Top/Best FUE Surgeon in North America

[bismarck]

Just for kicks, how would you guys compare the top tier American docs for FUE (Rahal, Konior, H&W, Gabel, Diep etc) against the top tier Europeans  (Couto, Feriduni, de Freitas, Lorenzo, Feriduni, Bisanga, Erdogan etc)? For yield and to a lesser degree design.

Edited September 9, 2018 by bismarck

[newpatient99]

23 minutes ago, Melvin-Moderator said:

.9mm is actually the average according to the ISHRS survey, but that's besides the point. Is anyone on Realself actually verified? As far as I am aware, Realself does not have any standards of quality. Therefore, anyone can basically make a negative or positive post. In fact, I'd say nearly half of all the results posted on realself are posted for monetary reasons and it shows. We can not go by anonymous postings on third party site with no standards. There is a difference between hearsay and facts, I know Dr. Diep, stands by his work and would offer touch ups if necessary. However, I do not believe that he offers refunds as he clearly states that before you book a procedure with him, so as I said earlier if that is something you're not willing to bargain with, there are several other quality doctors to go to that may offer refunds.

Hey Melvin, 

When you had your FUE with Dr. Diep, did he harvest the grafts or no?

[Melvin- Admin]

7 hours ago, newpatient99 said:

Hey Melvin, 

When you had your FUE with Dr. Diep, did he harvest the grafts or no?

Yes he was the one harvesting the grafts. 

[Speegs]

7 hours ago, bismarck said:

Just for kicks, how would you guys compare the top tier American docs for FUE (Rahal, Konior, H&W, Gabel, Diep etc) against the top tier Europeans  (Couto, Feriduni, de Freitas, Lorenzo, Feriduni, Bisanga, Erdogan etc)? For yield and to a lesser degree design.

Western medicine is going to mean nothing is too drastically different technique-wise between North America and Europe, but the doctors that do both FUE and FUT will have the leg up in experience and facilities on both continents.

Edited September 9, 2018 by Speegs

[Bill - Seemiller]

I want to chime in here briefly about real self.  

 While the website appears to be quite popular, surgeons listed on their website are not recommended based on any set of standards. Yes, there are so called preferred surgeons and they use certain terminology that would lead you to believe that they’ve met some kind of standard. But the reality is, the only real standard is that they participate by answering questions. If they answer a certain number of questions, they are status is moved up and they appear to be considered preferred or whatever language they use. 

 Additionally, surgeons who advertise with real self and pay our prominently featured and advertised in the side bar area but it still doesn’t mean they’ve met any set of standards. Nobody there, despite Real Self’s large staff  actually takes the time to prescreen doctors and list them based on any kind of qualification. That type of service is really only performed by our community and possibly one other that has their own set of standards (not publicly listed like ours).  

 Dr. Diep has a long history of producing outstanding results. Yes, every physician, no matter how good they are will have cases of poor growth, complications  and less than ideal results. That’s not because they had an off day or did anything wrong necessarily, although that’s not impossible, but simply because hair transplant surgery is not 100% guarantee. It is still a surgical procedure where a multitude of variables will impact the final result.  

 That said, there are times where something a particular hair restoration surgeon does  is questionable and we need to investigate. That is certainly something we do and if we find that a particular recommended surgeon is no longer producing results on par with our demanding standards, their  recommendation is discontinued.  

That’s not true with real self.   Real self will likely go on listing a doctor as long as they are paying and participating. 

In fact, many doctors don’t even participate but are still listed simply because they created themselves a basic profile. 

 But more specifically, while a few patients have reported concerns about their procedure and results with Dr. Diep, do understand that overall  his results have been top notch and several of those patients have not verified them selves and disappeared. When a patient does that, there’s a very good chance that they are not genuine and in fact are simply trying to discredit a good surgeons name. They are often competitors or even patients who were denied surgery because they weren’t a good candidate for it.  

But we still have faith that Dr. Diep is doing top-notch work and producing excellent results. 

Best wishes,

Bill

 

[Legend007]

I want to chime in about RealSelf too .. they were the first placed I looked into when I googled about hairtransplants ..

I automatically assumed they were top notch clinics when they have 4-5 stars n answered a lot of patient questions .. I almost fell for that crap n went to a local clinic that does boobs n hair transplant, n had the state of the art technology .. I almost let them do surgery on me .. can u believe that ? N they were charging $8.50 for the Artas , n the 22 year old female technician was going to do the surgery on me .. when I look back at it now ., makes me mad ., n once I did more research n learned more about hairtransplants n how this industry is .. its very shady .. 

not only that if u keep reading on realself u begin to notice that a lot of the answers that the doctors answered to patients , are not done by the doctors themselves , but the admin, the front desk workers , that copy n paste the same answers to almost everyone ., they do this to achieve a higher rating on realself , the more they post , the higher their ranking.. such bullshit .. right ? 

[Bill - Seemiller]

Legend, you’re absolutely right. Real self has some value but it can be deceiving. Frankly, unless you read very carefully on what each item next to each surgeon means, you may be led to believe that a particular surgeon Is top notch when in reality, they are just participating more. And you are right, usually the physician doesn’t do any of the writing. It’s just an administrator. Now don’t get me wrong, I understand that hair transplant surgery is a team effort. But, writing articles or having an assistant write articles on your behalf doesn’t mean that you were an excellent hair transplant surgeon. In fact, it has nothing to do with it.

I’ve never perform surgery in my life however, I bet that I’ve written more  educational and informational articles and content than many surgeons and clinics combined. With almost 20,000 posts on this discussion forum and hundreds of articles written by me, I guess I would be an outstanding real self hair transplant surgeon ?

Bill

[bismarck]

21 hours ago, Speegs said:

Western medicine is going to mean nothing is too drastically different technique-wise between North America and Europe, but the doctors that do both FUE and FUT will have the leg up in experience and facilities on both continents.

On some level I appreciate your point, but I don't completely agree for a few reasons:

-Someone who does FUT 80% and FUE 20% is usually not going to be as accomplished with either as someone who does FUE 100% or FUT 100%. This is the reason for increasing subspecialization within medicine -- to avoid the jack of all trades, ace of none phenomenon. You don't have to be great at open heart surgery to know how to be a great interventional cardiologist. Being adept with one type of harvesting technique may not give you any advantage with the other. It could even have the opposite effect.

-There is a huge variability amongst surgeons regardless of region, though presumably they have similar 'Western' training. I would argue that Couto has surpassed most of the doctors he trained under, probably due to  a combination of conscientiousness, technique and god given talent. So comparing docs is a very valid exercise, even if its only based on submitted cases. 

Edited September 10, 2018 by bismarck

[Speegs]

9 minutes ago, bismarck said:

I don't agree for a few reasons:

-Someone who does FUT 80% and FUE 20% is not going to be as accomplished with either as someone who does FUE 100%. This is the reason for increasing subspecialization within medicine -- to avoid the jack of all trades, ace of none phenomenon. You don't have to be great at open heart surgery to know how to be a great interventional cardiologist. Being adept with one type of harvesting technique may not give you any advantage with the other.

-There is a huge variability amongst surgeons regardless of region, though presumably they have similar 'Western' training. I would argue that Couto has surpassed most of the doctors he trained under, probably due to  a combination of conscientiousness, technique and god given talent. So comparing docs is a very valid exercise, even if its only based on submitted cases. 

Someone who only does FUE better have top-notch facilities that behave as if they did FUT for the sake of the preservation and preparation of grafts. The microscopes used for dissecting grafts are a crucial investment for any HT practice worth their salt, and often a neglected tool by FUE exclusive practitioners.

Also, a doctor who refuses to learn FUT limits their abilities to undergo diverse cases with the best possible alternate methods needed. FUE is not always appropriate. A doctor unwilling to acknowledge that may see every case as a nail for their proverbial hammer.

Doctors who mentored with great doctors have an advantage as well, Gabel mentored with Konior in the US, for example, both do FUT and FUE and are considered elite at both. They also occasionally refer patients to one another because of the trust and respect they have for each other's skill.

Who a doctor trained under is as important as where they went to medical school.

In conclusion, go to elite surgeons, elite surgeons that do both FUT and FUE at an elite level.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 10, 2018 by Speegs

[Melvin- Admin]

4 minutes ago, bismarck said:

On some level I appreciate your point, but I don't completely agree for a few reasons:

-Someone who does FUT 80% and FUE 20% is usually not going to be as accomplished with either as someone who does FUE 100% or FUT 100%. This is the reason for increasing subspecialization within medicine -- to avoid the jack of all trades, ace of none phenomenon. You don't have to be great at open heart surgery to know how to be a great interventional cardiologist. Being adept with one type of harvesting technique may not give you any advantage with the other. It could even have the opposite effect.

-There is a huge variability amongst surgeons regardless of region, though presumably they have similar 'Western' training. I would argue that Couto has surpassed most of the doctors he trained under, probably due to  a combination of conscientiousness, technique and god given talent. So comparing docs is a very valid exercise, even if its only based on submitted cases. 

That's not true, surgeons who are well versed in both procedures offer a balanced approach and keep that balance within their practice. Not every patient is a FUE candidate and not every patient is an FUSS candidate. Most doctors who perform both like Dr. Gabel, Dr. Konoir etc, are performing both procedures almost equally.

Your analogy of "jack of all trades" is applicable to plastic surgeons who offer breast augmentation, rhinoplasty, tummy tucks and also do hair, that is a jack of all trades. Hair transplant surgeons who perform both procedures are specialized surgeons in hair transplantation. In fact, both procedures are Follicular Unit Transplantation by definition the only difference is the harvesting.

[bismarck]

2 hours ago, Melvin-Moderator said:

That's not true, surgeons who are well versed in both procedures offer a balanced approach and keep that balance within their practice. Not every patient is a FUE candidate and not every patient is an FUSS candidate. Most doctors who perform both like Dr. Gabel, Dr. Konoir etc, are performing both procedures almost equally.

Your analogy of "jack of all trades" is applicable to plastic surgeons who offer breast augmentation, rhinoplasty, tummy tucks and also do hair, that is a jack of all trades. Hair transplant surgeons who perform both procedures are specialized surgeons in hair transplantation. In fact, both procedures are Follicular Unit Transplantation by definition the only difference is the harvesting.

That is simply not accurate. 

A surgeon that specializes in one type of procedure exclusively will be better at that procedure just by virtue of experience.

Similar to a chef with food. Think Jiro dreams of Sushi.

Hair stylist with types of hair -- think inner city barbers.

Mechanic with cars. Someone that works only on Teslas all day will be better at Teslas than someone who is a general mechanic.

A mixed martial artist might be a better 'fighter' than someone that exclusively boxes, but he will not be a better boxer -- think Conor MacGregor and Mayweather. The analogies are endless.

A general surgeon will not perform plastic surgery as well as a plastic surgeon. And a plastic surgeon that exclusively focuses on breast implants will be better at them then one who does all types of plastic procedures.

A neurologist will do a better neurology exam on average than an ER doc. An ER doc might think of non neurology things that could be wrong more easily, but when it comes to neuro, the specialist is obviously master of their craft.

Increased specialization leads to increased expertise, at least at the one thing that someone does.  I'm not saying anything about who is a candidate for what, I am talking about the procedure itself.

A surgeon that can do both procedures might give you a more even handed answer about which is right for you, but even then he will have bias for the procedure that he is better at (Feller).

Decide which procedure is the best for you, then go to the person who is the best at that procedure.

Edited September 10, 2018 by bismarck

[Speegs]

1 hour ago, bismarck said:

That is simply not accurate. 

A surgeon that specializes in one type of procedure exclusively will be better at that procedure just by virtue of experience.

Similar to a chef with food. Think Jiro dreams of Sushi.

Hair stylist with types of hair -- think inner city barbers.

Mechanic with cars. Someone that works only on Teslas all day will be better at Teslas than someone who is a general mechanic.

A mixed martial artist might be a better 'fighter' than someone that exclusively boxes, but he will not be a better boxer -- think Conor MacGregor and Mayweather. The analogies are endless.

A general surgeon will not perform plastic surgery as well as a plastic surgeon. And a plastic surgeon that exclusively focuses on breast implants will be better at them then one who does all types of plastic procedures.

A neurologist will do a better neurology exam on average than an ER doc. An ER doc might think of non neurology things that could be wrong more easily, but when it comes to neuro, the specialist is obviously master of their craft.

Increased specialization leads to increased expertise, at least at the one thing that someone does.  I'm not saying anything about who is a candidate for what, I am talking about the procedure itself.

A surgeon that can do both procedures might give you a more even handed answer about which is right for you, but even then he will have bias for the procedure that he is better at (Feller).

Decide which procedure is the best for you, then go to the person who is the best at that procedure.

Your analogies don't suffice.

A surgeon that is expert with both FUT and FUE represents the top echelon of the surgical world in hair transplantation.

You're being argumentative without an argument.

You're saying it's impossible to be elite at both, which is a spurious claim, and by default asking a surgeon to pick an extraction method exclusively as if that will make them elite.

There are plenty of mediocrities doing only FUE or FUT alone, offering only one method neither makes you an expert nor an elite surgeon.

Personal and professional dedication to the craft of hair restoration does, and those who have dedicated themselves to be elite at both FUT and FUE are the best. Not to mention, if your contention is that focusing on one method will make you more experienced, imagine the experience a dedicated surgeon must commit to master both FUT and FUE.

They are the ones who realize how custom a restoration should be and have the track record and diversity to prove it.

 

 

Edited September 10, 2018 by Speegs

[Melvin- Admin]

6 hours ago, bismarck said:

That is simply not accurate. 

A surgeon that specializes in one type of procedure exclusively will be better at that procedure just by virtue of experience.

Similar to a chef with food. Think Jiro dreams of Sushi.

Hair stylist with types of hair -- think inner city barbers.

Mechanic with cars. Someone that works only on Teslas all day will be better at Teslas than someone who is a general mechanic.

A mixed martial artist might be a better 'fighter' than someone that exclusively boxes, but he will not be a better boxer -- think Conor MacGregor and Mayweather. The analogies are endless.

A general surgeon will not perform plastic surgery as well as a plastic surgeon. And a plastic surgeon that exclusively focuses on breast implants will be better at them then one who does all types of plastic procedures.

A neurologist will do a better neurology exam on average than an ER doc. An ER doc might think of non neurology things that could be wrong more easily, but when it comes to neuro, the specialist is obviously master of their craft.

Increased specialization leads to increased expertise, at least at the one thing that someone does.  I'm not saying anything about who is a candidate for what, I am talking about the procedure itself.

A surgeon that can do both procedures might give you a more even handed answer about which is right for you, but even then he will have bias for the procedure that he is better at (Feller).

Decide which procedure is the best for you, then go to the person who is the best at that procedure.

Your analogies are misplaced and you’re failing to understand that both surgical techniques are Follicular Unit Transplantation. 

Some surgeons place grafts with implantation pens/instruments and others place grafts with forceps. According to you this is a “jack of all trades”. The procedure itself is the same the only difference is how the grafts are being implanted. Well its the same way for harvesting, this will be my last reply on the matter if you don’t understand then you’re simply choosing not too. 

[Legend007]

U guys make a lot of sense .. it’s not about who’s right or wrong .. it’s about providing information for others to educate themselves to make their own decisions.. much appreciated . 

[bismarck]

I don't think either of you have come up with remotely compelling counterpoints, so we'll just have to leave it there.

[Speegs]

5 minutes ago, bismarck said:

I don't think either of you have come up with remotely compelling counterpoints, so we'll just have to leave it there.

Your initial claim was easily dispatched as erroneous, being confrontational about it won't redeem it.

[bismarck]

God bless you son. Just trying to explain why the European docs have so much better results than the Americans when it comes to FUE on average. 

[JayLDD]

23 minutes ago, bismarck said:

I don't think either of you have come up with remotely compelling counterpoints, so we'll just have to leave it there.

Well done on being that civil in the face of those "arguments" lmfao.

[Speegs]

1 hour ago, bismarck said:

God bless you son. Just trying to explain why the European docs have so much better results than the Americans when it comes to FUE on average. 

Why you guys post just to hear yourselves talk is asinine in a forum dedicated to patient education.

The OP clearly wanted to know about North American FUE practitioners, and you hijacked the thread with the intention to crow about your bias, and in the process exposed a severe ignorance about what FUE and FUT even are in practice. 

Your agenda had no place on this thread and backfired terribly.

Edited September 11, 2018 by Speegs

[bismarck]

On 9/11/2018 at 2:54 AM, Speegs said:

Your agenda had no place on this thread and backfired terribly.

No agenda, no backfiring, just a discussion followed by your clueless naval gazing. Get your head out of your bum.

On 9/10/2018 at 8:43 AM, Melvin-Moderator said:

Your analogies are misplaced and you’re failing to understand that both surgical techniques are Follicular Unit Transplantation. 

Some surgeons place grafts with implantation pens/instruments and others place grafts with forceps. According to you this is a “jack of all trades”. The procedure itself is the same the only difference is how the grafts are being implanted. Well its the same way for harvesting, this will be my last reply on the matter if you don’t understand then you’re simply choosing not too. 

I think the analogies hold up fine in this context, particularly the fighting analogy. All because there is an overlap doesn't mean they are the same procedure.

No one in America is doing with FUE what the Europeans are, no one in Europe is doing with FUT what the North Americans are. Both are getting close, but there is a consistent significant difference of about 10-20% yield from patient submitted cases on these forums -- even the elite of the elite. Part of it is surgical skill, part of it is regulatory oversight with regards to techs. Because the US is far more litigious, things are more cautious here. But sometimes with HRT, especially FUE, you need help.

 

Edited June 16, 2019 by bismarck
responding to both posts

[JayLDD]

8 hours ago, bismarck said:

No agenda, no backfiring, just a discussion followed by your clueless naval gazing. Get your head out of your bum.

I think the analogies hold up fine in this context, particularly the fighting analogy. All because there is an overlap doesn't mean they are the same procedure.

No one in America is doing with FUE what the Europeans are, no one in Europe is doing with FUT what the North Americans are. Both are getting close, but there is a consistent significant difference of about 10-20% yield from patient submitted cases on these forums -- even the elite of the elite. Part of it is surgical skill, part of it is regulatory oversight with regards to techs. Because the US is far more litigious, things are more cautious here. But sometimes with HRT, especially FUE, you need help.

 

Hattingen in Europe stack up to any FUT clinic in NA, but as a generalisation you're right.