Getting Some Mixed Message About FUE/FUT from Physician — Help?

[Forelock]

HI all,

I could really use your expertise. I'm 36 and hovering around a NW3V/NW4, and I'm getting some mixed messages about whether FUT or FUE is the way to go. I'm hearing two different evaluations of the two:

(1) From what I've read/researched: FUE provides less recovery time, better cosmetic results in the donor area, but the results in the recipient area can sometimes vary as there's greater risk of transecting the donor hair. FUT would result in a scar and longer recovery time, but the maximum possible grafts would likely survive and you would avoid depleting your donor area.

(2) From a consultation with a really reputable clinic in Canada: "Dr. [redacted] was wondering if you have given any thought to having an FUE instead of an FUT surgery.  Usually with his patients with lesser degrees of hair loss he advises FUE as he can achieve a higher density."

Has anyone ever heard of cases where FUE can achieve a higher density than FUT? I've read that FUE has reached a point where the results are almost comparable, but I've never read that FUE is superior to FUT, no matter what the degree of hair loss is. The clinic is very popular and has wonderful results — I avoid mentioning them by name, as I don't want it to sound like I'm disparaging or discounting their recommendation — but the pros/cons between FUE/FUT seem less clear to me now.

Also — my family doctor advised against Finasteraide/Proscar as it may contribute to, or make it harder to detect, more aggressive cases of prostrate cancer. The clinic is encouraging me to start taking it after my procedure, and advised that "taking Proscar has shown to reduce the risk of the common form of prostate cancer. There may be a slightly higher risk of the rare aggressive form of prostate cancer.  Taking Proscar will also shrink the prostate which makes it easier to feel masses in it."

I know that a lot of people take it to slow hair loss and stabilize their results, and it's not uncommon for HT clinics to recommend it, but I'm still trepidatious — anyone else have these concerns and decide to take it anyway??

Any words of wisdom are welcome — thanks for your help!

[aaron1234]

13 minutes ago, Forelock said:

"Usually with his patients with lesser degrees of hair loss he advises FUE as he can achieve a higher density."

Ummm, that's a new one to me.  How the grafts are harvested has nothing to do with how they are implanted.

[asterix0]

I unfortunately have nothing smart to add about finasteride, as it is a calculated gamble. I choose to take it because I would surely go to Norwood 6 without it, and fortunately I have not had any side effects.  I do think that annual visits to a GP/urologist should be done while on it, just to make sure nothing out of the ordinary is happening. 

[Dazed]

Prevailing wisdom suggest FUT first and FUE second.  There are many posts on this question.  One thing to always do is follow the money trail.  If a doctor does both, but makes more money off FUE guess which one he will push.  You often see this bias in doctors doing laser surgery.  They will always promote the one they have in the office.  It is wise that you came here because we don't make money off whatever you choose.

Edited August 9, 2020 by Dazed

[TorontoMan]

I believe you’re talking about H&W, and if you go with FUE with them I don’t think you’ll be disappointed. High graft yield, great results. 
 

im hoping that if you’re considering In Canada you’re only looking at rahal and H&w. Both produce great FUE results

[LonelyGraft]

Why did u remove the doctors name? I don’t get it

[1978matt]

You can pick and choose the grafts you want with FUE, hence more density can be achieved graft for graft.  (The doctor can selectively target follicles with 3 or 4 hairs.)

As others mentioned, this comes at additional cost.

[Forelock]

3 hours ago, LonelyGraft said:

Why did u remove the doctors name? I don’t get it

I thought it might be helpful to get a read on the advice I was provided rather than the person providing it. I wanted to avoid creating bias, in the positive or negative, by naming the physician outright.

[Forelock]

2 hours ago, 1978matt said:

You can pick and choose the grafts you want with FUE, hence more density can be achieved graft for graft.  (The doctor can selectively target follicles with 3 or 4 hairs.)

As others mentioned, this comes at additional cost.

Thanks, @1978matt — that's a really fair point.

[aaron1234]

On 8/9/2020 at 12:57 PM, 1978matt said:

You can pick and choose the grafts you want with FUE, hence more density can be achieved graft for graft.  (The doctor can selectively target follicles with 3 or 4 hairs.)

Ah, this is a good point! 

1) It's remarkable how FUE has become the recommended route for a stand alone procedure, presumably by docs known for their FUT results.  It shows how much it has evolved over the past decade.

@Forelock 2) Even if you might get a better density from FUE in your first procedure, you have to consider the long term disadvantages of doing FUE before FUT.  Especially if you think you may need more than one procedure.  So consider your longterm plan.  If you're not bothered by a strip scar then I would recommend FUT first. 

Edited August 11, 2020 by aaron1234