FUE/FUT Norwood 5

[HarryHonolulu]

hey all

is an FUE procedure completely inadvisable for a Norwood 5 patient such as myself?

I would probably need 3000 grafts to make a serious dent in my baldness.

just wondering if I should accept my fate and embrace the FUT method instead of going FUE and living to regret it (i.e. destroying my donor area, ending up with many tiny scars that overall look worse than linear, not getting impressive coverage etc.)

[superdudeo]

hey all

is an FUE procedure completely inadvisable for a Norwood 5 patient such as myself?

I would probably need 3000 grafts to make a serious dent in my baldness.

just wondering if I should accept my fate and embrace the FUT method instead of going FUE and living to regret it (i.e. destroying my donor area, ending up with many tiny scars that overall look worse than linear, not getting impressive coverage etc.)

 

Probably best to have a few consultations with some good doctors. You might not even be suitable for FUT until they can inspect your scalp etc.

[Bill - Seemiller]

Harry,

 

Every patient is different. Truthfully, some hair restoration surgeons will advice FUSS (follicular unit strip surgery) while others will advise FUE (follicular unit excision - formerly follicular unit extraction). That said, FUSS has been consistent in growth much longer than FUE however, FUE has come a long way and some hair transplant surgeons have really taken FUE to the next level. But as superdudeo suggested, try consulting with some top hair restoration surgeons to see what they say about your specific case.

 

Best wishes,

 

Bill

[mattj]

Not every Norwood 5 patient will require the same number of grafts. The physical size of the balding area can vary and hair texture and thickness play a role. As long as your donor area can provide enough grafts then there's no reason why you can't undergo FUE, you just have to accept that you'll be having more than one procedure (3000 grafts are unlikely to be enough), not to mention the higher costs involved.

[HarryHonolulu]

one doctor said that going with FUE is a terrible strategy for someone in my situation because I would need at least one "big" session (eg 3500 grafts) so FUE risks destroying my donor area. he also said, as everybody else has, that the notion that it is scarless isn't true at all.

 

I am not bothered about scars, cost etc.

 

I just want to ensure I get the best possible result from the procedure. so if FUT gets me there, that'll be the road I take. and if it's FUE, that's fine too.

 

one logic I've been following in making my decision:

 

let's say FUT gives me better coverage. so good, in fact, that I don't even CONSIDER shaving my head, or cutting it really short (like, military style) simply because I can finally live with a full head of hair again. wouldn't that automatically make the scar a non-issue?

[mattj]

If the idea of scars doesn't bother you then you're better off choosing FUT simply because more can be done in one procedure, and as a Norwood 5 you undoubtedly require a high number of grafts. The linear scar shouldn't be an issue as long as you don't plan to ever cut your hair very short. FUE does procedure scarring and if a lot of grafts are extracted then the donor area might be visibly thinner.

 

It all depends on your actual donor density. FUE isn't a bad idea if you are happy to split the surgery into two, spaced apart by the better part of a year and if cost isn't an issue. It's an easier procedure in terms of recovery.

[mattj]

Also, if the doctor who examined you said that FUE is a bad idea due to donor concerns, then that might be because your donor is below average in density. It's impossible for me to say whether that is the case or not.

 

Here is a recent example of a patient who had a high number of grafts (5754) extracted via FUE, over two procedures. His donor area looks fine. He doesn't represent all patients, but serves as an example of how it can be done.

 

http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/189104-dr-rahal-video-presentation-5754-grafts-fue.html

[HarryHonolulu]

Thanks for the reply. The doctor did not examine me- I have been told my donor hair is very good. He was speaking generally (I believe) about why FUT might be a better option given the number of grafts needed in a higher Norwood.

Nothing new but I have read different opinions about this perspective , with some saying that FUE absolutely yields comparable results and that it is possible to extract 3500+ grafts without compromising the donor area

[mattj]

Speaking generally, I think most doctors would agree with him. I am definitely of the opinion that, if your donor can support it, then FUE should give you the same result. I just think that 3000 or 3500 grafts won't be enough if you are truly a NW5.