on the doctor's labour alone.

 

In any event, the OP asked why there's a string of bad fue results appearing, and seeing as labour intensity isn't an intrinsic factor in why anything turns out bad or good, it's a dead-end argument.

 

Make sense?