FUE has same or higher survival rate than FUT?

[JohnBob]

1 hour ago, asterix0 said:

Hypothetically, in the hands of the best hair transplant surgeon in the world, I believe FUE is the superior procedure. 

In theory:

• FUE should allow for more available lifetime grafts, and to cherry pick the best grafts to put them in the optimal positions. There is more surface area available for FUE grafts to be taken from. 
• FUE is the less invasive procedure and there is less risk for nerve damage, prolonged numbness, etc.
• FUE allows for greater flexibility of haircuts in the future.

Of course, many surgeons who are not the best of the best will give you more scarring via FUE, less available grafts because of high transection and blowing away your donor, and you will be paying more to get a bad result.

 

This makes sense. Maybe for the average HT doctor, it's safer to do bigger sessions via FUT as FUE makes things more complex. But for the more skilled surgeons I don't see why FUE can't achieve the same quality of donor harvesting as FUT does. 

Edited November 27, 2020 by JohnBob

[asterix0]

8 minutes ago, JohnBob said:

This makes sense. Maybe for the average HT doctor, it's safer to bigger sessions via FUT as FUE makes things more complex. But for the more skilled surgeons I don't see why FUE can't achieve the same quality of donor harvesting as FUT does. 

FUE, ideally, is obviously the more sophisticated and less intrusive procedure. But it requires greater surgeon stamina, greater care to not transect grafts, greater artistry of the extraction pattern to not leave the moth-eaten depleted look. 

It also requires more careful examination of the donor area, more precise assessment of healthy donor grafts versus potential miniaturized ones.

Edited November 27, 2020 by asterix0

[JohnBob]

4 minutes ago, asterix0 said:

FUE, ideally, is obviously the more sophisticated and less intrusive procedure. But it requires greater surgeon stamina, greater care to not transect grafts, greater artistry of the extraction pattern to not leave the moth-eaten depleted look. 

It also requires more careful examination of the donor area, more precise assessment of healthy donor grafts versus potential miniaturized ones.

That's why I believe the only way those huge sessions Dr. Zarev is doing without destroying the donor is possible because of a breakthrough in FUE tools. 

By the way, Dr. Feller believes making thousands of tiny FUE holes can affect the quality of the skin throughout the entire the donor area and make you lose the not extracted hairs too. This is argument sounds possible in theory, but that same doctor states that sessions bigger than 1500 grafts should be done only with FUT and we know for a fact that aint true (at least anymore), so I don't give him much credibility in this topic. (Source: https://www.hairtransplantweb.com/hair-loss-library/hair-transplant-scars/).

[HTP1]

1 hour ago, JohnBob said:

True. However the same problem (too many grafts and/or bad technique) can happen with FUT too:

 

 

Of course FUT can be poor, too. That looks like some atypical stretching for whatever reason. 

I had FUE, so I am certainly for it. But for larger surgeries I'd opt for an FUT surgery. 

 

[asterix0]

2 hours ago, JohnBob said:

That's why I believe the only way those huge sessions Dr. Zarev is doing without destroying the donor is possible because of a breakthrough in FUE tools. 

By the way, Dr. Feller believes making thousands of tiny FUE holes can affect the quality of the skin throughout the entire the donor area and make you lose the not extracted hairs too. This is argument sounds possible in theory, but that same doctor states that sessions bigger than 1500 grafts should be done only with FUT and we know for a fact that aint true (at least anymore), so I don't give him much credibility in this topic. (Source: https://www.hairtransplantweb.com/hair-loss-library/hair-transplant-scars/).

Yes, it is certainly a combination of having the right instrumentation and the proper surgeon technique/touch.

 

Edited November 27, 2020 by asterix0

[gillenator]

I remember some of the initial commentaries that Dr. Feller made regarding some of the risks of FUE and other isolated extraction methods.  I felt he was spot on because at the time there were not many, possibly only a handful of surgeons who possessed the adequate skill level of performing good FUE results at that point in time...so yes, there were much higher risks of damaging the donor area along with collateral damage to the neighboring FUs which would have been harvestable using FUT methods.

But whether we are discussing and debating either method, it always comes down to surgeon skill and experience to produce superior results...still, I still think the average patient has more potential in total harvestable grafts with FUT.