Jump to content
Dr. Alan Feller

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

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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..

 

Thank you.


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
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?.

Share this post


Link to post
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?

Share this post


Link to post
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?

 

Yes, this is a big plus. A lot of women go this way (FUT with partial shaving) for very similiar reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

 

Dr. Bloxham,

 

are you serious with this answer? So the three forces will not apply for small sessions and/or when going slow? In this case 99 % growth would be the norm for you? Much ado about nothing? (Cause if you find a solution for 100 grafts there are simple solutions for 1000 as well).

 

It is again very hard to align this with what Dr. Feller (and you) have stated in this very thread before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's famous clinics performing manual FUE megasessions on a daily base, they are well documented in this same forum and consistent with it. The results are clearly showing high regrowth ratios.

Edited by Mcgregor82

Share this post


Link to post
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?

 

Yes FUT is the clear winner if not shaving the donor is important. They tape the hair above the chosen strip up out of the way and put a gauze pad down around the bottom then shave the strip itself and maybe a little bit on either side to make the incisions easier. Once it's done and sutured up your hair on top covers it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mav, I would just like to repost the following that you wrote because I believe it is important for Dr. Feller to answer.

 

"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. "

 

Not being aware of Erdogan and Lupanzula as a hair transplant doctor in 2017, especially considering their work on the research and FUE conference circuit is outright shameful. Not only is it a terrible look, but it looks very, very hard to believe. It looks like desperation, particular considering Dr. Feller's claims that FUE isn't popular or growing in popular. Clearly an outright lie or pure ignorance of what the available ISHRS data about the growth in FUE procedures indicates. Shouldn't a top doctor be paying attention to facts and statistics? One would hope so.

 

Again I think everyone agrees with the crux of Dr. Feller's argument as to why FUT is the better procedure for most, however there is clearly a lot of dishonesty and inflammatory, unrealistic rhetoric going on. There are FUE surgeons like Erdogan and Lorenzo who are consistently producing better results than 90% of FUT surgeons when looking at similar graft counts and hair textures, regardless of whether FUT is the better procedure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr. Bloxham,

 

are you serious with this answer? So the three forces will not apply for small sessions and/or when going slow? In this case 99 % growth would be the norm for you? Much ado about nothing? (Cause if you find a solution for 100 grafts there are simple solutions for 1000 as well).

 

It is again very hard to align this with what Dr. Feller (and you) have stated in this very thread before.

 

Gas,

 

Regardless of what I post and how many times I genuinely have answered your questions, you continue to twist my words and post falsities.

 

I never said detrimental forces don't apply when going slow. In fact, I said the EXACT opposite. I stated that the forces are always apparent during FUE extraction. However, the best way to minimize trauma is to go slow and focus on small cases. Do you really think you can't be slower and more careful when you have to remove 100 grafts in a set amount of time versus 2,500 grafts in a set amount of time? If I told you that you had 2 minutes to walk 10 yards holding an egg on a spoon without dropping it, do you think you would break less if you could make several slow, careful trips with only a couple of them; or do you think you would break less if I said you had to rush as fast as you can and move dozens of them?

 

And sure you can extrapolate the same care with 2,500 grafts if you can do it with 100. All you need is about a month do to the surgery.

 

I'm very disappointed in your last few responses, and therefore this will be my last one to you.


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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again I think everyone agrees with the crux of Dr. Feller's argument as to why FUT is the better procedure for most.

 

Excellent. Sharing this truth was the objective the entire time.


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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dr. Bloxham,

You make it really hard to believe, that you are interested in a discussion. Your 180 ° turnaround doesn’t help either.

 

1. I'm very disappointed in your last few responses, and therefore this will be my last one to you.

In a discussion where several threads had to be closed and the mods had to step in several times, (and your own partner being the centre of all that) my words are now so “harsh” that you do not want to answer? Sound like a big time excuse to me.

 

Either you do not want to answer cause the answer does not fit your agenda or you do not know the answer.

 

2. Regardless of what I post and how many times I genuinely have answered your questions…

Regardless how often you repeat it, you do not have answered any of my questions (in this particular topic, in other topics you well have). These questions happened to be not only my own, but a collection from several users including Dr. Lupanzula. The key questions are so few, you could answer in 5 minutes. You just refuse to do it. Here are the (main) questions again:

 

Why is the FUT growth so low (86 %) in these 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 %? Are the other “issues” like wrong storage of the grafts?

 

From the many numbers which Dr. Feller and you have posted. Which one do you finally see as average for FUE for a good candidate in a good clinic? Where does this number come from?

 

Does FUT (just by removing the strip) thins out the donor or will the density remain the same (which many members believe due to your statements)?

 

Is the reason that there are no FUE-mills in the US the “Failure to disclose damaged graft percentage” like posted from Dr. Feller?

 

3. … you continue to twist my words and post falsities. I never said detrimental forces don't apply when going slow. In fact, I said the EXACT opposite. I stated that the forces are always apparent during FUE extraction. However, the best way to minimize trauma is to go slow and focus on small cases.

Come one, I do not spin your clinic’s words. Dr. Feller said it loud and clear so many times (and you happily nodded in the video): The detrimental forces apply in FUE. No one has overcome them so far. These forces are the (major) reason that there is poor growth. Again the quotes of the different values:

 

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…”

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

 

You claim is now: The forces are still there, but the trauma can be minimized by going slow. You then expect (!) 99 % growth. 99 %! Before we were talking ranges between 50 – 70 %.

 

4. Do you really think you can't be slower and more careful when you have to remove 100 grafts in a set amount of time versus 2,500 grafts in a set amount of time? …All you need is about a month do to the surgery.

Honestly? Now, it is the time effect? I thought it is the “force”, which always occur and lead to the bad results? And no, you do not need a “month”: If Dr. Vories required 2 hours for 100 grafts (1.2 minutes per graft), one would need 6 days for 2500 grafts, when working 8 hours a day. Why not ask him how long he took for the 100?

 

And even if you do need that long: One could have several people working in parallel, one could do several sessions or … one could just practice. The Guitar hasn’t changed since decades and yet random teenagers in the internet master their instruments better (faster play with less errors) than the guitar heroes from the past (crazy analogy, but way better than yours about the "eggs").

Edited by Gasthoerer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you everyone. I'm not having a HT because of this thread. I'll just wait until something similar to FUE gets better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rappy, clearly you haven't understood anything from reading this thread. There will be no alternative to FUE or FUT, it is a physical impossibility.

 

Just get an FUT or go with a top FUE doctor like Lupanzula, Erdogan, Feriduni, Lorenzo etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mav, I would just like to repost the following that you wrote because I believe it is important for Dr. Feller to answer.

 

"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. "

 

Not being aware of Erdogan and Lupanzula as a hair transplant doctor in 2017, especially considering their work on the research and FUE conference circuit is outright shameful. Not only is it a terrible look, but it looks very, very hard to believe. It looks like desperation, particular considering Dr. Feller's claims that FUE isn't popular or growing in popular. Clearly an outright lie or pure ignorance of what the available ISHRS data about the growth in FUE procedures indicates. Shouldn't a top doctor be payingo attention to facts and statistics? One would hope so..

 

He won't answer, defend or address these points because they are valid. Same reason he is complaining about me to the Moderators to get them to silence me. I am not questioning the factual accuracy of the information that he is putting out, but I do think he starts to lose credibility when one considers that it appears he is not following or staying on top of the recent advances in FUE or at least the execution of it, and therefore may no longer be in a position to then argue that FUE surgeons haven't been able to overcome his so called detrimental forces. At some point, basing the argument so heavily on one's own experience performing the surgery without careful consideration to what others may be doing - just doesn't cut it, and one quickly starts to lose credibility. He knows this, and I suspect that the fact I keep bringing it to light is one of the reasons he wants to silence me so badly.

Edited by mav23100gunther

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What ever happened to mFUE? Wasn't that the so-called "alternative" to FUE with strip-like results? I'm surprised to barely see it mentioned at all anymore. Can Dr. Bloxham or Feller please expand on their results with mFUE? Thanks


1st Procedure, Oct. 2012 - 1,704 grafts FUT w/Dr. True

2nd Procedure, Sept. 2015 - 2500 grafts FUE w/Dr. Vories

 

FUE Progress - http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/180966-my-experience-w-dr-vories-2-500-grafts.html

FUE 1 year result - http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/184716-1-year-results-2-500-grafts-w-dr-vories.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What ever happened to mFUE? Wasn't that the so-called "alternative" to FUE with strip-like results? I'm surprised to barely see it mentioned at all anymore. Can Dr. Bloxham or Feller please expand on their results with mFUE? Thanks

 

Stay tuned.


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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stay tuned.

 

Thanks!


1st Procedure, Oct. 2012 - 1,704 grafts FUT w/Dr. True

2nd Procedure, Sept. 2015 - 2500 grafts FUE w/Dr. Vories

 

FUE Progress - http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/180966-my-experience-w-dr-vories-2-500-grafts.html

FUE 1 year result - http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/184716-1-year-results-2-500-grafts-w-dr-vories.html

Share this post


Link to post
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

×