Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Sorry that you have to deal with someone who has actually studied philosophy so is able to call you out on this. Poor baby isn't king of the world like his daddy who got him into an ivy-league college said so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread has gone off track when we consider the original question by the original poster. It's extremely productive if we're looking for bickering and one upmanship though.

 

One thing that should be made clear is what defines a megasession with FUE vs. a megasession with FUT. With FUT we're seeing cases of 3500 on up in one day on a regular basis. With FUE I think the normal max per day at top clinics is 2500 to 3000 so I don't think the term "megasession" can be applied equally.

 

Dr. Feller also mentioned that a lot of doctors don't post many FUE megasessions but, barring whatever the definition of an FUE megasession means, I don't think many doctors post at all so its' a moot point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how asking for bad FUE results from certain doctors who do regular megasessions is off track. If you cannot find bad FUE megasessions results from doctors like Ferudini and Erdogan who have done thousands of procedures (and posted hundreds) and provide links to these then clearly there is an issue with the argument that FUE is effectively a dud method.

 

Obviously the vast majority of megasessions (and successful megasessions) come from FUT, but why is there this need for some strip surgeons to reject outright FUE when clearly there are some doctors regularly producing FUE megasessions with good results. And if this isn't the case, then how do some like Erdogan post hundreds with additional hundreds from forum goers with great results, and no one can link me a bad one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow! I didn't expect this. I would appreciate some of the examples of the bad results of Feriduni etc. because these people are on my short list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mick,

 

I definitely understand what you're saying. To be fair, however, the title of the thread is "Feller and Bloxham;" we were definitely going to chime in! Hopefully people get some useful information out of it.

 

And thank you for the kind words about the videos. Glad you enjoyed them.

 

Yes this is true Feller/Bloxham was used in the title as the OP was interested in learning why you're both anti FUE for mega FUE sessions, which is fine very informative for a lot of guys on this site .Other than the fact that I am happy with my result my result cant be used as an example for anyone to base their decision on whether to have FUT/FUE , in all honesty I knew very little about the whole business but I was so pissed of with my hair that I just went for it ,Ha one or the GUYS Spex mentions in his potential red flags post ,and I have always advised anyone to go with a recommended Doc .

As a layman of course I'm sure you and Dr Feller will understand why someone like me

is going to look at some of the large FUE posted on this site and think how are these Docs managing it when there are supposedly so many factors inherently against it .

I appreciate you don't want to/ are not able comment on individual Docs or cases

and I guess your suggestion that other FUE Docs get involved is perfectly valid .

Just to finish I am sorry Dr Feller felt I was vitriolic one of my posts ,I admit I did allude to the old FUT is more popular than FUE thread which was not necessary , but then again I didn't give any advice good bad or different to the OP to sway his decision.

Yes keep the vids coming and congratulations again on your recent recommendation

on this site.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have read to the entire FUE vs. FUT thread and watched all F&B videos online.

 

The contribution of F&B in this forum is great:

1. They (F&B) put a lot of effort to educate hair loss sufferer

2. It is very important to mention the positive aspects of FUT, as I believe many people see FUT as outdated which is certainly wrong

3. Hopefully they stay tuned and I wish more clinics would make similar efforts

4. Opinions (!) of F&B are more valuable than opinions from the average forum users as they have a lot of experience

5. I am still in between in the FUT vs. FUE and I would really like to hear the pro/cons of both sides

 

But, F&B hurt their own case and set a bad example for discussion culture in this forum by:

1. Not backing up your claims with facts e. g.

--> a. The famous 99 from 100 or 999 from 1000 FUT to FUE cases, especially when all shown data lead to the conclusion that they are completely (!) off

--> b. The dissection and growth rates of FUE vs. FUT (some but poor data was given, if I remember correctly)

2. Directly, aggressively and repeatedly attacking forum users and even other clinics (maybe that is why no other clinic is contribution)

3. Failing to mention the negative aspects of FUT e. g. that the strip itself destroys grafts and this is for small procedures not neglectable)

4. Putting their opinion so blatantly above others (I mentioned that their opinion is very valuable, but it is still an opinion and no one is perfect), without taking into account that

--> a. Many users here are very educated about hairloss (more than a lot of medical doctors I have met)

--> b. The background of the users is not known (maybe some might even have a medical degree)

--> c. We are talking partly math (statistics) and physics (three forces) where medical doctors have no (!) advantage about other educations (engineers etc.)

5. Promoting your own mFUE method without clearly stating it in advance in the FUE vs. FUT thread and also fail to give answers to simple questions to this method like diameter/area etc.

 

Sorry for my bad English!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow! I didn't expect this. I would appreciate some of the examples of the bad results of Feriduni etc. because these people are on my short list.

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.


I do not provide medical advice, recommendations, all responses are my opinion.

My Hair Transplant Journey

Melvin- Associate Publisher and Forum Moderator for the Hair Transplant Network, the Coalition Hair Loss Learning Center, and the Hair Loss Q&A Blog.

Follow our Social Media Instagram @thehairtransplantnetwork FacebookPintrest, Linkedin and YouTube.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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/

HassonWong.thumb.jpg.b5596e2044e545284abbaa53d1191d0e.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Dr. Alan Feller

Feller Medical, PC

Great Neck, NY

 

Dr. Alan Feller is a member of the Coalition of Independent Hair Restoration Physicians

 

Providing FUT, FUE, and mFUE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

 

 

 

 


Feller Medical, PC

Great Neck, NY

 

Dr. Alan Feller is a member of the Coalition of Independent Hair Restoration Physicians

 

Providing FUT, FUE, and mFUE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by HairDew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.


Feller Medical, PC

Great Neck, NY

 

Dr. Alan Feller is a member of the Coalition of Independent Hair Restoration Physicians

 

Providing FUT, FUE, and mFUE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

Aren't H&W members of the ISHRS? They allow their staff to cut tissue.

 

Jerry Wong | Hair loss doctor | International Society of Hair Restoration Surgery

 

Victor Hasson | Hair loss doctors | International Society of Hair Restoration Surgery

 

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.

 

I'm not sure what to say about this but you don't seem happy about it.

 

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

 

You moved 900 grafts, with FUE. Hasn't he had 7 or 8 surgeries and 4000 or more grafts?

 

Back to the issue, what do you Dr. Feller define as an FUE megasession? How many grafts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×