I don't understand how different Surgeons can have different opinions on FUE vs FUT

[stephcurry30]

I have been a member for about a year now on this forum doing research on surgeons/FUE vs FUT vs mFUE and unfortunately there seems to be so many different opinions on FUE and FUT based on the surgeon.

 

Dr. Feller argues that FUE will and never is as good as FUT (unless FUE is used for extremely small graft cases).

 

While another recommended doctor on this forum, Bhatti made two videos of the advantages of FUE which contradicts the exact opposite of what Feller was arguing.

 

Videos can be seen here:

 

 

 

 

 

I remember a few months ago reading though a thread between Dr Diep, Dr Feller, and many forum members arguing and it seems like there is no consensus on what actually works.

 

My question is why? Why can't top surgeons in the world (who perform surgeries and produce regular spectacular results) form a board with a set of rules and opinions. These rules and opinions would be based off statistics of surgeries (for example:graft survival rate per surgery, percentage of successful outcomes for FUT and FUE based on each surgery, statistical survey of past patients who would rate there outcome on a scale of 1-10, etc.)

 

I am just tired of reading so many different things about FUE/FUT/surgeries and second guessing what I should do in the hear future. Why can't Doctors around the world come together and based of statistics argue and come with a conclusion of a set of rules/laws (BACKED UP BY STATS) for individuals who are seeking a HT, a decision that could make or break there life. If this were the case, then the number of individuals who get end of with awful hair transplants/result would be minimized. Doctors who buy a ARTRAS machine and say they are hair Tran plant Surgeons wouldn't be able to make such claims.

 

I think there is a huge difference in the role of Doctor's in the hair transplant industry and Doctor's in different areas. What I mean by this is that when patients make a consultation regardless of what area the doctor specializes in, the expect the doctor to know everything and in general primary care physicians can share similar ideas on how to treat certain sicknesses and diseases. Why can't hair transplant surgeons do the same? Why can't they come up with a similar consensus (BASED OF RESULTS/STATISTICS/ NUMBERS) on why FUE or FUT is better. I just don't get it.

 

 

 

Personal background and why I am so frustrated.

 

I am 24 and a Norwood 2 who would has stabilized my hair loss with finastiride and Dutastiride (1.5 years now) and I want to wait till I am 28/29/30 to do something about my not so great hair line. I started to do research on hair transplants for over a complete year now and I can't even make a decent decision on which technique I'd like to go in. I mean I still have 3-5 year to decide but it's ridiculous that I've been researching for 1 year watching interviews with surgeons and viewing results n and off this website and yet I can't make a decision without doubt that I am making the correct decision.

 

Any pots why professionals/surgeons would be greatly appreciated.

[Shampoo]

Oh come on man.....in almost all medical surgeries there are differing professional medical opinions and approaches on how best to operate on the patient. From kidney stones, prostrate, esophagus, knee, open incision vs laparoscopic, gastric sleeve vs gastric bi-pass....almost any surgery doctors don't all approach it the exact same way.

[Gasthoerer]

We already have a thread about this topic and I do no see a benefit in opening another one.

 

Also, just like I wrote about the arguments of Feller&Bloxham (favoring FUT), this arguments by Dr. Batthi are way to onsided (favoring FUE).

 

If you want a honest view: You have to go step by step through the entire process for FEU and FUT and write down the min, mid and max values of wasted grafts as a function of # of grafts.

[Cheddar]

Hair transplants, and cosmetic surgery in general, is a business - it’s not traditional health care. Doctors will favor and have some bias toward what best suits their skills and ultimately their business.

 

I was also like you, confused about which procedure would be best for my hair loss. I’ve done A LOT of research and met with several top HT doctors. Based on their feedback, and my own research on the pros and cons of each procedure, the answer becomes clear.

[jjsrader]

One thing is for sure - MOST of the surgeons in India market misconceptions that pander to their citizens. It's a shame.

 

It's best to go with pure science/#'s and pros/cons like Gasthoerer wrote; which - by the way was excellent advice.

[E39]

Hey at least we have a choice.

[JohnCasper]

The FUT vs. FUE debate will continue. I always tell folks to choose the doctor and procedure their most comfortable with. I know that sounds simple...but its important....and true. Both processes yield very good results. The debate will always continue regarding which process is better. For me.... my results are excellent. I was a Norwood VI and I’ve had over 7,000 FUE grafts transplanted. Several doctors at an International Hair Restoration conference (where I was on display and examined) encouraged me to have more. FUE was an easy decision for me because I had no interest in having a very long linear scar from FUT strip surgery if I could receive excellent results without noticeable scarring. Again...its a personal preference. The debate however....will continue.

[hsrp10]

Opinion and overall industry acceptance of FUE has drastically changed over the years.

For some time, basically when I was researching HT's initially, FUE was taboo and the results posted were subpar and FUE was viewed as something only to be pursued for very minor cases and the yields were actually poor back then.

 

Techniques and surgeon skill has improved, some of the former "FUT only" kings such as Konior and Hasson are doing more and more FUE cases and once adamant proponents of FUT like myself are having FUE procedures and communicating the positive experiences.

 

I think Feller's old videos and outdated comments are no longer valid.

For overall lifetime donor management, I would recommend patients start with FUT first if they have advanced hairloss over NW5.

But there are also clinics that can do great dense FUE work even on advanced cases.

[jjsrader]

Well written Hsrp10.

 

Younger guys should know their family history and yes, if going to NW5 and beyond and you are going to commit to several surgeries, FUT 1st is the way to go for the vast majority of patients.

 

Best of the best strip and fue surgeons today can really maximize graft counts for advanced norwoods - agreed.

 

I think people have to be REALISTIC about where they are now, how fast they are losing hair, what meds they want to commit to for decades and how they see themselves at age 50 and beyond.

 

I'm 51 and my appearance is not that important to me in the grand scheme of things, but I do want to look normal.

 

That should be the most impt. factor for those wishing to create the 'illusion' of a normal head of hair or even a balding head of hair but w/hair to frame the face.

 

Man, if only we had gene therapy or something for this chronic condition. It must be incredibly complicated 'cause other areas of medicine have made insane advances while we are stuck w/hair transplants that have been around since the 1950's.