Peer reviewed data on graft survival rates

[bismarck]

I decided to make this thread as a running tally of all published survival rate comparisons. This is not the place for a journal club, those threads already exist. Just numbers and references. Please feel free to contribute graft survival rate studies that you come across.

-Beehner's published survival rates 1999:

FUT 86% (765/890) vs FUE 61.4% (547/890) - 25% difference 

-Beehner's survival rates 1999:

-Beehner's survival rates 2015 (comparing 4 patients):

 FUSS 85% / 54%

-Wesley's survival rates:

FUE vs piloscopy

On graft density:

Edited August 30, 2018 by bismarck

[1978matt]

There's the 1992 study by Bobby Limmer (Dr K mentioned this to me at my first HT).  It is refecenced in this link but I have not seen the original:

https://atlantahairsurgeon-aestheticbrandma.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/hair-transplant.pdf

[bismarck]

12 minutes ago, 1978matt said:

There's the 1992 study by Bobby Limmer (Dr K mentioned this to me at my first HT).  It is refecenced in this link but I have not seen the original:

https://atlantahairsurgeon-aestheticbrandma.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/hair-transplant.pdf

I receive the above message when attempting to follow your link.

[1978matt]

7 minutes ago, bismarck said:

I receive the above message when attempting to follow your link.

It works for me in Firefox and Explorer.

[Gasthoerer]

"The difference is 24.6 %" No, it isn't! If you do not know simple math, I do not trust your results ?

[JayLDD]

1 hour ago, Gasthoerer said:

"The difference is 24.6 %" No, it isn't! If you do not know simple math, I do not trust your results ?

Not to mention the suggestion in the bottom study that this is square centimetre in which they couldn't even be bothered to align the ruler with, isn't HD or shot with proper equipment and looks less dense than photos packed at half the same density is packed with 100 FU, a number higher than any other surgeon claims to have implanted at and well above NATURAL density pre-hairloss. 

Again its verifiably false considering the incision tools were between 0.74 and 1mm. In a single cm2 this would effectively mean likely over 80% of the total area was covered with incisions, which if you look at the photo is 100% impossible when there are gaps wide enough to fit 2 FUs among every single other gap being large enough to fit a  single FU into.

 

"But ma peer review"

Edited August 30, 2018 by JeanLDD

[JayLDD]

1 hour ago, Gasthoerer said:

 

Edited August 30, 2018 by JeanLDD

[bismarck]

1 hour ago, Gasthoerer said:

"The difference is 24.6 %" No, it isn't! If you do not know simple math, I do not trust your results ?

Not that I wanted to do a journal club, but that image is taken from a hair surgeon's website, please kindly explain why he is wrong.

20 minutes ago, JeanLDD said:

Again its verifiably false considering the incision tools were between 0.74 and 1mm. In a single cm2 this would effectively mean likely over 80% of the total area was covered with incisions, which if you look at the photo is 100% impossible when there are gaps wide enough to fit 2 FUs among every single other gap being large enough to fit a  single FU into.

Seems to add up when I count them. Also, try not to be so emotional/butt hurt when you comment. Makes it hard to take anything you say seriously.

[JayLDD]

26 minutes ago, bismarck said:

Not that I wanted to do a journal club, but that image is taken from a hair surgeon's website, please kindly explain why he is wrong.

Seems to add up when I count them. Also, try not to be so emotional/butt hurt when you comment. Makes it hard to take anything you say seriously.

Saying I'm butt hurt doesn't make me butthurt just because you wish it was so seeing as you tend to lose the arguments you make and want something else to cling to  Unfortunately  the  pseudo-intellectual and baseless comments you tend to make are easy to identify as objectively stupid in their falsehoods.

The problem on the internet is that one can offer a set of data and facts, and make a direct argument about a situation and people in the next comment address a separate argument and ignore the facts. I'd rather be somewhat aggressive in my comments than give people being willfully stupid the satisfaction of living in their bubble without it being prodded. In the case of that square, its mathematically implausible based on the given figures on top of the fact they couldn't be bothered to align a ruler with the square properly or take HD photos with proper macro lenses. There isn't a single other study or surgeons claim suggesting these figures are possible either, and it's significantly above pre-balding density.  It's fair to question it.

On the number above I agree I don't see what is wrong with the comment. 

Edited August 30, 2018 by JeanLDD

[bismarck]

You might be right I have to think about it. If so, good catch. But please don't be a d*ck about it.

I will never not read your commentary and take it into consideration, but no need for personal attacks. I know hair can be emotional and stressful but we're all in the same boat here.

[Gasthoerer]

7 hours ago, bismarck said:

Not that I wanted to do a journal club, but that image is taken from a hair surgeon's website, please kindly explain why he is wrong.

1. Cause the difference is 24.6 % Points. In % the difference is much bigger.

2. With "your", I was pointing towards the author of the study not (!) to you. It is clear that you just made a screen shot.

Sorry, for being unclear. Actually I like the collection you are trying to accomplish!

Edited August 31, 2018 by Gasthoerer

[Gasthoerer]

The most frightening point of this study are the 86 % for strip which is also much lower than the values a typical clinic mentions.

 

[1978matt]

8 hours ago, bismarck said:

You might be right I have to think about it. If so, good catch. But please don't be a d*ck about it.

I will never not read your commentary and take it into consideration, but no need for personal attacks. I know hair can be emotional and stressful but we're all in the same boat here.

I feel your pain.

You can most certainly make over 100 x 1mm slits into a 1cm2 space.  Below I have made 111 in a 10x10 grid.

The initial 1cm2 grid will undoubtedly expand as the slits are filled with follicles.

[bismarck]

On 8/31/2018 at 2:38 AM, 1978matt said:

The initial 1cm2 grid will undoubtedly expand as the slits are filled with follicles.

Well you certainly have an engineer's mind, thank you.

Here is the more recent Beehner article which more directly compares FUT/FUE. His overall FUE numbers are not as high as those of the European clinics, but the Europeans that do both procedures don't publish their numbers beyond ballpark estimates on their own websites.

 

[bismarck]

Interesting study about the ratio of hair follicles in the donor area. I highlighted some points in the discussion about FUE transection rates and the new 'turn-key' model of tech run FUE chop shops in Turkey. Interesting that a criticism like this came from Pakistan, which certainly has more lenient regulations as well. The full article is available for free online via Medline.

[bismarck]

This is a new scanning technique they are using with FUE to predict the direction of grafts using tomography. Crazy!!!

Image:

Edited September 5, 2018 by bismarck

[Speegs]

It's a terrific discussion to be had in the ongoing and needless feud about FUT and FUE.

There are a time and place for either method, but they shouldn't be treated as competitors, but rather as both useful on a case by case basis.