Feller and Bloxham

[TrixGlendevon]

What did you expect when you used keywords Feller, FUE, FUT and debate in your opening post? C'mon man, you asked for this.

 

I am not disputing what Feller is saying at all, but his complete and utter disdain for "the peanut gallery" is unbelievable - I'd actually forgotten about this side to him.

 

Not really. I didn't even know he posted here. I just wanted to see successful examples of FUE with a lot of grafts transplanted

[Melvin- Admin]

Not really. I didn't even know he posted here. I just wanted to see successful examples of FUE with a lot of grafts transplanted

 

Giving you the benefit of the doubt even though you mentioned not wanting to reignite the FUT vs FUE debate(you must've known something), in the future do not mention specific clinics or FUE vs FUT debate in your threads. Keep it simple and ask for examples, this thread has turned nasty and completely uninformative, which is how these threads always turn.

[Mick50]

I must admit I was surprised how quickly this thread turned nasty ,myself and HTsoon just posted about our experience with FUE , I can only say how it worked out for me , I can honestly say I had no intention of opening the whole FUE/FUT debate ,really haven't got the time or the energy for it to be honest ,and I know HTsoon feels the same way ,we are just two guys who are more than pleased with how things have worked out for us ,now if that pisses some people off nothing we can do about that .

HT soon is a very responsible and articulate poster on here and deserves respect as we all do ,

lets take it form there.

[mav23100gunther]

Not really. I didn't even know he posted here. I just wanted to see successful examples of FUE with a lot of grafts transplanted

 

Yeah you did

[TrixGlendevon]

Yeah you did

 

No. I didn't.

[HairDew]

I think this is more IRONIC. Look at the Hasson and Wong (the PIONEERS in MEGASESSION of FUT) and what they think about FUE. Also pay attention who "trained" them. Maybe "train" is the wrong word but it just goes to show what H&W think about FUE and OTHER EUROPEAN doctors

 

You can read it for yourself (or take a look at the screenshot attached)

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

[TrixGlendevon]

Nice find! I am going to speak to my short list in a few weeks. Most do both FUE and FUT so they will be best placed to advise me which procedure would be best for me. They all have good reputations too (3 recommended on this site, 1 previously recommended on here) so no there will be no half assed jobs done or advice given.

[HairDew]

Not to high jack your thread but I was researching HT for the past 9 years (look at my day of registration on this site). Dr. Feller was on my short list at the time. I'm actually glad I didn't go through with HT at that time because it would have been FUT. I just scheduled my HT with Dr. Koray Erdogan for Jul 26th and I feel very confident. He really does produce killer results with FUE. And even though I know pretty much ALL doctors have their share of "failed" results due to different factors (physiology etc), I have yet to find any bad results from ASMED (Erdogan) and I've looked VERY hard. Pack it with H&W endorsement of FUE and Erdogan helping them with his technique, looking at countless results (some in person) sealed the deal for me. And the cherry on top was the price (which should never be the deciding factor). Just booked the flight and even the price of $1700 + the cost of the procedure makes it more than HALF of what I would have paid here in US.

[Dr. Alan Feller]

I think this is more IRONIC. Look at the Hasson and Wong (the PIONEERS in MEGASESSION of FUT) and what they think about FUE. Also pay attention who "trained" them. Maybe "train" is the wrong word but it just goes to show what H&W think about FUE and OTHER EUROPEAN doctors

 

You can read it for yourself (or take a look at the screenshot attached)

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

 

HairDew,

It is posts like these that confuse the public about FUE.

 

I know you want FUE to work as well if not better than FUT. We ALL do, including me. But such is not the case- not yet- and not ever unless a revolutionary new method of skin incision is invented. Yet nothing significantly new has been invented since the introduction of FUE to North America in 2002. This is demonstrably provable.

 

I think cherry picking postings from websites, like that from Dr. Hasson, is inappropriate and disingenuous. You excluded the majority of websites wherein the doctors make it clear that FUE yields and results are not on par with FUT and include this reality in their surgical consent forms.

 

Dr. Hasson is not an FUE expert. Nor does he claim to be. He is an uber FUT expert, but this does not lend itself to FUE expertise.

 

By his own words he has only been experimenting and studying FUE for just the past few years and is now coming to conclusions I had already made and published over 10 years ago: that the only FUE worth doing is MANUAL FUE. As he continues performing the procedure regularly, as I did, he will find more and more that his FUE results will pale next to his FUT results.

 

In a phone conversation I had with Dr. Hasson about 10 years ago he himself noted how viciously FUE procedures destroyed the donor area and told me in detail how he had been seeing the patients of a particular FUE-only doctor and how destroyed their donor areas were. I'll never forget him using the saying "it causes follicular holocaust." He also used another term to describe the procedure that I will not write here. Nothing from then to now has changed in terms of harvesting from the donor area.

 

HairDew, You put a red box around a particular quote of Dr. Hasson:

 

"I never imaged that FUE grafts, if extracted properly, could look so close to those of strip"

 

I don't know why he said that. There have been great examples of excellent looking grafts offered online since at least 2002.

 

Pay close attention to words he chose to use. He wrote how FUE grafts: "could LOOK so close to those of strip". The problem with FUE has never been that the grafts could or couldn't look like those of strip grafts, but that even when they DO look like strip grafts they simply don't grow as well. And this is due to the extra trauma FUE inflicts on the graft compared to FUT. Just because an FUE graft "looks" good doesn't mean it is. Dr. Hasson knows and understands this.

 

In your red box Dr. Hasson also mentions that he couldn't have predicted that a donor area could look so pristine one week after an FUE. Again, I don't know why he couldn't have predicted this. It is not new, nor is it a secret that tiny punctures of the scalp heal well. Examples have been posted many times online. In fact the majority of FUE "cases" posted online are of the donor area 1 week after surgery- usually to the exclusion of the final growth results. Again, the issue is not how the donor area LOOKS but rather the amount of subdermal damage inflicted along with the pathological remodeling the dermis undergoes in the months following the FUE. After all, all linear FUT scars look awesome one week after the procedure. It is only in the following months that the scars may widen and the skin remodels itself. It is the very FUE damage, scaring, and remodeling that he himself objected to time and time again years ago when performing an FUT to repair and finish such patients.

 

Nothing has changed in the arena of FUE. The same amount of damage is still inflicted on the graft in 2017 as compared to 2001. Naturally, the more experienced and caring the doctor and staff, the better the result will be. The smaller the case, the better the result will be.

 

I do take issue with non-doctors performing the scoring (cutting) part of any surgical procedure. In the United States it is illegal and considered an inappropriate delegation of surgical responsibility. Even an RN and a PA-very highly trained, licensed, and competent medical professionals- cannot perform the scoring (cutting) around the graft as they may not act as the Primary surgeon. They may Assist in the scoring, but it must be the attending surgeon who actually has his hands on the cutting tool. If the primary surgeon leaves the room, then the RN or PA becomes the primary surgeon and that is simply illegal.

 

Recently, a number of FUE doctors left the ISHRS because they were allowing their staff to perform the entirety of the FUE extraction process themselves as the primary surgeons. The ISHRS took the position that this was not a practice the Society should stand behind. I think this was good and juste position on the part of the ISHRS and I stand behind their decision completely - as do the other 1,000 plus members who waved goodbye to these FUE practitioners. Allowing technicians to perform an entire procedure is inexcusable. And, in the United States, absolutely illegal. Unfortunately, many other countries offer their citizens no such protection under law. And there is no shortage of clinics willing to benefit from it. Patients travel to these clinics at their own risk.

 

Despite how disingenuously anonymous online posters try repeatedly to re-frame my position on FUE into a procedure "that doesn't work" ,I have always proclaimed FUE can and does work on occasion and in the right patients. Or else why would I ever perform them? Teach them? Invent patented instrumentation for them? Write on them ? And contribute to the authoritative text on HT?

 

That said, it is painfully obvious to any objective person or practitioner that FUE does not serve the patient as well as FUT in terms of consistent HAIR GROWTH, which is the entire point of getting a hair transplant in the first place.

 

If your goal is to get as many uninjured hair follicles as possible for transplantation while leaving as much hair as possible in the donor area then go with FUT. If not, then go with FUE.

 

Dr. Alan Feller

 

Edited April 27, 2017 by Dr. Alan Feller

[HairDew]

Dr. Feller,

 

Thanks for your lengthy response. Although I AM a lame person when it comes to performing surgery, I can still make an educated guess. The result is what matters to most (all?) people (paired with conscious prediction for the future loss) . I've came to the conclusion that in the right hands, FUE yields similar, if not better result than FUSS/FUT. I've seen people in person to assess their own results, I've seen countless results (yours and other doctors on HTN included).

 

I just don't understand WHY would other doctors (US doctors included) would put their reputation on the line and perform "BAD FUE". For example Dr. Voris performs FUE exclusively. Do you think he's purposely damaging his patients?

 

I've seen COUNTLESS bad FUT results where no matter what the length of hair in the back is, the scar (or just an empty line in between hair) is always visible.

 

I didn't jump into HT myself years ago even though I've met and consulted with many reputable HT doctors. And even thought your remarks about Dr. Hasson says that ONLY MANUAL PUNCH in the right hands can work were right on the money.

 

One thing I'll mention that you said you have had conversations with Dr. Hasson 10 years go. I take this sentence and extrapolate the KEYWORD "10 YEARS AGO", This tells me that Dr. Hasson's view on FUE has changed.

 

I would concede that techs performing the entire operation is a NO NO. And I personally would not go to any clinic that has such business operation.

 

But the results speak 1000 words for me. I would put up my own results in due time for everyone to see and analyze.

 

P.S. I am well aware of RN and PA performing surgical procedures being illegal in US.

[Dr. Alan Feller]

I think you mean "lay" not "lame". You are certainly anything but "lame" from how well you write. But you are right. You have no surgical experience and unfortunately no amount of online reading, participation, or enthusiasm can give you the insight you need to truly understand the surgical differences between FUE and FUT. And in my opinion you are getting precious little genuine advice from the professionals on this site who should be giving it to you.

 

I give lengthy responses because, unfortunately, virtually none of my colleagues chime in on the online forums to educate patients due to fear of being attacked or perhaps simply because the truth may affect their bottom line. FUE can be quite good for business, can't it ?

 

Your conclusion that yields between FUE and FUT are similar is just not true. I'm telling you this as an experienced hair transplant physician. It's not your fault, though, you have been misled intentionally and unintentionally to this very false conclusion. The variation in success between the two procedure are often VAST.

 

If the results between FUT and FUE were THAT close there would not be an FUT procedure anymore. Yet this is clearly not the case.

 

Please look at the results posted by all the doctors that do both FUT and FUE on this site alone. They are required to post results in their profile section. Look there right now.

 

Virtually none of the posted results are of their FUE patients, much less megasession patients. And not a single doctor, Dr. Hasson included, has given up their FUT practice in favor of FUE. Why do you suppose that is ? Because FUT grows better and more reliably and they know it. Their results demonstrate that reality.

 

Doctors in this country and others are performing FUE because that's what the patient wants. Simple as that. The marketing campaign of some clinics and equipment manufacturers along with massive online FUE hype has made the public believe they can have their cake and eat it too. Doctors who perform FUE are progressive and capable, and doctors who perform FUT are antiquated. That is the online lie that has been pedaled since 2010 or so.

 

It is incorrect to claim you have seen "failed" FUTs because you have seen stretched scars in the donor area. The PRIMARY measure of the success or failure of a hair transplant is in how well the hairs grow in the recipient area. And in this arena, FUT is the undisputed king. Your observation also completely ignores the massive amounts of scarring inherent to the FUE procedure.

 

Just look at this post by a worried FUE patient made on April 9: http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/186691-1500-grafts-donor-square-patch-visible-after-fue.html

 

Most patients seeking FUE are scared to death of having the strip procedure performed. Many CLAIM they don't want the strip because of the line left in the donor area, but this isn't so. Most are just afraid of having a strip surgically excised from the back of their head but publicly claim it is the linear scar that they object to simply because they are embarrassed to admit their fear. It's actually understandable and probably represents millions of potential patients.

 

Patients want to believe that they can have a "non-surgery" surgery. And way too many doctors allow them to believe that is the case. Hence claims of "scar free" surgery or "scalpel free" surgery. Both lies which will get a doctors license yanked in the United States.

 

Third world doctors may say whatever they want in their advertising with little to no reprisal. And many certainly do either directly or through surrogates.

 

You said "in the right hands" FUE is as good or better than FUT. I have no doubt you have read many make that claim about a select few hair transplant practitioners. Yet never once have I seen the actual practitioners who can do BOTH ever make this claim. Not even once. Doesn't that make you think?

 

I tried to have a debate on here with two other doctors who only perform FUE. The thread got corrupted by trolls and troublemakers of the like in their effort to shut it down. Perhaps that should tell you something. The bottom line was I asked them to write and stand behind their belief that the FUE graft procedure does not cause MORE graft trauma then the FUT procedure- and both balked. As they always will. To claim otherwise is to deny informed consent to your patient. At least the doctors in the United States know that and will not make a false claim that will jeopardize their medical license. Is it any coincidence you don't see FUE "heroes" and mills in the United States ? Do you honestly think that is due to the genetic incompetence of the American doctor ? So the world looks to America for advanced surgical technique in everything except hair transplantation ? Come on. Does that make common sense ?

 

Let's face it. You WANT a surgery that is good as strip but without a strip. I get it. But few patients will get that. Instead they will most likely get a poorer final result with more damage to their donor area. Instead of ignoring the bad FUE stories on this and other websites, read them and think why they are unhappy. The know they will never get back the hairs that FUE killed. You never hear that coming from an FUT patient.

 

Make hair growth your PRIMARY concern. Don't be misled by wishful anonymous online posters and the doctors who are only too willing to service them. If your primary concern is successful hair growth go with a proven FUT doctor knowing your chances of regret are FAR lower than it would be for FUE. And conversely, where you chances of a great result are higher.

 

Best of luck in your choice.

Dr. Feller

 

 

 

 

 

[HairDew]

Dr. Feller,

 

I really do appreciate your lengthy replies, truly. I do admire you for trying to educate people on this site. Medical Practice in US is more strict then other countries. It is true. Surgical advances come out primarily out of US. But just like any other industry in US. Everything is money driven (patents, franchises etc). I have a patent for that very reason myself.

 

You are right, my main reason for FUE is I don't want that dreaded scar. I could have jumped on the HT wagon years ago and perhaps you could have been my very doctor to do so. But in a way I'm glad I've waited. My reason was to see how my hair loss would stabilize. I don't take any meds (I've tried them but had those side effects). Currently I'm NW3ish and still believe that FUE is a better choice for me.

 

I'm sure Dr. Lorenzo and Dr. Erdogan have their share of failed results (it's inevitable), I just couldn't find any, at least for Dr. Erdogan. I did see few non optimal outcomes for Dr. Lorenzo. So I believe my choice of FUE paired with good doctor's hands should at least get me to where I want to be.

 

P.S. Sorry about LAY vs LAME, fast fingers, I type way too fast

Edited April 27, 2017 by HairDew

[Gasthoerer]

1. You have no surgical experience and unfortunately no amount of online reading, participation, or enthusiasm can give you the insight you need to truly understand the surgical differences between FUE and FUT.

2. I give lengthy responses because, unfortunately, virtually none of my colleagues chime in on the online forums to educate patients due to fear of being attacked …

3. Your conclusion that yields between FUE and FUT are similar is just not true. I'm telling you this as an experienced hair transplant physician.

4. If the results between FUT and FUE were THAT close there would not be an FUT procedure anymore. Yet this is clearly not the case.

 

5. Please look at the results posted by all the doctors that do both FUT and FUE …

Virtually none of the posted results are of their FUE patients, much less megasession patients.

6. And not a single doctor, Dr. Hasson included, has given up their FUT practice in favor of FUE. Why do you suppose that is ? Because FUT grows better and more reliably and they know it. Their results demonstrate that reality.

7. Doctors in this country and others are performing FUE because that's what the patient wants

 

8. I tried to have a debate on here with two other doctors who only perform FUE. The thread got corrupted by trolls and troublemakers of the like in their effort to shut it down

Like mentioned in my previous post here:

I really appreciate your motivation to educate hair loss sufferers in this forum. But like mentioned before as well, you do not help you case by being so one sided and, sorry, arrogant.

To make it simpler, I highlighted some of you statements:

1. Your theory of the three forces is simple physics and the trauma of the donor (Under the skin) is easy to understand as well. The problem: You do show few (nicely said) data to back it up and which makes it still a theory not a fact. Personally I believe you are right, though. Question is: How big is this effect?

2. This could be a reason, but there can be a lot of other reasons why no other clinic joins the discussions. Also in other discussion few clinics are as active as you. And if fear of being attacked is the reason…you are one of the most aggressive attackers.

3. Again, you reason is very valuable, but it is no fact. The data is very poor. Do not misunderstand me. Again, personally I believe you are right.

4. All data shown in the other thread lead to the conclusion that FUE is getting more and more popular. Your 99 to 100 or even 999 to 1000 has not been backuped by anything. Also, there are many reason to perform FUT even if the results would be very close. Available grafts, hair type etc.

5. There are a lot of (great) FUE results here and on their own websites from FUT and FUE clinics.

6. Hasn’t Dr. X chosen the FUE only route? I think I have seen a Video in the net about strip scar and why FUE is superior. Again, I am not saying he is right. Also, if both methods go hand in hand, why giving up on strip? You logic is flawed.

7. In my country the most well known clinics perform FUT, even for very small cases. Actually with terrible results and poor skill level. Hairloss websites in my country recommend to go elsewhere (even for FUT), and my country is world class in other medical departments (and many other fields). Doesn’t make sense, but it is what it is.

8. Like I said. You are a major reason for this dogfight.

 

Once again, I appreciate what you are doing. But as a hairloss sufferer I wish you argumentation would not be so one sided. Then I could not only trust more in what you say, but also a real discussion could arise like:

- How big is the difference in yield etc.

- Especially compared to the dissection of grafts by the strip itself

- Is there a mathematical break even for either method at a certain amount of grafts

- Does fast extraction really cause more trauma then slow extraction?

- Which hair type and pattern benefits more from FUT or vice versa

- Why are there still poor FUT results even from world class clinics? What is this X-Factor?

Sorry again for my poor English as I am not a native speaker. This makes it difficult to be as precise in my words as I want to.

[andy_+_+]

Dr.Feller,

 

I understand obviously that you have big doubts about FUE and believe that FUT is the gold standard.

 

Your affiliated with SPEX who seems to be a good guy and almost all of what he says make sense to me.

 

The only thing he has ever said is that Artas is the gold standard...paraphrasing.

 

He also represents another doctor who is a renowned FUE doctor.

 

If he thinks these things about FUE and promotes FUE wouldn't there be a disconnect in your philosophies? I might misunderstand the business relationship.

 

Again I'm not trying to tarnish or attack anyone just asking since there seems to be a few reps. that are with multiple clinics that have different philosophies.

[Dr. Alan Feller]

Dr.Feller,

 

I understand obviously that you have big doubts about FUE and believe that FUT is the gold standard.

 

Your affiliated with SPEX who seems to be a good guy and almost all of what he says make sense to me.

 

The only thing he has ever said is that Artas is the gold standard...paraphrasing.

 

He also represents another doctor who is a renowned FUE doctor.

 

If he thinks these things about FUE and promotes FUE wouldn't there be a disconnect in your philosophies? I might misunderstand the business relationship.

 

Again I'm not trying to tarnish or attack anyone just asking since there seems to be a few reps. that are with multiple clinics that have different philosophies.

 

Spex is a showcase for me but I do not own him. He may express any opinions he wishes to, even if they are the opposite of mine, or are dead wrong. If everyone knows the beautiful head of hair he now possess came out of my clinic, that's good enough for me.

-

Our relationship changed a few years ago when he decided to make a business out representing multiple doctors. He is a non-medical layman like the rest of you and his views and positions are not necessary correct nor can he be held legally accountable for them as he is not a qualified medical doctor. Many things make sense until you learn more and get the bigger picture. Then they stop making sense. Like FUE.

 

If you want a qualified opinion of the ARTAS you should look to doctors like myself, not laymen. Personally, I find that machine to be pointless. There is nothing I would welcome more than an ARTAS - using doctor to come onto this chat forum and debate me about its efficacy and usefulness. I know when comparing results I and my FUT megasession colleagues would wipe the floor with them.

 

Or how about the ARTAS company itself. Perhaps they can tell me why every doctor I know who has purchased their machine chooses not to use them. Let's use some commons sense here. If that machine really worked, wouldn't I buy five of them and do five surgeries at the same time and make a fortune ?

 

Until Spex started working for another doctor his views on FUE paralleled mine. Then, overnight, they changed. Perhaps you should be asking him how he reconciles this instead of me.

 

Andy, you refer to FUE and FUT as "philosophies" . They are not. They are two different real world procedures not abstract viewpoints, and one (FUE) is being applied inappropriately all too often.

[Gasthoerer]

If everyone knows the beautiful head of hair he now possess came out of my clinic, that's good enough for me.

 

 

Didn't he also had poor FUT performed elsewhere and also a small touch-up FUE with Feriduni after having FUT (or FUE?) with you?

[mav23100gunther]

"I do take issue with non-doctors performing the scoring (cutting) part of any surgical procedure. In the United States it is illegal and considered an inappropriate delegation of surgical responsibility. Even an RN and a PA-very highly trained, licensed, and competent medical professionals- cannot perform the scoring (cutting) around the graft as they may not act as the Primary surgeon. They may Assist in the scoring, but it must be the attending surgeon who actually has his hands on the cutting tool. If the primary surgeon leaves the room, then the RN or PA becomes the primary surgeon and that is simply illegal. "

 

Dr Feller, even though all three are Canadian surgeons, are you thereby also inferring that you take exception to Dr Hasson, Dr Rahal, and Dr Wong who all delegate portions/all of the scoring to a non-doctor during FUE? They also do leave the room during this process, and from reports, don't have their hands on the cutting tool at all times. That's a big statement to make regarding three incredibly respected surgeons no?

[Dr. Alan Feller]

Didn't he also had poor FUT performed elsewhere and also a small touch-up FUE with Feriduni after having FUT (or FUE?) with you?

 

Yes, he did. I did the bulk of his repair using manual FUE.

[Dr. Alan Feller]

"I do take issue with non-doctors performing the scoring (cutting) part of any surgical procedure. In the United States it is illegal and considered an inappropriate delegation of surgical responsibility. Even an RN and a PA-very highly trained, licensed, and competent medical professionals- cannot perform the scoring (cutting) around the graft as they may not act as the Primary surgeon. They may Assist in the scoring, but it must be the attending surgeon who actually has his hands on the cutting tool. If the primary surgeon leaves the room, then the RN or PA becomes the primary surgeon and that is simply illegal. "

 

Dr Feller, even though all three are Canadian surgeons, are you thereby also inferring that you take exception to Dr Hasson, Dr Rahal, and Dr Wong who all delegate portions/all of the scoring to a non-doctor during FUE? They also do leave the room during this process, and from reports, don't have their hands on the cutting tool at all times. That's a big statement to make regarding three incredibly respected surgeons no?

 

It's not a "big statement" it is what it is. I take exception to anyone who delegates surgery to unlicensed unqualified personnel. It doesn't matter who they are. You as the public should as well.

[Davis91]

Dear Spex

 

How do you reconcile your views changing after you started working for another doctor ?

[Davis91]

Dear Dr Feller

 

Good posts. Agree with everything you said.

 

Are you still actively performing surgeries ? I called your clinic about a month ago and asked if you were available for a consult and they said you are not practicing much anymore. Thanks

[andy_+_+]

Spex is a showcase for me but I do not own him. He may express any opinions he wishes to, even if they are the opposite of mine, or are dead wrong. If everyone knows the beautiful head of hair he now possess came out of my clinic, that's good enough for me.

-

Our relationship changed a few years ago when he decided to make a business out representing multiple doctors. He is a non-medical layman like the rest of you and his views and positions are not necessary correct nor can he be held legally accountable for them as he is not a qualified medical doctor. Many things make sense until you learn more and get the bigger picture. Then they stop making sense. Like FUE.

 

If you want a qualified opinion of the ARTAS you should look to doctors like myself, not laymen. Personally, I find that machine to be pointless. There is nothing I would welcome more than an ARTAS - using doctor to come onto this chat forum and debate me about its efficacy and usefulness. I know when comparing results I and my FUT megasession colleagues would wipe the floor with them.

 

Or how about the ARTAS company itself. Perhaps they can tell me why every doctor I know who has purchased their machine chooses not to use them. Let's use some commons sense here. If that machine really worked, wouldn't I buy five of them and do five surgeries at the same time and make a fortune ?

 

Until Spex started working for another doctor his views on FUE paralleled mine. Then, overnight, they changed. Perhaps you should be asking him how he reconciles this instead of me.

 

Andy, you refer to FUE and FUT as "philosophies" . They are not. They are two different real world procedures not abstract viewpoints, and one (FUE) is being applied inappropriately all too often.

 

 

I never once said that I think ARTAS the company or the machine is good. I'm not sure where that came from.

 

I know and most people know on this forum that most ARTAS machines that are owned by respected clinics are collecting dust.

 

All I was trying to say was if you have someone that supports your clinic or gets paid by your clinic saying that ARTAS is the gold standard doesn't that just go against everything your clinic stands for.

 

Philosophy might have been the wrong word but I believe Doug from Hasson and Wong has said that FUE and FUT yields are very similar now a days.

 

This is one of the best FUT clinics with an outstanding reputation promoting FUE.

 

Are they wrong? A lot of people on this forum turn to Hasson and Wong for advice, surgery and perspective.

 

Again I'm not attacking you , I'm just asking questions to become better informed like most people on this forum.

[JayLDD]

I don't think this discussion can be resolved without Feller explaining how Doctors such as Erdogan, Ferudini and Lupanzula put out FUE results consistently better than his own. It's all well and good to cite made up numbers and arrogantly spout "Well I'm a doctor!" but so are the Europeans putting out better work than yours with FUE and for a cheaper price than your FUE.

 

I'm not looking to be insulting or offensive, I think Feller has done great service to HT in the US as a practitioner of the art but also to educate patients and I very much enjoy his Youtube videos. The problem is that the appeal to authority fallacy is a bad argument to begin with, but when other doctors make conflicting claims AND have RESULTS to back up that FUE yields can be consistently just as good then you have a serious issue.

 

And that is the serious elephant in the room. Why are there MORE Erdogan results on the internet (all FUE) and on average I would consider them to be more aesthetically pleasing, and even more consistent. I've seen bad Feller results, I haven't seen bad Erdogan results, and there are more of them.

 

And it comes down to that, HT skill comes down to results and a natural, aesthetically pleasing result with minimal turmoil to the donor area. Without a doubt and I'm sure others here agree there are European FUE doctors doing a job just as good as Feller.

 

And still, Feller is scared to mention these doctors by name. Much appreciated that H+W are prepared to come out to praise and learn from EUROPEAN masters, not mediocre long time US FUE surgeons like Feller and Rassman.

[Davis91]

To the posters here: I have consulted with a ton of the "top" physicians here. First, a bunch who tried the ARTAS machine refuse to use it anymore and they do so because the results are not close to expected. These top docs have conscious but if ARTAS worked well I am sure many would continue to use it. It does not work well. Stay away.

 

EVERY one of those docs admitted privately that strip is still the best to ensure results. All offer FUE and use a variety of methods depending on the doc (e.g. manual punch, drill, even innovative beneath the scalp extractions from the "bottom up"). There is ongoing research as to how many grafts can be safely extractedl before compromising density, how to regenerate grafts, etc etc, All agreed for those needing major grafts (oh maybe between 3500-,8000) then strip in a good docs hand is still the best bet.

 

I've had the strip removed multiple times. It is intimidating. But it was the right thing to do for my case. If I need a small case to top off areas yeah sure maybe I'd risk losing some grafts via FUE--but I know it won't be as good as strip. And I've got pristine areas above and below the scar to explore if needed via FUE or MFUE. Now would I like to be able to cut my hair shorter and not expose the scar? Sure! But I would never have gotten the grafts I needed with FUE---as told to me by multiple docs.

[Dr. Alan Feller]

I never once said that I think ARTAS the company or the machine is good. I'm not sure where that came from.

 

I know and most people know on this forum that most ARTAS machines that are owned by respected clinics are collecting dust.

 

All I was trying to say was if you have someone that supports your clinic or gets paid by your clinic saying that ARTAS is the gold standard doesn't that just go against everything your clinic stands for.

 

Philosophy might have been the wrong word but I believe Doug from Hasson and Wong has said that FUE and FUT yields are very similar now a days.

 

This is one of the best FUT clinics with an outstanding reputation promoting FUE.

 

Are they wrong? A lot of people on this forum turn to Hasson and Wong for advice, surgery and perspective.

 

Again I'm not attacking you , I'm just asking questions to become better informed like most people on this forum.

 

I can't speak for what other people say or why they say it. Nor does it matter. The facts are the facts. FUE causes more trauma to the grafts and therefore do not grow as well as their FUT counterparts.

 

Dr. Hasson firmly understands this and has always agreed with this reality. If he has changed his position on this he certainly never shared his reasons with me or anyone else that I know of. It would be nice if he shared his revelations with the public. That would make for a great forum topic.

 

What I do reject is the reasoning that because Dr. Hasson (or anyone else) is an excellent and world class leader in FUT that this somehow makes him an expert on FUE. It doesn't.

 

Nor did Dr. Hasson or Doug make this claim for themselves. The inference was entirely made up by anonymous online lay posters.