ARTAS Hair Restoration Machine - What is Your Opinion?

[Bill - Seemiller]

There is no doubt that the ARTAS Hair Restoration machine is a huge leap forward in technology and the fact that it can automate a large part of the procedure is mind boggling.

 

That said, from what I've seen, it seems that most patients are more impressed with physicians who are performing manual or motorized FUE and the overall impression about the ARTAS is that, at its current state, it produces adequate but not exceptional results.

 

That said, I'm curious what everyone's opinion is about this device. I'd like to hear from both patients and physicians. I'd also like to hear from any technicians or anyone that works for a clinic who is familiar with the device, in particular those who have direct experience with it.

 

I have spoken to a few physicians who've used it. Some love it and some simply aren't impressed. Some swear that this is the future of FUE hair transplant surgery while others feel it's simply one more tool that a physician/clinic may or may not choose to assist with their procedure.

 

But what is YOUR opinion?

 

I look forward to your feedback.

 

Best wishes,

 

Bill

[Dutchie]

Heard too many horror stories to never get my HT done at a clinic who uses an ARTAS

[home1212]

When I first scheduled my FUE procedure with Rahal last year, I was under the impression that he was using the ARTAS robot to do the extractions. I later came to find out before my procedure that he discontinued use of the ARTAS because he found his manual motorized extraction method provided better yields. I've had 2 FUE procedures with Rahal where his lead tech used a motorized manual extraction tool. In the hands of a skilled technician, he was very quick, efficient, and random in the extracting grafts from my so called safe zone. Personally, I've only heard negative press from doctors/clinics about ARTAS. It seems that when starting out to do FUE procedures, a clinic might chose the robot because they might not have the in-houses skilled techs or doctors in some cases to do the extractions. Like H&W who only recently got into the FUE game with ARTAS, I would be interested in seeing how much of their practice turns from FUT - their bread & butter - to FUE, and how long they stick with ARTAS.

[Shadow of the EMpire State]

Mankind has always invested too much confidence in its machines. We see a robot, and we think it's better.

 

But of course, a robot is only as good as the humans who programmed it, and from what I hear, the current iteration ARTAS leaves a lot desired.

 

I will avoid for the time being.

Edited March 20, 2016 by Shadow of the EMpire State

[Melvin- Admin]

The simple fact remains that all of the best FUE surgeons in the world use Manual FUE, I just got done consulting with Dr. Gabel, who also feels that the Artas machine does not work as well as manual FUE in addition the donor appearance is not the same as in Manual.

 

I think its easier for surgeons to cherry pick grafts and patterns, for example if a doctor wants to pick out singles and doubles, he's able to do this manually, doing this will obviously help with the appearance of the donor if it is already depleted. The fact is that the only surgeons I see promoting Artas are FUT surgeons or hair mills like Bosley and Ziering.

[Stig]

When I first scheduled my FUE procedure with Rahal last year, I was under the impression that he was using the ARTAS robot to do the extractions. I later came to find out before my procedure that he discontinued use of the ARTAS because he found his manual motorized extraction method provided better yields. I've had 2 FUE procedures with Rahal where his lead tech used a motorized manual extraction tool. In the hands of a skilled technician, he was very quick, efficient, and random in the extracting grafts from my so called safe zone. Personally, I've only heard negative press from doctors/clinics about ARTAS. It seems that when starting out to do FUE procedures, a clinic might chose the robot because they might not have the in-houses skilled techs or doctors in some cases to do the extractions. Like H&W who only recently got into the FUE game with ARTAS, I would be interested in seeing how much of their practice turns from FUT - their bread & butter - to FUE, and how long they stick with ARTAS.

 

H&W already abandoned ARTAS. On their website, read the post made by Dr Hasson on the state of the practice in 2015. He said that they tried it, and concluded that manual punches are the best, so abandoned it.

Edited March 20, 2016 by Stig

[Stig]

https://hassonandwong.com/setting-new-standards-fue/

 

Here it is

[Stig]

The fact is that the only surgeons I see promoting Artas are FUT surgeons or hair mills like Bosley and Ziering.

 

Agreed, but there is an elephant in the room in the form of Dr Robert Bernstein who promotes and uses ARTAS. Isn't he a pioneer?

[lorenzo]

I think there are few other recommended doctors that either have the machine or use it. It would be interesting to hear their opinions.

Here is a list of doctors using it in America,

 

Find A Physician | ARTAS Robotic Hair Transplant

[Dutchie]

Rumor has it Dr. Rahal stopped using the ARTAS after some really bad results

[Harebrained]

If the most skilled surgeons who have invested in ARTAS discontinue their use, will these machines eventually end up in the hands of even less skilled clinics/doctors who maybe shouldn't even be perfoming transplants in the first place?

Just a thought.......

[esrec]

I also wonder the issue of liability if a doctor decides to use a machine that is potentially doing a majority of the work

[Dutchie]

What horror stories?

I've read a bunch on this site. And I've heard of quite a few doctors who refuse to use ARTAS.

 

Sorry, but I'm too lazy to do a search on all the negative ARTAS posts I read on this forum

[newbie33]

Agreed, but there is an elephant in the room in the form of Dr Robert Bernstein who promotes and uses ARTAS. Isn't he a pioneer?

 

 

Dr Alexander too. Here he is on it: ARTAS Robotic Hair Transplant Biltmore - Phoenix ARTAS Hair Transplant

 

There's some tv footage of Rahal's first patient (or at least one of the first) done using Artas too. He fell of the radar pretty quickly, so who knows if his result was any good (i.e. it probably wasn't very good). Rahal does manual extractions now (and when I say Rahal, I mean his clinic as opposed to him doing it all).

 

Personally, at this stage in its development, I wouldn't get a HT using Artas even if it was free.

[Dutchie]

Dr. Jones on ARTAS: https://www.drrobertjones.com/artas-robotic-hair-transplants-worth/

[HairLostYears]

Ever the pessimist, my Rogaine bottle half empty mindset was to just dismiss ARTAS as a cash grab for U.S. (mostly) businesses who were eager for their turn in the wind tunnel of FUE money. It's not producing results on par with the leading FUE kings, so do these places really have the patient's best interests in mind?

 

Then you see some of the doctors listed on the ARTAS website. Some seemingly very well-regarded names in the industry, so I guess you have to faithfully assume there's potential there.

 

A good option in the future hopefully, but can't say I'm interested in being a ground floor guinea pig.

[Bill - Seemiller]

I prescient everyone's input on this topic so far. It's very interesting to see that the vast majority of patients responding have on favorable comments about it and it's results. It's even more interesting to see that many well-respected physicians have attempted to use the ARTAS but decided to abandon it after seeing someone impressive results were not liking the way it operates. I have honestly had the same impression for a while now about it, not to say that it can't be improved upon or that it won't eventually be an even better, more powerful machine. But that said, I feel that a skilled and experienced surgeon should never be replaced by a machine doing the majority if not all of the work.

 

I love to hear some physician input on this topic as well as it would be interesting to hear their actual experiences using it.

 

Perhaps as innovators of the ARTAS improve upon its features and functionality, the overall perspective of the device will change.

 

I look forward to reading more input from patients, doctors, representatives and other forum members.

 

Best wishes,

 

Bill

[Dr. Rahal]

Hi Everyone,

 

We did in fact purchase the ARTAS machine 3 years ago, and used it on 5 patients. After trying the ARTAS machine we deiced that the best outcomes are from manual FUE and not ARTAS.

[Michael Vories, MD]

I believe the technology behind the ARTAS machine is fascinating, but the reason we have not moved forward with obtaining a machine is the punch size. The selling point of FUE is the lack of visible donor scarring, which is only true in our experience with punch sizes of 0.85 mm or less. My understanding is most ARTAS procedures are with punch sizes (internal diameter) of 0.9 or 1.0 mm. These are much more likely to leave punctate donor scarring which takes away from the power of FUE. Making patients pay more money for a procedure that is more likely to produce visible scarring seems counter-intuitive to me.

[home1212]

https://hassonandwong.com/setting-new-standards-fue/

 

Here it is

 

Thanks Stig. Amazing to read a quote from Dr. Hasson on FUE -

 

"I never imagined that FUE grafts, if extracted properly, could look so close to those of strip. Nor could I have predicted that the donor area could look so pristine and almost perfect only 1 week after the procedure."

Dr. Victor Hasson

[Sean]

Based on the folks ive spoken with, the concerns from restoration prospects are thst technology is not ready as it still trying to be fine tuned. You got punch sizes that may be unappealing and most folks like surgery the old fashioned standard way, and that is with direct professional surgical extraction via experienced docs.

 

I can see this machine being a way to cut corners using techs (where surgery is normally done by a doc) to speed up extractions and surgical output. Most states consider surgery to be done by a doc aka professional. In this case, you are putting the ability of extraction in the hands of techs. Will a doc oversee the procedure? If not, then that can be alarming. For the cost of the machine, then the extraction royalties, it may be unappealing to some docs.

 

You never know when an expensive machine can fail and if a doc has like 2-3 surgeries booked, and something happens to this machine then, you cant have multiple high costly machines as backup. With other motorized/manual punches you can have multiple as the cost is not that crazy. But then again, you cant tell a patient a procedure is suppose to be with this machine and then switch it on operating day due to a possible malfunction. No machine is fool proof, but you are probably safer in surgery with well experienced hands.

 

Some folks also then question, if i am paying higher rate with one doc vs another, andvtgey both use artss, then what different approach am i paying for. The forums project doctors with carious skill sets and this would be the same type of performnce standard as a machine is probably using the same extraction algorythms between all patients.

 

Another thing is varying hair types, some hair types are atill not compatible with this machine as I read. Really light colored hair vs dark hairs, African American or Caucasion etc. so many variables and a lot of headache if this isnt suited for all types.

 

I can understand some folks intrigued by this technology and some even pushing for it hard core, but we have priceless limited grafts, most folks I spoke woth are afraid of the added risks. Maybe one day they can master it, but when you got updates and upgrades going on every so often, itll raise eyebrows.

 

My own opinion is I would never go behind the table with this machine. I got FUE and prefer it, bit if someone even told me the only choice you have is this and FUT, then I would even consider FUT.

 

As far as results go, ive seen a couple actoss gorums and i am not swayed. They dont seem to compare to results posted by experienced FUE surgeons that do extractions manually.

 

I hear it is supposed to also have abikity to creat recipient sites. Again, such artistry is a trait of the surgeon. This surgery is a very damaging if it doesnt go too well, and some folks do not want to take added risks.

[bunsenburner]

I once sat on a hospital committee aimed at determining whether or not the institution should invest in a very expensive robotic assisted surgical device (used in male urological surgeries). The administrators in the group were very excited at the prospect of the robotic device. They believed it was a marketable assert for the hospital. They believed patients would view it as cutting edge technology, and elect to have their surgery done (it was used in several very common surgeries) at this hospital because of the robotic device.

 

Several very prominent and respected surgeons also sat on the committee. They felt oppositely. They said the machine was more cumbersome than helpful in the operating theater, and they did not believe it offerered patients a better chance at a positive surgical outcome. Most stopped using it after a few attempts (despite demonstrating good skill with the machine) because they felt simple tools in their own hands were more effective.

 

I see many parallels with this discussion. I first considered both FUE and FUT. The FUE clinics I found most consistent and impressive shared one common denominator: they used a manual FUE approach. I believe the best FUE results come from those who practice in this model. I do not believe a robotic device will prove itself superior to a trained hand. And I do not think a robotic device can elevate a clinic without this refined protocol to the level of those who have mastered the manual approach.

[Mickey85]

Since its inception, I have only seen a handful of knockout results, alot average results and alot of weak results. Not impressed in the slightest, especially when compared to a manual hand punch costing all of $60-200US...