How many grafts would I need to restore hairline?

[jmghair]

On 6/26/2020 at 6:17 PM, ruca2 said:

FUE being hit or miss is an antiquated take on a very viable extraction technique. It comes down to surgeon selection. If a patient does their research and chooses an ethical, well established surgeon with years of experience then the technique doesn't matter. Both will yield similar results in the hands of of skilled surgeon. Now whether or not you think a patient needs to start with FUT to maximize donor capacity is a different argument. That usually comes down to donor characteristics and not actually dependent of extraction method. Your experience with FUE may have been negative but I don't think it's prudent to be telling prospective patients just starting their journey to disregard a surgical option based on your own bad experience. Once again if you went to a top tier clinic you would probably be happier with your result.  

This couldn't be more incorrect. Even top clinics have cases of poor FUE yield. I know because I went to a top FUE clinic and had poor yield. The truth is many patients have had this as well. The truth is that for all the good results you see there are many patients that you don't see. The facts of the the science behind the surgery is that FUE grafts have less supportive tissue due to the small punch size which decreases the likelihood of graft survival and takes less stem cell from the transplanted grafts. This isn't opinion this is a scientific fact. It is absolutely prudent to tell patients what the risks are with each so that they can make informed consent. Saying the yield will be similar is 100% false. The yield of FUT will always be superior due to less trauma to the grafts are just better quality because of the amount of supportive tissue it allows you to take. Any prudent surgeon would agree.

[jmghair]

On 6/29/2020 at 5:31 PM, ruca2 said:

He said he didn't want it lowered under where his current hairline reaches so not sure why you would give him this hairline. Also, you thinking 1500 grafts will give adequate density dropping his hairline 2cms is just plain wrong. Please don't take this advice. 

If you were to lower it the amount shown with the blue outline it would take way more than 2,000 grafts (closer to 4k). This may sound excessive but if you only used 2k grafts in that region, the hair would look sparse and thinned. 4k would give you adequate density. A better idea to save grafts would be to fill in on each side of the forlock and temple angles but not bring down the center of the forlock. This could probably be achieved with much less grafts (2,500) and improve your look drastically.

[jsmyth]

2 hours ago, jmghair said:

This couldn't be more incorrect. Even top clinics have cases of poor FUE yield. I know because I went to a top FUE clinic and had poor yield. The truth is many patients have had this as well. The truth is that for all the good results you see there are many patients that you don't see. The facts of the the science behind the surgery is that FUE grafts have less supportive tissue due to the small punch size which decreases the likelihood of graft survival and takes less stem cell from the transplanted grafts. This isn't opinion this is a scientific fact. It is absolutely prudent to tell patients what the risks are with each so that they can make informed consent. Saying the yield will be similar is 100% false. The yield of FUT will always be superior due to less trauma to the grafts are just better quality because of the amount of supportive tissue it allows you to take. Any prudent surgeon would agree.

That's disappointing to hear. I was looking at Dr. Bisanga for an FUE. I just don't want to have that kind of scar from an FUT. I like idea of FUE because the scarring is much less noticeable than the strip scar. If I ever did have to shave my head, I just think I'd be too self conscious.

 

If FUE really is that poor of an option, I guess I'll probably just wait for another treatment to come along. 

[BDK081522]

20 hours ago, jmghair said:

This couldn't be more incorrect. Even top clinics have cases of poor FUE yield. I know because I went to a top FUE clinic and had poor yield. The truth is many patients have had this as well. The truth is that for all the good results you see there are many patients that you don't see. The facts of the the science behind the surgery is that FUE grafts have less supportive tissue due to the small punch size which decreases the likelihood of graft survival and takes less stem cell from the transplanted grafts. This isn't opinion this is a scientific fact. It is absolutely prudent to tell patients what the risks are with each so that they can make informed consent. Saying the yield will be similar is 100% false. The yield of FUT will always be superior due to less trauma to the grafts are just better quality because of the amount of supportive tissue it allows you to take. Any prudent surgeon would agree.

I'm sorry but we are just going to disagree as I can tell you are steadfast in your theory of FUT being far superior to FUE yield. You state you're basing your "opinion" on scientific facts right? So, let's take a closer look at what you stated in your rebuttal. You said "The facts of the the science behind the surgery is that FUE grafts have less supportive tissue due to the small punch size which decreases the likelihood of graft survival and takes less stem cell from the transplanted grafts." This statement shows me you know nothing about the "science" behind hair transplantation. There are no stems cells in hair transplants. You are simply removing a mature hair follicle from one location on the scalp to another. The follicle remains exactly the same as it was in its' previous location. Stem cells are cells that have yet to determine where their genetic code is going to lead them. They quite literally can become any cell, organelle, or organ in your body after the differentiation sequence. The follicles that are removed and implanted with hair restoration have always been and will always be hair follicles. Hopefully, they were taken from an area that was DHT resistant. Also, I'll humor you and we'll say that FUT always yields better than FUE for arguments sake. If this were true the percentage is so nominal that it could never be detected at normal human interaction distances. As an example, we'll say FUT yields 2% better than FUE. For a 2000 graft restoration that's 40 grafts. It's imperceptible and irrelevant and I actually don't even believe it to be true. This prospective patient doesn't want the FUT scar. He has his reasons as many other patients do as well. He's about to give up hope because of what you're suggesting to him. That's just not right in my book.