Jump to content

Why NOT to get an FUE- Interview with Dr. Willaim Reed- by Dr. Feller and Bloxham


Recommended Posts

  • Senior Member
However, not a single one of those doctors discussed nor demonstrated that they have addressed the three detrimental forces that afflict the FUE procedure-much less reduced or eliminated them. Until they do no claims of advancement in the FUE procedure can validly be made. And no claim of parity with FUT can reasonably be made either.

 

This isn't accurate there have been several advancements in the FUE procedure;

1. Devroye- WAW Punch

2. Edrogen- KEEP, coverage value tutorial, donor capacity measurements

3. Lorenzo- Coverage value tutorial.

4. I am not a proponent of the Artas but Dr Alexander & Dr Arocha's clinics have continued to mention the advancement of the software along with improved results.

5. Dr C***- CIT, along with numerous punches being utilized by some top surgeons.

*6* FUE is also currently more popular than FUT.

 

In my eyes "advancement" and "detrimental forces" are two different topics. It would be nice to hear how these forces have been overcome (clearly they have, how much precisely would Be nice to have more data on) based on patient & clinic posted results.

FUT/FUE surgeons do not need to come on here. They are not the ones making the FUE claims. But if you want to "hear" from the FUT/FUE surgical crowd they tell you every day where they stand on the FUE vs. FUT issue, all you need to do is know how to listen:

I have "listened" and the majority of them performing FUT/FUE would disagree. I think their silence is deafening and more of them would have chimed in but their results simply speak for themselves. The results can't be argued and I don't think they are cherry picking all of these cases any differently than your clinic would cherry pick your FUT cases.

 

I still have not seen a large case of yours 3000 FUT+ that rivals any of these FUE surgeons;

1. Dr Cueto

2. Dr Lorenzo

3. Dr Diep

 

I am sure you have seen the results on you tube for yourself as there are hundreds of videos. Most prospective patients bottom line is what are/were the results from the procedure. If the detrimental forces were overcome (evident in these clinics) less the linear scar which NO ONE WANTS then they are satisfied in the end. A linear scar is a deal breaker for a large percentage of prospective patients.

 

 

Look at their websites- H@W, Rahal, Shapiro, T@D, Cooley, Alexander, Gabel, Konior

All show mostly FUT procedure results and virtually no FUE results. Look at the cases they themselves choose to post on this site every month. You can be sure they pick the very best result they can find for the month because they know it will be scrutinized for years and become the basis upon which they are judged professional-these results are almost always FUT results. Why do you think that is ?

Hasson & Wong don't have an extensive list online as they haven't been performing the procedure as long. They have mentioned on these very forums on multiple occasions now that their FUE results are on par with their FUT cases. They use the same protocol as Dr Koray and frankly their FUE cases have been pretty spectacular that have been posted to date.

 

Rahal has posted numerous FUE results that again rival his FUT results and his clinic reps have mentioned comparable success with the two procedures (see patient rep Matt's results). Plenty of results on these very forums to be viewed if one were willing to research.

 

SMG has stated that their FUE is on par with their FUT results. A lot of members are eagerly awaiting the results of the FUT/FUE combo case study. They have plenty of results that have been posted (see patient rep Matt Zupan's results which were pretty rock solid). Their website has a pretty extensive FUE catalog of results as well.

 

Konior/Gabel- two of the most ethical doctors based on patient reviews and forum feedback. The results of their FUE results yet again are comparable to their FUT cases. Dr Gabel has a pretty extensive amount of FUE results that have been posted.

 

Of course these clinics have more FUT results on their websites as they have been performing the procedure longer. I am not sure if these clinics have ample free time but a lot of the "websites" are often outdated in my personal opinion and that could be why their isn't more to view? That would be a question you could ask them.

 

So again while I do admire your persistence I simply can't get on board with your line of thinking. I believe FUT has it's place. I can't be convinced that these clinics would be continuously performing these surgeries if it was as nearly detrimental to these patients as you make it out to be. If they weren't producing quality results would they continue to perform procedures that they new were doomed to fail? Why would they do this?

 

These clinics have reputations that have been hard earned through the years of producing world class results. Why would they jeopardize their reputations by performing FUE if it has as many flaws have you & Blake have boldly claimed? WHY DO YOU THINK THAT IS?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Impressive effort on your reply.

 

But nope. None of the things you listed are advancements in FUE.

 

Not a single graft coming out of the scalp via FUE today is affected any less by the three detrimental forces than they were 17 years ago. It is this reality that cuts through all the noise and the hype.

 

The fact remains that each and every clinic you discuss in your post shows more FUT results than FUE results by a huge margin. And I ask again, if they believe FUE was the equivalent of FUT why would they keep performing FUT ? Why would there be any FUT presentations by them at all?

 

I can't speak to why any particular clinic would choose to jeopardize their good reputation by performing FUE but I can make an educated guess. Wishful thinking, internet hype, and shameless/illegal marketing schemes have misled potential patients into believing FUE is the equivalent of strip. I can see how this happened on this very website by the incredible rejection of reality by so many posters.

 

FUE has become a religion on this and other websites. So to keep the doors open these doctors believe they had better offer FUE or perhaps go out of business. They are just giving the public what they think it wants. The problem is that it is wrong and unethical and can't be justified when the realities of the procedure are compared to that of FUT.

 

That's why, at least in the United States, informed consent is where the BS stops. Failing to inform a patient of the differences between the two procedures and the specific disadvantages of FUE in particular is a violation of most if not all State Medical Board regulations. This can lead to medical license suspension or revocation. It can also lead to civil action. The medical boards of other countries, especially the third world ones, don't seem to give a damn. Physician accountability is non-existent especially when the procedure is elective.

 

You focus on all the "successes" posted online by FUE doctors in general. That's very nice, but how many failures and unhappy patients do you see on these doctors websites ? None, of course. No sane doctor would do that. But there are plenty of unhappy FUE patients on this very website that you completely ignored in your post. How many unhappy patients were given money back by their doctors in exchange for keeping their mouths and keyboards quiet? I can guarantee you they exist because such patients have come to my office and told me their silence was paid for by their doctor. You didn't mention them because you have no idea they exist. But they most certainly do.

 

 

Most or all of your entire field of view concerning FUE and hair transplants in general is from online reading. That is simply too narrow of a view for you to be truly informed. All I can say is trust me when I say there is much more to the picture than you can possibly be aware of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Senior Member

By the way, didn't you apologize and promise never to come onto one of my threads again when I proved you were very mistaken about another assumption you made about me and posted online ? You should demonstrate some honor and decency by holding up your end of the bargain by not posting in my threads again like you claimed you would.

 

Yes I apologized and deleted the said posts just like I said I would. You demanded that I never come on your threads again, but I never ever promised to comply with that request. In a much earlier posting I said I would no longer address you, but subsequently changed my mind. I never promised anything. You see Dr Feller, you may think you have the right to go around and make demands of others, but you don't. I believe my posts comply with the terms of conditions of this site, and do not see any reason why you reserve the right to demand that I not post on your threads again. I am confident that my 1,000 odd posting history proves your allegations as baseless. Being a Dr certainly does not give you the right to go around and tell me what to to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes I apologized and deleted the said posts just like I said I would. You demanded that I never come on your threads again, but I never ever promised to comply with that request. In a much earlier posting I said I would no longer address you, but subsequently changed my mind. I never promised anything. You see Dr Feller, you may think you have the right to go around and make demands of others, but you don't. I believe my posts comply with the terms of conditions of this site, and do not see any reason why you reserve the right to demand that I not post on your threads again. I am confident that my 1,000 odd posting history proves your allegations as baseless. Being a Dr certainly does not give you the right to go around and tell me what to to do.

 

No, you didn't simply change your mind. You agreed to not post on MY threads but "reserved" the right to comment as you wished on other threads not started by me. This thread was started by me.

 

And why do you follow me around online anyway ? I don't know you. We've never met nor have we ever spoken. But when you constantly harass me online and even tell viewers of this site to actively not consider me for surgery I don't think it's "telling you what to do" by demanding that you stop. I think any doctor targeted by you as I have been would demand the same thing and be justified in doing so.

 

Your focus on me is simply creepy and I have asked the moderators to step in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Senior Member

"Why not to get an FUE "

While I completely except Dr Fellers opinion etc all I can say as a 54 year old, having an FUE in Turkey has given me a new lease of life .Pretty much bald on top before. I realise this post adds nothing to the debate as such qbut its just guys see good FUE results and it doesnt seem to add up with Dr Fellers assertions when they see great results from Erdogan ,Lorenzo amongst others

Had my transplant over 3 years ago .4200 grafts .

20170815_134616.thumb.jpg.c532f668b182e0c073a54280324f2a7f.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Senior Member

FUT yields better

FUT done well provides a far smaller total area of scarring

FUT does not diffuse the donor

FUT takes the best section of the donor

FUT does less harm to the grafts

FUT maximises the potential of the donor

 

-

 

All that being said, there are some FUE surgeons - the usual suspects (Erdogan, Couto, Lorenzo, Lupanzula, Bisanga, Feriduni) who are getting better cosmetic results than the vast majority of FUT surgeons with the same amount of grafts, but even inarguably rivalling the cream of the crop FUT surgeons like Dr. Feller.

 

And that's all there is to it. FUT is better in the vast majority of regards, but for the best FUE surgeons the vast majority of the gap is closed. Even in regards to yield and consistency, Lorenzo for example has inarguably more results than any FUT surgeon in the world available for viewing online and has the track record to rival any FUT surgeon in cosmetic improvement per graft and consistency of high yields.

 

Some people just don't want a strip cut out the back of their head when they can instead just go to a surgeon like Erdogan or Lorenzo who 49/50 times is going to get results equal to ANY FUT surgeon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Regular Member

I had an in-person consultation with Dr. Konior and we talked about FUT vs FUE. I need 1500-2000 grafts and Dr. Konior told me that he would choose FUE for me without a doubt because of the way I like to style my hair (keeping it very short on the sides). He explained that there have been many advances in the FUE procedure over the years and he now thinks it yields excellent results.

 

I didn't go in to the consultation requesting FUE, and even though I prefer FUE due to less visible scarring at shorter hair lengths, I was open to the idea of getting FUT if Dr. Konior thought that was my best option. He didn't, and confidently reassured me that FUE was the right procedure for me.

 

Dr. Feller, I know you have a fantastic and well-deserved reputation for your FUT results, but in my honest opinion, using such strong, emotional language like "FUE ... rips the graft from the scalp", "FUE is internet hype", and "FUT [allows for] the least amount of trauma known to man" doesn't really help your case.

 

When there are top-tier surgeons like Konior, Hasson and Wong, Rahal, Erdogan, Lorenzo, Bisanga, Feriduni and many others recommending FUE and getting home-run results, it’s hard to make such strong claims against FUE without inferring that you also believe these surgeons are running unethical practices.

 

Finally, speaking from a personal point of view, I have no problem with the *idea* of FUT. I’m not concerned at all about having a strip removed from my head. I’ve had larger medical procedures done and to me FUT surgery seems like no big deal.

 

My biggest concern, by far, is that the FUT scar prevents me from wearing my hair short on the sides. I’ve seen some FUE patients with undetectable scarring at a grade 1 which I just don’t believe is possible with strip. I want as few limitations as possible after my hair transplant, and for me I think FUE is the way to go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Regular Member
FUT yields better

FUT done well provides a far smaller total area of scarring

FUT does not diffuse the donor

FUT takes the best section of the donor

FUT does less harm to the grafts

FUT maximises the potential of the donor

 

-

 

All that being said, there are some FUE surgeons - the usual suspects (Erdogan, Couto, Lorenzo, Lupanzula, Bisanga, Feriduni) who are getting better cosmetic results than the vast majority of FUT surgeons with the same amount of grafts, but even inarguably rivalling the cream of the crop FUT surgeons like Dr. Feller.

 

And that's all there is to it. FUT is better in the vast majority of regards, but for the best FUE surgeons the vast majority of the gap is closed. Even in regards to yield and consistency, Lorenzo for example has inarguably more results than any FUT surgeon in the world available for viewing online and has the track record to rival any FUT surgeon in cosmetic improvement per graft and consistency of high yields.

 

Some people just don't want a strip cut out the back of their head when they can instead just go to a surgeon like Erdogan or Lorenzo who 49/50 times is going to get results equal to ANY FUT surgeon.

 

Great post except the cosmetic results part, I really can't tell a difference cosmetically between the good FUE and FUT results. I don't have a dog in this fight since I'm probably going to have both procedures done at some point. They just have different functions and ideal uses and so often on here I see people pushing FUE as this cure-all miracle treatment that makes strip totally obsolete when it's not, at all.

 

I was initially totally against getting strip for the obvious reason (strip cut out, scar, eww gross no thanks) and also because I only had heard the surface level chatter about FUT vs FUE and the latter sounded like the new hotness, then I did the more research. Couple years later now I'm signed up for a strip with Gabel. My personal situation warrants going with strip until I can't anymore then still having the rest of the safe zone for FUE harvest, for me the thought of running out of donor is far more terrifying then having a scar hidden by hair. The rest of the FUT bonuses are just icing on the cake.

 

The only downside is the scar, and after some thought I concluded it really is irrelevant when you're in the hands of a top FUT surgeon, have a normal donor (i.e not thin) and never plan on wearing your hair shorter then a 3-4 guard. If some wizard snapped his fingers and a top doc strip scar appeared on my head without my knowledge I would have no idea it was there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Senior Member
I had an in-person consultation with Dr. Konior and we talked about FUT vs FUE. I need 1500-2000 grafts and Dr. Konior told me that he would choose FUE for me without a doubt because of the way I like to style my hair (keeping it very short on the sides). He explained that there have been many advances in the FUE procedure over the years and he now thinks it yields excellent results.

 

I didn't go in to the consultation requesting FUE, and even though I prefer FUE due to less visible scarring at shorter hair lengths, I was open to the idea of getting FUT if Dr. Konior thought that was my best option. He didn't, and confidently reassured me that FUE was the right procedure for me.

 

Dr. Feller, I know you have a fantastic and well-deserved reputation for your FUT results, but in my honest opinion, using such strong, emotional language like "FUE ... rips the graft from the scalp", "FUE is internet hype", and "FUT [allows for] the least amount of trauma known to man" doesn't really help your case.

 

When there are top-tier surgeons like Konior, Hasson and Wong, Rahal, Erdogan, Lorenzo, Bisanga, Feriduni and many others recommending FUE and getting home-run results, it’s hard to make such strong claims against FUE without inferring that you also believe these surgeons are running unethical practices.

 

Finally, speaking from a personal point of view, I have no problem with the *idea* of FUT. I’m not concerned at all about having a strip removed from my head. I’ve had larger medical procedures done and to me FUT surgery seems like no big deal.

 

My biggest concern, by far, is that the FUT scar prevents me from wearing my hair short on the sides. I’ve seen some FUE patients with undetectable scarring at a grade 1 which I just don’t believe is possible with strip. I want as few limitations as possible after my hair transplant, and for me I think FUE is the way to go.

 

That is fascinating, Konior is one doctor who can nail both of these surgeries out of the park consistently but built his name on FUT and would have year long waiting lists on FUT alone that he never would have to bother offering FUE if he didn't think the results were near what he could achieve with FUT and if he didn't feel it would be a benefit to his patients. That he led you towards FUE when you were open to either says a lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Senior Member
"Why not to get an FUE "

While I completely except Dr Fellers opinion etc all I can say as a 54 year old, having an FUE in Turkey has given me a new lease of life .Pretty much bald on top before. I realise this post adds nothing to the debate as such qbut its just guys see good FUE results and it doesnt seem to add up with Dr Fellers assertions when they see great results from Erdogan ,Lorenzo amongst others

Had my transplant over 3 years ago .4200 grafts .

 

Great result! and hearing you were pretty much bald before, makes it even more impressive. You look way younger than 54

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Senior Member
Gas,

 

I don't think these questions have ever been dodged. But just in case ...

1) Post random (=always changing) growth rates of FUE (and FUT)

 

We have posted the studies from Dr. Beehner (two different ones) and Wesley multiple times. These numbers are slightly different, but they still show around the same: 70-75% growth yield on average for FUE. Industry accepted standard for FUT growth after multiple, multiple studies is 95-98%.

 

[

Dr. Blake Bloxham, NY

Feller & Bloxham Medical -- Hair Transplant Institute

NYC Hair Transplant | NY Hair Restoration | Feller & Bloxham Medical

 

I've only been able to come up with the Dr Beehner study so far...if it's not too much trouble could you link the Wesley study? I'd love to read it. I've googled and i just see posts where he talks about Beehners study and I got about 10 pages into your post history and gave up lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Senior Member

Dr Shapiros clinic is running their own fut/fue study at the moment and Dr Josephitis had this to say:

 

"preliminary results have been very promising! At this point, there is very little to no differences in the results of the recipient in the FUT vs FUE side. The growth, yield, and density visually appears to be the same. This is from photography alone. As I mentioned, hair counts have not yet been fully counted. This is good news though for patients debating whether to go with the FUT or FUE."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Regular Member

This has been previously posted- but we performed an FUE procedure into a large scar from a previous MRSA infection. 100 grafts were placed with implanter pens in a test case, and at 6 months we re-evalauted with a hair count. Out of the 100 grafts placed, 99 were actively growing at 6 months- into scar tissue. So while there maybe physical forces placed on the grafts during extraction, they have little impact on graft survival. We went to graft an additional 2500 FUE grafts into the scarring area. Here are the close-up photos of the test case and before and afters 6 months from the 2500 graft case.

zz1.thumb.jpg.46955664cd8945cacb00160d3d52e28b.jpg

zz2.jpg.7cd371ff36501969394bae1d972f0a2f.jpg

zz3.thumb.jpg.25d6b17cd43a19998ecf9e5ceb998196.jpg

zz4.thumb.jpg.e22a407b1e69edc38fe5ee03f58482cd.jpg

zz5.thumb.jpg.b587c2ca48270f53ffc946922ea6c7b7.jpg

zz6.thumb.jpg.14b57eac7d563cae76502c59dd00cc83.jpg

zz7.thumb.jpg.b4e229e8379ae7ee6c0cc0e5b9690a24.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Senior Member

Impressive effort on your reply.

Thank you.

 

But nope. None of the things you listed are advancements in FUE.

Dr. Feller every single thing that was listed is a clear advancement of FUE. If those clinics didn't feel that was the case it wouldn't be presented in FUE workshops highlighting the "advancements" in the field.

 

Not a single graft coming out of the scalp via FUE today is affected any less by the three detrimental forces than they were 17 years ago. It is this reality that cuts through all the noise and the hype. Dr Vories has posted that he has been able to overcome these forces as some many other elite FUE surgeons have done as well. This is evidence in their results which is what the patients are after. 99/100 grafts

 

The fact remains that each and every clinic you discuss in your post shows more FUT results than FUE results by a huge margin. And I ask again, if they believe FUE was the equivalent of FUT why would they keep performing FUT ? Why would there be any FUT presentations by them at all? They clearly feel that both methods are sound and has there pros/cons. Dr Konior recently suggested FUE for a patient as opposed to FUT? Why is that? Dr Konior's reputation and results stand out even among the elite. Why would he suggest FUE to a patient willing to undergo FUE if he didn't think the results would be the same?

 

I can't speak to why any particular clinic would choose to jeopardize their good reputation by performing FUE but I can make an educated guess. Wishful thinking, internet hype, and shameless/illegal marketing schemes have misled potential patients into believing FUE is the equivalent of strip. I can see how this happened on this very website by the incredible rejection of reality by so many posters. This is absurd to think these world class clinics would be swayed in such a manner.

 

FUE has become a religion on this and other websites. So to keep the doors open these doctors believe they had better offer FUE or perhaps go out of business. They are just giving the public what they think it wants. The problem is that it is wrong and unethical and can't be justified when the realities of the procedure are compared to that of FUT.

This is a reckless and irrational theory of yours. Are you implying that SMG, Hasson & Wong, & Konior would go out of business if they didn't offer FUE? Konior has a one year waiting list for FUT patients.....

 

This is equivalent to Lavar Ball stating that he can beat Michael Jordan one on one (in basketball). Is this the knee jerk response that you after to keep people tuned into the next outlandish remark that gets made?

 

That's why, at least in the United States, informed consent is where the BS stops. Failing to inform a patient of the differences between the two procedures and the specific disadvantages of FUE in particular is a violation of most if not all State Medical Board regulations. This can lead to medical license suspension or revocation. It can also lead to civil action. The medical boards of other countries, especially the third world ones, don't seem to give a damn. Physician accountability is non-existent especially when the procedure is elective.

 

You focus on all the "successes" posted online by FUE doctors in general. That's very nice, but how many failures and unhappy patients do you see on these doctors websites ? None, of course. No sane doctor would do that. But there are plenty of unhappy FUE patients on this very website that you completely ignored in your post.

There are plenty of unhappy FUE and FUT patients Dr Feller. You would be remiss not to mention the failed FUT cases for which they are plenty.

 

How many unhappy patients were given money back by their doctors in exchange for keeping their mouths and keyboards quiet?

Again this happens with both methods FUT & FUE so another moot point.

 

 

I can guarantee you they exist because such patients have come to my office and told me their silence was paid for by their doctor. You didn't mention them because you have no idea they exist. But they most certainly do.

I have been reached out to by forum members who weren't happy with the results on many instances asking for options etc... I don't doubt you have had your fair share of repair cases but yet again those aren't only FUE cases you have repaired? I presume you have done your fair share of FUT repairs, scar revision etc ?

 

 

Most or all of your entire field of view concerning FUE and hair transplants in general is from online reading. That is simply too narrow of a view for you to be truly informed. All I can say is trust me when I say there is much more to the picture than you can possibly be aware of.

Please enlightenment us all and elaborate on what we aren't aware of so we can be "truly informed"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dr. Vories,

 

Thank you for joining the discussion. A few questions if you don't mind ...

 

You share a case where 100 grafts were extracted via FUE, re-implanted with an implanter pen, and a 99% regrowth rate was observed. I am not surprised by this data. As has been said many times before, slow, meticulous small FUE sessions are the best way to minimize trauma and maximize growth. Although forces are present on all grafts during FUE, it is truly the "brute force speed" utilized during FUE mega sessions that causes real problems on a large scale. Having said that:

How many attempts were made to remove these 100 grafts? Meaning how many grafts were scored versus scored and successfully delivered?

 

Do you have any data on the survival rate of the 2,500 graft procedure? If not, do you think it rivals the 99% regrowth rate you saw during the 100 graft test? Do you believe your average FUE mega session -- say 2,500 grafts or so -- grows at this level? 99%?

 

Several members dismissed the findings of a published study by an FUT/FUE doctor because he only included 90 cases at that time. 90 was too small of a number and many member wanted more data points, so I'm curious as to whether or not you have more than 100 data points for comparison as well.

 

Also, you have mentioned several times that you believe using the implanter pen makes up for damage during extraction and allows for good growth. Is this accurate? And if so, do you believe FUE-only doctors -- such as the last one to enter the discussion -- who are implanting with forceps are getting less yield/growth? And if not and they are the same, why use the implanter?

 

Very much look forward to your reply.

Dr Blake Bloxham, NY

Feller & Bloxham Medical -- Hair Transplant Institute

NYC Hair Transplant | NY Hair Restoration | Feller & Bloxham Medical

Edited by DrBlakeBloxham
Forgot a question

Dr. Blake Bloxham is recommended by the Hair Transplant Network.

 

 

Hair restoration physician - Feller and Bloxham Hair Transplantation

 

Previously "Future_HT_Doc" or "Blake_Bloxham" - forum co-moderator and editorial assistant for the Hair Transplant Network, Hair Restoration Network, Hair Loss Q&A blog, and Hair Loss Learning Center.

 

Click here to read my previous answers to hair loss and hair restoration questions, editorials, commentaries, and educational articles.

 

Now practicing hair transplant surgery with Coalition hair restoration physician Dr Alan Feller at our New York practice: Feller and Bloxham Hair Transplantation.

 

Please note: my advice does not constitute as medical advice. All medical questions and concerns should be addressed by a personal physician.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Senior Member

Dr. Bloxham,

At first I have to apologize. You are absolutely right about point 5. It wasn’t your clinic who posted this result. My mistake!

The rest of your post is unfortunately not addressing any (!) of my points. So either you do not understand the questions (which were asked from several other members as well as Dr. Lupanzula) or you simply can’t (or do not want to) answer them.

 

Gas,

 

I don't think these questions have ever been dodged. But just in case ...

1) Post random (=always changing) growth rates of FUE (and FUT)

 

We have posted the studies from Dr. Beehner (two different ones) and Wesley multiple times. These numbers are slightly different, but they still show around the same: 70-75% growth yield on average for FUE. Industry accepted standard for FUT growth after multiple, multiple studies is 95-98%.

 

Dr. Feller and yourself mentioned a lot (!) more numbers which were never mentioned in this studies. But anyway, I asked several times if you can back them up or even agree – no answer. I will ask again:

 

Feller:“Growth rates from FUE usually start at 75% that of FUT and go well down from there”.

 

Feller:"What I can't understand is how the poorer growth guaranteed with the FUE…”

 

Bloxham: "Now, I will take it one step further and state that even under the best conditions, the outcome is still MUCH more variable compared to an FUT

 

Feller: “Fut grafts 98% survival rate...fue grafts at best 85 %, more like 50 %”

 

Feller: “If you were a doctor and actually performed the FUE procedure you could appreciate the amount of force and trauma applied to the graft to get them out of MOST patients. When I say "most" I mean the vast majority of patients meaning 85%. Probably higher.”

 

Feller: “You see this ( a 2-graft semi-transected) … at a minimum of 30 % , and that is being generous. If it is 3 hair graft you see it even more.”

 

How does these statements align? Which data backs up these statements?

 

2) Not answering with clarification after being questioned about this numbers several times

 

See above. Just because people don't like the data, doesn't mean they get to outright dismiss it or claim we aren't posting it. Studies in this field are light compared to others in general. Dr. Beehner and Wesley have studied in a controlled and respectable fashion and published the data.

 

There were a lot of questions asked regarding the Beehner studies by Dr. Lupanzula and at least 3 other members. Just some random examples:

 

Why is the FUT growth so low (86 %) in this studies. Why can you claim 98 % if the study you refer to claims much less?

 

Does the Beehner studies involve an automated fully rotating device (which would be the worst one can do, according to your own words)? Would this affect the FUE results, which were at terrible 61.4 %?

 

3) Not backing them up with facts or not answering the serious questions to the few poor data which were given.

 

If you have better data supporting your perspective, please post it. I don't have control over the number of studies that have been done on this subject. When I present my own, it's called subjective or biased. So all I can present are the objective studies done by others. If you have conflicting data, it's on you to present it.

 

I do not have the data. If I had them I would not discuss this with you. I would read the paper. Actually I think they do not exist which means – you made this numbers up and try to sell your opinion as a fact.

 

4) Answer in another thread with an offensive video and title after finally another clinic had joined the discussion (who raised similar questions).

 

You probably missed the first time this happened in the exact manner, but the clinic in question really didn't "join" the debate. They came in, admitted that detrimental forces on grafts exist, claimed they had overcome them but refused to clarify how -- even after a moderator asked for clarification, and then made some silly comments about people coming to train at their clinic, argued over whether something happened 15 or 17 years before, and then used a 12 year old post to try and end the argument before running from the debate. There was no evidence provided, nor was there any "entry" made.

No, I didn’t miss anything and read through all threads. Minimum of 2 (some say 3) FUE clinics joined the discussion. Just because, you didn’t like what they say, you can deny that it happened. Actually, you never answered a single questions and Dr. Feller immediately started attacking. And why answer in another thread? Why would you do that, if you really would like to have a discussion? By the way: How many FUT clinics did join again?

5) Post “results” of a hollywood actor, who never admitted to have surgery, to promote FUT. You cannot know if he had FUE or FUT and on top he is probably using concealers/topic/partial wig etc. on this picture as it is from the Oscars event.

 

I don't know who posted pictures of a hollywood actor to promote FUT, but I assure you it wasn't my clinic.

 

I am truly sorry. My mistake.

6) Not answering serious questions about negative aspects of FUT at all (like thinning in the donor) or even giving misleading answers.

 

Again, this was answered; you simply didn't like the answer. There is a difference. Please refer to Dr. Feller's post.

 

No, this was an answer to a small side topic: Can FUT leads to thinning cause it affects the blood supply?

 

The main (!) question was: Does FUT (just by removing the strip) thins out the donor or will the density remain the same (which many members think due to you statements)? Will you ever answer this, yes or no?

7) Connect “damaged grafts” with existence of FUE clinics in the US

 

Incorrect. No one ever stated that the poorer yields with FUE is not why you don't see FUE-only clinics in the USA. We stated, correctly so, that the practice of FUE tech mills is illegal (or certainly very, very risky) in the US (see case law in Florida and Virginia) and that is why you only see it in certain areas of the globe.

 

Do you really want me to quote what Dr. Feller wrote:

 

Feller“In the United States patients must be given informed consent. Failure to disclose the" graft damage percentage" while offering only the "graft transection rate" would be failure to give informed consent and would seriously threaten that doctors license. …

This is why you don't see "hair mills" and "FUE mills" in the United States. In fact, you see almost no FUE- only clinics at all in the United States for this reason.”

 

Please tell me that you agree with this statement! And while you are doing so, please tell me how you get the “damaged graft percentage” to tell the client.

 

Edited by Gasthoerer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Senior Member
This has been previously posted- but we performed an FUE procedure into a large scar from a previous MRSA infection. 100 grafts were placed with implanter pens in a test case, and at 6 months we re-evalauted with a hair count. Out of the 100 grafts placed, 99 were actively growing at 6 months- into scar tissue. So while there maybe physical forces placed on the grafts during extraction, they have little impact on graft survival. We went to graft an additional 2500 FUE grafts into the scarring area. Here are the close-up photos of the test case and before and afters 6 months from the 2500 graft case.

 

thank you for sharing this Dr Vories, this is fascinating, I too would be interested to know the info Dr Bloxham asked about re: growth rate over the remaining 2500 op... but this is very impressive to get that growth in that scar tissue, that area looks highly inhospitable to grafts. Further thank you for being brave enough to willingly walk back in front of the Feller freight train that is coming your way :P It's nice to have a fue doctor to help balance some of the discussion, and it'd be great to hear your take on some of the numbers stated about FUE growth rates recently.

Edited by mikeyhwk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just for the record ...

 

I forgot to ask one question of Dr. Vories above and just added it.

Dr. Blake Bloxham is recommended by the Hair Transplant Network.

 

 

Hair restoration physician - Feller and Bloxham Hair Transplantation

 

Previously "Future_HT_Doc" or "Blake_Bloxham" - forum co-moderator and editorial assistant for the Hair Transplant Network, Hair Restoration Network, Hair Loss Q&A blog, and Hair Loss Learning Center.

 

Click here to read my previous answers to hair loss and hair restoration questions, editorials, commentaries, and educational articles.

 

Now practicing hair transplant surgery with Coalition hair restoration physician Dr Alan Feller at our New York practice: Feller and Bloxham Hair Transplantation.

 

Please note: my advice does not constitute as medical advice. All medical questions and concerns should be addressed by a personal physician.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Regular Member

Our records show his a score rate of 104/100, which means 104 grafts were scored for every 100 intact grafts produced. This remained true for both the test case and the larger case. Keep in mind this is not the transection rate, as some of the grafts may have been scored too shallow which prevented their excision.

 

I do believe that implanter pens are a key reason for our success in graft survival.

 

Unfortunately we do not have close-up photos of this patient's full transplant with clipped hair to perform a hair count (and likely never will). He is happy with his hair at this point and I doubt he would submit to clipping his hair down with what he has gone through. But from a macroscopic level there is little difference in density in the tested area and the larger transplanted area so I do believe we kept pretty close to the tested area graft survival rate.

 

We will be presenting this case at the ISHRS meeting this October in Prague.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for the reply.

 

Just to clarify:

 

Our records show his a score rate of 104/100, which means 104 grafts were scored for every 100 intact grafts produced. This remained true for both the test case and the larger case. Keep in mind this is not the transection rate, as some of the grafts may have been scored too shallow which prevented their excision.

 

So the rate of grafts scored but failed to deliver was 4%. Just for the general audience reading, this means that 4% of the grafts were scored around with the FUE punch, but could not be pulled free with forceps (tweezers) so they were left behind. Which is par for the course.

 

But, according to the above, this number does not include the transection rate -- which is the number of times grafts were cut in half cleanly through during the scoring process.

 

Do you know what this rate was?

 

 

I do believe that implanter pens are a key reason for our success in graft survival.

So do you believe grafts are damaged during the extraction process and are naturally more fragile AND the pen implanter allows for an atraumatic delivery with acceptable growth? And if you do not believe grafts are damaged during scoring/delivery, then why is the pen advantageous? And do you believe those not using the pen are getting less yield?

 

 

Unfortunately we do not have close-up photos of this patient's full transplant with clipped hair to perform a hair count (and likely never will). He is happy with his hair at this point and I doubt he would submit to clipping his hair down with what he has gone through. But from a macroscopic level there is little difference in density in the tested area and the larger transplanted area so I do believe we kept pretty close to the tested area graft survival rate.

 

We will be presenting this case at the ISHRS meeting this October in Prague.

So you believe the growth rate for this case was 99%? Do you believe this is indicative of FUE mega session cases in general?

 

Very pleased to hear the patient is happy. Obviously this was a traumatic event for him in general and it's good to know he was able to move past it.

 

Again, thank you for participating. Look forward to your reply.

Dr. Blake Bloxham is recommended by the Hair Transplant Network.

 

 

Hair restoration physician - Feller and Bloxham Hair Transplantation

 

Previously "Future_HT_Doc" or "Blake_Bloxham" - forum co-moderator and editorial assistant for the Hair Transplant Network, Hair Restoration Network, Hair Loss Q&A blog, and Hair Loss Learning Center.

 

Click here to read my previous answers to hair loss and hair restoration questions, editorials, commentaries, and educational articles.

 

Now practicing hair transplant surgery with Coalition hair restoration physician Dr Alan Feller at our New York practice: Feller and Bloxham Hair Transplantation.

 

Please note: my advice does not constitute as medical advice. All medical questions and concerns should be addressed by a personal physician.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Senior Member
No, you didn't simply change your mind. You agreed to not post on MY threads but "reserved" the right to comment as you wished on other threads not started by me. This thread was started by me.

 

And why do you follow me around online anyway ? I don't know you. We've never met nor have we ever spoken. But when you constantly harass me online and even tell viewers of this site to actively not consider me for surgery I don't think it's "telling you what to do" by demanding that you stop. I think any doctor targeted by you as I have been would demand the same thing and be justified in doing so.

 

Your focus on me is simply creepy and I have asked the moderators to step in.

 

 

Yes I did agree to not post on your threads, and then after thinking about it some more, I changed my mind. Last I checked, there is no law against changing one's mind. Like I said previously, you certainly do not have the right to EVER dictate to me what I can and can not do on a public forum. I am posting my opinion on threads that interest me the most, and where I feel the need to chime in. My posts are fully in compliance with the terms and conditions of this site, nor do I intend to deviate from this. My posting history is there for the Moderators to see, and I am confident that your allegations against me are unfounded. I have supported you and your position on FUT vs FUE previously, and I have also spoken out against you when I disagreed.

 

Why so sensitive at me calling you out? Why is it my position against your recent behaviour that is touching such a nerve? If you don't believe what you did to the Lupanzula video was illegal, unethical or in bad taste, then why did you pull it down and wipe out any sign of its existence?

 

You have been very vocal in your criticism of FUE, and for the most part I still don't have a reason to disagree with the position that you have laid out for us. However, I think it is important for folks to know the following:

 

1) your position on FUE seems to just be based on your own experience performing the surgery

2) I understand that you have not attended an ISHRS or other conference in person in years

3) you appear to be unaware of who exactly the new and upcoming FUE surgeons actually are. Dr Lupanzula is a well respected FUE surgeon recommended by this very site and who actually presented/gave a demonstration at a FUE conference hosted by Erdogan in 2015 and which was attended by some heavy hitters like Shapiro, Wong, Feriduni, Lorenzo and others. Yet, you yourself admitted you had never heard of Dr Lupanzula until he posted on this thread.

4) I am not even convinced you have seen a live FUE from one of these top FUE surgeons in recent years. I could be wrong on this point.

 

Based on the above 4 points, I question if you are really keeping abreast of the latest developments in the FUE industry to be able to make the assertions about FUE that you have been making. My opinion of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Senior Member
Thank you for the reply.

 

Just to clarify:

 

 

 

So the rate of grafts scored but failed to deliver was 4%. Just for the general audience reading, this means that 4% of the grafts were scored around with the FUE punch, but could not be pulled free with forceps (tweezers) so they were left behind.

 

.

 

For either of the doctors, these grafts that were scored but could not be pulled free, what happens with them in the scalp. Do they continue to grow as normal, do they die forever, something else altogether? if they survive and continue to grow can they possibly be extracted down the road again?.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A question for the proponents of FUT - if I currently have long hair that's tied into a ponytail, will that have to be cut off or can be FUT be carried out without shaving the donor area?

 

If the latter is the case, won't FUT be the superior option for those who don't want to have their donor area shaved?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...