Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

 

Quote

FUE 4300 Grafts (Was a Norwood Grade 3V so 2100 Euros is a Steal)

I'm posting this photo to show how disappointed I am in the industry. How disappointed I am that many feel this kind of thing is okay.

I don't think I need to go into detail why this is wrong on so many levels, how the grafts were harvested and outside the safe zone, how a massive punch was used due to lack of experience, how misleading the result is. I think the photo speaks for itself. Sadly this poor guy doesn't realize how much trouble he's in, not if but when his hair loss gets worse and he needs another hair transplant.

I've been in the industry 4/20+ years now. And I'm reminded of the 90s in the era of plugs and mini grafts. But this in a way takes it to an entirely different level. Sadly I'm seeing a lot of the stuff lately. FUE in many ways has advanced the industry. But it also made it easier for anyone to offer the treatment, opening the door to this kind of stuff. Now we have part-time hair transplant doctors, hair transplant mills offering FUE from countries with very little regulation, hell we even have non-doctors performing hair transplants in the US.

Unfortunately, I can't say that the average guy with little research will end up with a great result. The odds are against him. Do your research guys. It's more important than ever before.

userimage-2265760.jpg

Edited by HairLossMentor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, it’s unfortunate that many view having cosmetic surgery the same way they do as buying a car. 

I’ve read some alarming comments, I understand money is difficult to come by, especially with the cost of living. Believe me I live in Los Angeles, no one understands more than me. But to base your selection on this is foolish and dangerous to say the meast. 

I’m gonna make a video about this, I think it’s an important issue. I’ve seen some videos showing a good 2,000 hair transplant to a good 25,000 hair transplant. Thie gives the false impression that the majority of the results that are 2,000 look good. In fact, it’s the opposite. 

  • Like 1

I do not provide medical advice, recommendations, all responses are my opinion.

My Hair Transplant Journey

Melvin- Associate Publisher and Forum Moderator for the Hair Transplant Network, the Coalition Hair Loss Learning Center, and the Hair Loss Q&A Blog.

Follow our Social Media Instagram @thehairtransplantnetwork FacebookPintrest, Linkedin and YouTube.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The worst case with Fue is a large scar that looks bad

The worst case with Fue are tiny dots that you cannot see unless you look close - id like to see the above guy on year later I bet you cannot see anything cosmetically bad from his donor site

Edited by elduterino

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, elduterino said:

The worst case with Fue are tiny dots that you cannot see unless you look close

Not true 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

show us a Pic of a guy With horrible Fue scars! 

I had 2 fue with 2 separate docs total 4200 gr- in both cases you cannot see anything after 2 weeks even if you know where to look

Edited by elduterino

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, elduterino said:

show us a Pic of a guy With horrible Fue scars!

Google image search “horrible Fue scars”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did and could only see ONE image of a bad - probably using very large punchez - pic, the rest are all pics shortly after surgery not a year later 

There are thousands of pics with horrible Fut scars 

Bottom line if the doc uses a 0.9mm punch or less the scars are invisible after a few weeks 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, you think the donor in the pic above won’t end up looking cosmetically bad? And you can’t find bad fue scars on google? No point in continuing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Spaceman Are you basing your opinions off Google searches or from personal experience 

Edited by elduterino

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The worst case with Fue is a large scar that looks bad

-grafts were taken outside the safe zone, meaning they are not resistant to DHT and he will lose them as his hair loss gets worse

- a large punch, most likely 1 mm was used. I doubt this poor guy is able to get a second procedure after this

- there is no donor management, they just harvested as many grafts as possible.

While FUE scarring is a problem… The real problem is not having enough grafts when your hair loss progresses. A lot of guys won't discover this until it's too late. Even after thousand grafts, when done wrong, FUE can destroy you donor area. FUE has been hijacked by amateur hair transplant doctors, with little desire to learn how to do it correctly… This is a great example of it.

I wave of unhappy patients is coming… This is worse than the 90s and the era of plugs. Much worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Hi John, helpful info. Thank you. 

I feel we should never blame the guy who watched an infomercial and decides to get a hair transplant.

Most guys don't do their research. They assume that since it's a medical procedure, doctors are bound by medical ethics... crazy thought I know.

Sadly it's not the case. Money talks in this industry.

In the example I posted,  the guy had his hair transplant outside north amerrica, where many of the medical standard are not the same. 

Why does realself give this doctor a platform? Why won't the hair transplant community jump on this and say it's wrong.

Yes, even in north america the industry is a disgrace in many ways. But it's not the wild west like Turkey for example.

@John Baris if you really want to help guys, and I know you do...

Demand the ishrs and medical boards...

1) only allow membership to doctors who practice hair transplants full time

2) ban non-doctors performing hair transplants, as in the case of many clinics in the usa

3) ban the use of ARTAS 

4) set standards for transection, plus make it easier for patients to make a complaints

5) set standards what doctors can and can't say. That fue is "scarless" is a great example.

The above is a great start. We are facing a crisis

To hair transplant doctors:

In my opinion, the problem is ARTAS, neo-graft, smart graft. They market to "non specialists." Cosmetic surgeons who perform boob jobs and hair transplants on the side.

It's time to focus on the patient. Put differences aside and put the specialization back into hair transplants.

It's been hijacked by amature cosmetic surgeons who only see profits. Or worse, non doctors. Yes, you don't need to be a doctor to perform fue in the usa! You know how difficult is it to perform and master the art.

 

 

Edited by HairLossMentor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, John Baris said:

That's why these forums are very useful, but the problem here is people arguing FUE or FUT and trying to be right about it. 

I generally agree with your post, however I don’t think this thread is about FUT vs FUE. At least that is not what my comments were trying to convey. Both FUE and FUT are great procedures when performed by a qualified, experienced surgical team.

To me, the thread reminds us that there are many bad clinics out there that can do more damage than good with either procedure. Neither is scarless, and either procedure, in the wrong hands can leave you screwed. Buyer beware.

Edited by Spaceman
Language

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HairLossMentor said:

Hi John, helpful info. Thank you. 

I feel we should never blame the guy who watched an infomercial and decides to get a hair transplant.

Most guys don't do their research. They assume that since it's a medical procedure, doctors are bound by medical ethics... crazy thought I know.

Sadly it's not the case. Money talks in this industry.

In the example I posted,  the guy had his hair transplant outside north amerrica, where many of the medical standard are not the same. 

Why does realself give this doctor a platform? Why won't the hair transplant community jump on this and say it's wrong.

Yes, even in north america the industry is a disgrace in many ways. But it's not the wild west like Turkey for example.

@John Baris if you really want to help guys, and I know you do...

Demand the ishrs and medical boards...

1) only allow membership to doctors who practice hair transplants full time

2) ban non-doctors performing hair transplants, as in the case of many clinics in the usa

3) ban the use of ARTAS 

4) set standards for transection, plus make it easier for patients to make a complaints

5) set standards what doctors can and can't say. That fue is "scarless" is a great example.

The above is a great start. We are facing a crisis

To hair transplant doctors:

In my opinion, the problem is ARTAS, neo-graft, smart graft. They market to "non specialists." Cosmetic surgeons who perform boob jobs and hair transplants on the side.

It's time to focus on the patient. Put differences aside and put the specialization back into hair transplants.

It's been hijacked by amature cosmetic surgeons who only see profits. Or worse, non doctors. Yes, you don't need to be a doctor to perform fue in the usa! You know how difficult is it to perform and master the art.

 

 

Both of you make valid points. Unfortunately, ISHRS is not a membership with standards. However, there is some valuable conferences where statistics can be gained. There isn’t any standards of quality. This is why this forum exists. Now, banning Artas, while sounds logical. We simply can’t ban it without proving it isn’t a useful tool in the right hands. At the end of the day, tools are only as good as the person using them. However, I agree with John we need to move past this FUT vs FUE frankly, they’re both here to stay and for good reason.


I do not provide medical advice, recommendations, all responses are my opinion.

My Hair Transplant Journey

Melvin- Associate Publisher and Forum Moderator for the Hair Transplant Network, the Coalition Hair Loss Learning Center, and the Hair Loss Q&A Blog.

Follow our Social Media Instagram @thehairtransplantnetwork FacebookPintrest, Linkedin and YouTube.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
Quote

Now, banning Artas, while sounds logical. We simply can’t ban it without proving it isn’t a useful tool in the right hands.

I can prove this and will very shortly.

ARTAS in my opinion puts severe limitations on the doctors ability to harvest grafts. It's also FDA cleared for a specific patient/hair type... Say tuned. The information will be factual and I welcome any doctor who offers ARTAS to join in and defend their use of the robot. I had a nice debate/discussion with one of their sales reps at the last meeting… They know where I stand.

I agree about the ISHRS. The standards are low.

But here's something to consider… I think we all agree it takes years of training before you can perform natural hair restoration, plus a massive investment in staff.  One of my biggest problems with ARTAS, besides it being rejected by some of the best in the industry, is that it markets to part-time hair transplant doctors, a.k.a. do a facelift, boob job and hair transplant on the side.

These doctors with little to no training in hair restoration and use the robot to harvest 3000+ graphs in one session… clearly harvesting outside of the safe zone. 

It's the industry's secret… Everyone I speak to, every doctor, every patient advocate all say the robot is not ready. Everyone says this in private but publicly many will purchase the robot because "patients ask for it." In fact, a doctor in LA who owns spa and injects Botox is purchasing ARTAS for that very reason.

Thank God for these forums. I give credit to yourself and Bill for allowing an open and honest debate. As long as were all respectful to each other and supported with facts. Thank you. The industry is a mess… And we need forums like this so the truth comes out.

P. S. Who would like to see a $250,000 robot get run over by a bulldozer? 🙂 Stay tuned

P.P.S. An easy solution is to reject part-time hair transplant doctors. At one time hair restoration was a specialized field. This specialization brought us FUE but also led to the industry being hijacked. You just can't get consist results doing hair transplants part-time. You can't just dabble in hair. You need to do this full-time, for many years. I challenge anyone to disagree. 

Edited by HairLossMentor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, HairLossMentor said:

I can prove this and will very shortly.

ARTAS in my opinion puts severe limitations on the doctors ability to harvest grafts. It's also FDA cleared for a specific patient/hair type... Say tuned. The information will be factual and I welcome any doctor who offers ARTAS to join in and defend their use of the robot. I had a nice debate/discussion with one of their sales reps at the last meeting… They know where I stand.

I agree about the ISHRS. The standards are low.

But here's something to consider… I think we all agree it takes years of training before you can perform natural hair restoration, plus a massive investment in staff.  One of my biggest problems with ARTAS, besides it being rejected by some of the best in the industry, is that it markets to part-time hair transplant doctors, a.k.a. do a facelift, boob job and hair transplant on the side.

These doctors with little to no training in hair restoration and use the robot to harvest 3000+ graphs in one session… clearly harvesting outside of the safe zone. 

It's the industry's secret… Everyone I speak to, every doctor, every patient advocate all say the robot is not ready. Everyone says this in private but publicly many will purchase the robot because "patients ask for it." In fact, a doctor in LA who owns spa and injects Botox is purchasing ARTAS for that very reason.

Thank God for these forums. I give credit to yourself and Bill for allowing an open and honest debate. As long as were all respectful to each other and supported with facts. Thank you. The industry is a mess… And we need forums like this so the truth comes out.

P. S. Who would like to see a $250,000 robot get run over by a bulldozer? 🙂 Stay tuned

P.P.S. An easy solution is to reject part-time hair transplant doctors. At one time hair restoration was a specialized field. This specialization brought us FUE but also led to the industry being hijacked. You just can't get consist results doing hair transplants part-time. You can't just dabble in hair. You need to do this full-time, for many years. I challenge anyone to disagree. 

Bingo, I can prove it to.  A lot of top surgeons, stopped using it for a reason.  You have yet to see a highly distinguished result.  You pay royalty on each graft.  You have fda updates and revisions on its components.  It supposedly extracts certain hair types.  I definitely do not believe the successful extraction yield surpasses human hand extraction.   So much more.  Again, you may have folks that are part of other organizations that are/were consultants to it and that may confuse some folks overall.  

Melvin, i think tools do matter, surgeon skill is not the only variable here.  Liquid/air suction based punches vs high speed motorized vs punch size vs blunt punches vs manual extraction with smaller punch sizes.  Manual will always be the least riskier option in the hands that excel in that art- a lot of surgeons told me this, even ones that do not perform it.  For motorized, There is Dr Devroye’s device which is variable and probably a really well liked extraction tool by most surgeons who are not performing manual extraction.  That tool seems to show less risk and decent gains.  It seems to be a very big hit and at a much cheaper price tag.  

Issue is, if forums regulate the safer options of extraction, it will be hard to have many doctors listed ir recommended.  Very few truly do true manual extraction and it wont be enough to earn revenue.  

Take a look at ISHRS and see how many use Artas, Motorized, Manual extraction methods.  This list is very small with manual.  Very few do this and take on only one patient a day.  

It all ends with, manual extraction is too tedious and tiring and time consuming- but yet we allow surgeons that create incisions and extractions on multiple patients a day which can be even more tiring and tedious and risky.  It is what it is.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sean said:

Bingo, I can prove it to.  A lot of top surgeons, stopped using it for a reason.  You have yet to see a highly distinguished result.  You pay royalty on each graft.  You have fda updates and revisions on its components.  It supposedly extracts certain hair types.  I definitely do not believe the successful extraction yield surpasses human hand extraction.   So much more.  Again, you may have folks that are part of other organizations that are/were consultants to it and that may confuse some folks overall.  

Melvin, i think tools do matter, surgeon skill is not the only variable here.  Liquid/air suction based punches vs high speed motorized vs punch size vs blunt punches vs manual extraction with smaller punch sizes.  Manual will always be the least riskier option in the hands that excel in that art- a lot of surgeons told me this, even ones that do not perform it.  For motorized, There is Dr Devroye’s device which is variable and probably a really well liked extraction tool by most surgeons who are not performing manual extraction.  That tool seems to show less risk and decent gains.  It seems to be a very big hit and at a much cheaper price tag.  

Issue is, if forums regulate the safer options of extraction, it will be hard to have many doctors listed ir recommended.  Very few truly do true manual extraction and it wont be enough to earn revenue.  

Take a look at ISHRS and see how many use Artas, Motorized, Manual extraction methods.  This list is very small with manual.  Very few do this and take on only one patient a day.  

It all ends with, manual extraction is too tedious and tiring and time consuming- but yet we allow surgeons that create incisions and extractions on multiple patients a day which can be even more tiring and tedious and risky.  It is what it is.  

👍

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Sean said:

Bingo, I can prove it to.  A lot of top surgeons, stopped using it for a reason.  You have yet to see a highly distinguished result.  You pay royalty on each graft.  You have fda updates and revisions on its components.  It supposedly extracts certain hair types.  I definitely do not believe the successful extraction yield surpasses human hand extraction.   So much more.  Again, you may have folks that are part of other organizations that are/were consultants to it and that may confuse some folks overall.  

Melvin, i think tools do matter, surgeon skill is not the only variable here.  Liquid/air suction based punches vs high speed motorized vs punch size vs blunt punches vs manual extraction with smaller punch sizes.  Manual will always be the least riskier option in the hands that excel in that art- a lot of surgeons told me this, even ones that do not perform it.  For motorized, There is Dr Devroye’s device which is variable and probably a really well liked extraction tool by most surgeons who are not performing manual extraction.  That tool seems to show less risk and decent gains.  It seems to be a very big hit and at a much cheaper price tag.  

Issue is, if forums regulate the safer options of extraction, it will be hard to have many doctors listed ir recommended.  Very few truly do true manual extraction and it wont be enough to earn revenue.  

Take a look at ISHRS and see how many use Artas, Motorized, Manual extraction methods.  This list is very small with manual.  Very few do this and take on only one patient a day.  

It all ends with, manual extraction is too tedious and tiring and time consuming- but yet we allow surgeons that create incisions and extractions on multiple patients a day which can be even more tiring and tedious and risky.  It is what it is.  

Was ARTAS used on you?

My only issue is that it's not good to believe that one tool is better than the other because truthfully they're not. In fact, even on this forum there are complaints from doctors who use hand-held manual FUE tools the supposed "best" tool. I recently visited Dr. Konoir back in August, and I had the pleasure of speaking with him for over an hour in-depth about hair transplants. He told me that he will use a motorized manual and hand-held manual punch depending on the individual. Meaning he may have better success with one tool over the other and it really comes down to the individual patient. Even the punches may very from a sharp punch to dull punch, everything is customized to the individual to ensure the best and healthiest grafts are being extracted.

I truly feel that surgical hair restoration should be personalized to fit the individual I don't think it should be an "across the board" procedure. This is why I was so vocal for FUE, because I truly feel it is a helpful procedure for many patients, but I'm also very vocal for FUT because it also is very helpful for patients. I have spoken to so many patients who have been on either side of the fence, some got bad results from FUE and others bad results from FUT. However, one result doesn't define the entire surgical techinique. With that said, I do understand what many of you are saying about Artas and frankly, I agree that the majority of the surgeons using the machine do not specialize in hair restoration and use the tool as a means for additional revenue. The fact remains, that the leading FUE surgeons still use motorized and hand-held punches this is without a doubt a fact.


I do not provide medical advice, recommendations, all responses are my opinion.

My Hair Transplant Journey

Melvin- Associate Publisher and Forum Moderator for the Hair Transplant Network, the Coalition Hair Loss Learning Center, and the Hair Loss Q&A Blog.

Follow our Social Media Instagram @thehairtransplantnetwork FacebookPintrest, Linkedin and YouTube.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still trying to decide between FUE and FUT and it's such a mixed bag of information I don't know which ones best tbh

Edited by Kiwi Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Melvin-Moderator said:

Was ARTAS used on you?

My only issue is that it's not good to believe that one tool is better than the other because truthfully they're not. In fact, even on this forum there are complaints from doctors who use hand-held manual FUE tools the supposed "best" tool. I recently visited Dr. Konoir back in August, and I had the pleasure of speaking with him for over an hour in-depth about hair transplants. He told me that he will use a motorized manual and hand-held manual punch depending on the individual. Meaning he may have better success with one tool over the other and it really comes down to the individual patient. Even the punches may very from a sharp punch to dull punch, everything is customized to the individual to ensure the best and healthiest grafts are being extracted.

I truly feel that surgical hair restoration should be personalized to fit the individual I don't think it should be an "across the board" procedure. This is why I was so vocal for FUE, because I truly feel it is a helpful procedure for many patients, but I'm also very vocal for FUT because it also is very helpful for patients. I have spoken to so many patients who have been on either side of the fence, some got bad results from FUE and others bad results from FUT. However, one result doesn't define the entire surgical techinique. With that said, I do understand what many of you are saying about Artas and frankly, I agree that the majority of the surgeons using the machine do not specialize in hair restoration and use the tool as a means for additional revenue. The fact remains, that the leading FUE surgeons still use motorized and hand-held punches this is without a doubt a fact.

Melvin, I have not had artas but have seen results of it up close in person.  But take a look at hair type and graft counts when done either FUT or FUE using non ARTAS method and then ARTAS, it doesn’t seem to have as much ump.  Even online across several forums, even when comparing and contrasting so many compareable sized procedures, I do not see the same yield.  Yes, it does get growth, not saying it doesn’t, but it doesn’t seem to show any wow factor cases.   

I do agree with you, not all folks can gave same tool used.  Some may have thicker skin, some with African hair, some getting pube hair extracted, some nay havevery thick hair, some may have very thin hair.  Certain motorized punch may work easier vs all manual.  But for hairlines, i still think manual can get great single hair grafts out efficiently.  Then you can use different mm punches to extract to fill in larger crown like areas and so forth.  Punches are being constantly improved but this one by Dr Devroye is quite promising http://www.devroyeinstruments.com/

 

Dr Konior and Dr Nadimi use motorized as well?  I thought they were strictly manual when it came to FUE? Thanks for sharing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

My only issue is that it's not good to believe that one tool is better than the other because truthfully they're not. 

It's not about sharp vs dull punch. It's about the very real limitations of ARTAS. For example, donor management, as in the example I cited, is not possible using ARTAS. Plus I also take issue with the punch size, limitations on maximizing the donor area (possibly resulting in over harvesting), and in my opinion not providing adequate training in hair restoration, donor management, hair loss to doctors who purchase the machine.  Literally a doctor with no experience in hair restoration can perform 2000 FUE very next day after purchasing the robot. Do you think that setting the guy up for success? As I mentioned, I'll be presenting this information, with proof and inviting any doctor to defend their use of the robot.

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

×