J
james1984
Valued member
Even better with the pics bud.
Great write up
Great write up
-
Welcome to Hair loss Experiences hair loss forum.
Free impartial hair loss advice, hair transplant advice, hair loss medications and hair loss news.
You can contact us directly at [email protected] if you experience any problems.
M
Mickey85
Member
I was contemplating adding the benefits of Acell on the regeneration on some parts of the donor but the doctor that promotes this has made some wild claims in the past and I have not seen any substantial proof. Are we allowed to talk about Dr J.C(from Atlanta, Georgia) on this forum??
Hattingen Hair
Valued member
This is a very good topic and good to read, it raises some interesting points;
As we can see from Mickey85 ´s post both techniques scar, just in different ways, hair style or haircut we are probably talking the difference of say 4mm ´s in length between techniques so how significant this is in choosing which technique is best suited to your goals and expectations is probably not the paramount reason of choice.
The FUE Advertising focuses exclusively on the donor area which is vital of course, especially planning and donor management to ensure the integrity of the donor is preserved as best as possibly to be able to continue restoration even if it extends to a high NW pattern. The recipient area is however the central focus point of any transplant.
The recipient area can only increase in surface area whereas the donor area with every procedure performed only decreases, so not only is the donor a finite resource it is also a diminishing resource, maybe more so with FUE as the surface area remains the same but the amount of hair is reduced with every procedure.
It is technically feasible to end with a higher density in the recipient than in the donor creating an unnatural aesthetic look; for example average donor (75 x 30 x 6) 40% removed around 5400 grafts (not including transection or miniaturisation) but has reduced the donor density to 45, making the extraction of more hair with either technique ill-advised, regardless of hair length.
This has a great influence on the long term planning of the recipient area, patient expectations versus supply and demand, measured against the donor hair characteristics and the way the hair can be redistributed to maximum effect and maximum numbers over the long term.
As we can see from Mickey85 ´s post both techniques scar, just in different ways, hair style or haircut we are probably talking the difference of say 4mm ´s in length between techniques so how significant this is in choosing which technique is best suited to your goals and expectations is probably not the paramount reason of choice.
The FUE Advertising focuses exclusively on the donor area which is vital of course, especially planning and donor management to ensure the integrity of the donor is preserved as best as possibly to be able to continue restoration even if it extends to a high NW pattern. The recipient area is however the central focus point of any transplant.
The recipient area can only increase in surface area whereas the donor area with every procedure performed only decreases, so not only is the donor a finite resource it is also a diminishing resource, maybe more so with FUE as the surface area remains the same but the amount of hair is reduced with every procedure.
It is technically feasible to end with a higher density in the recipient than in the donor creating an unnatural aesthetic look; for example average donor (75 x 30 x 6) 40% removed around 5400 grafts (not including transection or miniaturisation) but has reduced the donor density to 45, making the extraction of more hair with either technique ill-advised, regardless of hair length.
This has a great influence on the long term planning of the recipient area, patient expectations versus supply and demand, measured against the donor hair characteristics and the way the hair can be redistributed to maximum effect and maximum numbers over the long term.
Hattingen Hair
Valued member
To expand on further;
As a hair transplant works largely on illusion of fullness with the blocking of the reflection of light off the scalp, it is vital as hair loss progresses to ensure the donor can be harvested in an intelligent way to max the hair numbers.
Another important aspect that is largely not discussed is the placement of the hair to aid this illusion of fullness, how much shadow can be created to cover the scalp and extend the coverage area.
At close examination it becomes obvious that even straight hair does not produce a completely straight hair shaft with a slight Curve of the hair shaft.
The direction or lay of the curvature is not to be confused with the direction and angulation which are defined by the recipient incisions. The responsibility of planting the graft with the curvature facing downwards can only be controlled by the person placing the graft; and extremely difficult to judge when the donor hair is cropped very shortly, for example for FUE extraction when the donor is shaved. With strip the donor hair can be left 2-3mm longer in length in order for better control and for superior coverage and a better illusion of density.
It ´s also important, slightly off topic, to note that when researching and looking at before and after shots they are made without flash, donor and recipient as this can greatly distort the look of the result. Actually in almost all, if not all professional associations in medicine except hair transplantation flash photography to record results is not allowed.
It is widely accepted that FUE suits smaller cases, and although there are always exceptions to the rule due to the nature of the harvesting Strip will allow for greater coverage as hair loss progresses. FUE is perfect for harvesting outside the strip zone to max the grafts on larger NW cases after strip has been performed, smaller cases where minimum impact is made on the density of the donor and has given some repair patients hope of improved restoration, further enhanced with the use of BH.
Comparing the two techniques is difficult simply in respect there are many variants that make them contrast, doesn ´t mean one is bad or good, just different. It is important to look at these points and make a level headed judgement as it is your future well-being and happiness at stake; we are all different, some people strive for the impossible, some have very conservative expectations, so donor and recipient planning is vital to the individual being able to reach their goals as hair loss progresses, especially for younger candidates slowly progressing to NW4 stages.
As a hair transplant works largely on illusion of fullness with the blocking of the reflection of light off the scalp, it is vital as hair loss progresses to ensure the donor can be harvested in an intelligent way to max the hair numbers.
Another important aspect that is largely not discussed is the placement of the hair to aid this illusion of fullness, how much shadow can be created to cover the scalp and extend the coverage area.
At close examination it becomes obvious that even straight hair does not produce a completely straight hair shaft with a slight Curve of the hair shaft.
The direction or lay of the curvature is not to be confused with the direction and angulation which are defined by the recipient incisions. The responsibility of planting the graft with the curvature facing downwards can only be controlled by the person placing the graft; and extremely difficult to judge when the donor hair is cropped very shortly, for example for FUE extraction when the donor is shaved. With strip the donor hair can be left 2-3mm longer in length in order for better control and for superior coverage and a better illusion of density.
It ´s also important, slightly off topic, to note that when researching and looking at before and after shots they are made without flash, donor and recipient as this can greatly distort the look of the result. Actually in almost all, if not all professional associations in medicine except hair transplantation flash photography to record results is not allowed.
It is widely accepted that FUE suits smaller cases, and although there are always exceptions to the rule due to the nature of the harvesting Strip will allow for greater coverage as hair loss progresses. FUE is perfect for harvesting outside the strip zone to max the grafts on larger NW cases after strip has been performed, smaller cases where minimum impact is made on the density of the donor and has given some repair patients hope of improved restoration, further enhanced with the use of BH.
Comparing the two techniques is difficult simply in respect there are many variants that make them contrast, doesn ´t mean one is bad or good, just different. It is important to look at these points and make a level headed judgement as it is your future well-being and happiness at stake; we are all different, some people strive for the impossible, some have very conservative expectations, so donor and recipient planning is vital to the individual being able to reach their goals as hair loss progresses, especially for younger candidates slowly progressing to NW4 stages.
Last edited:
M
Mickey85
Member
while you do bring up some good points, i did make special mention that more hair can generally be harvestdd via strip. a nw6 or 7 will most like not receive a convincing appearance via fue. however i truly believe that for a norwood 4 or under, that fue is a vastly superior and more efficient method in terms of extracting the graft. i really believe fut to have had its day in the sun and fue is the successor to it, much like FUT was to plugs.
fut did enhance results dramatically from plugs and for the first time ever, gave a passable appearance which improved over time. however the donor area was still compromised, not to mention the other drawbacks mentioned. due to the acceptable visual appearance and proven results, fut dominant clinics have been reluctant to transcend the fut technique and embrace fue as a standalone procedure. many still refuse to offer it like hasson and wong or seldomly offer it(Feller).
even though Cole makes wild claims and has questionable online antics, i commend him for branching out and embracing fue entirely as he did as early as 2003 which would have been seen as career suicide to many surgeons. maybe he did it for financial gain or for the genuine advantages it offered, or both. we dont know. but he did risk it all at a time where most other surgeons considered fue a regression to the plug days only with smaller punches.
with doctors like erdogan, hakan, bisanga, mwamba, de reys, lorenzo, cole, umar and feriduni pushing the bar on fue, it certainly has given credence that fue is more than just for minor temple recession. fut clinics can no longer convince people that is the case.
fut did enhance results dramatically from plugs and for the first time ever, gave a passable appearance which improved over time. however the donor area was still compromised, not to mention the other drawbacks mentioned. due to the acceptable visual appearance and proven results, fut dominant clinics have been reluctant to transcend the fut technique and embrace fue as a standalone procedure. many still refuse to offer it like hasson and wong or seldomly offer it(Feller).
even though Cole makes wild claims and has questionable online antics, i commend him for branching out and embracing fue entirely as he did as early as 2003 which would have been seen as career suicide to many surgeons. maybe he did it for financial gain or for the genuine advantages it offered, or both. we dont know. but he did risk it all at a time where most other surgeons considered fue a regression to the plug days only with smaller punches.
with doctors like erdogan, hakan, bisanga, mwamba, de reys, lorenzo, cole, umar and feriduni pushing the bar on fue, it certainly has given credence that fue is more than just for minor temple recession. fut clinics can no longer convince people that is the case.
Hattingen Hair
Valued member
Hi Mickey85,
Before anything it is important to state we are not in any way anti FUE, believing it to be a credible technique that has great benefits and both can sit side by side for the benefit of the patient.
At least two of the clinics you mention actually offer both techniques, I am sure it is not to pander simply for what the person asks for or their bank balance but because each technique can offer different benefits dependent on the circumstances of the individual, now and long term.
As you say FUE is more than just a temple filler, we never suggested otherwise; but not everyone is a suitable candidate for FUE for many reasons but would be for Strip, those with a lower than average donor density for example with progressive hair loss would not be able to receive a suitable coverage, even with a conservative hair line (obviously unless the donor was over harvested) whereas FUT would allow this, and then as the two techniques can sit side by side FUE could then harvest to reach the maximum hair count after FUT for the person.
To date there have been a handful of FUE results over 4000 plus grafts fully grown out compared to FUT, and it not because FUE is newer; as said there is always the exception to the rule but it is basic maths of supply and demand that dictates FUE will limit the numbers, as you said yourself. As most hair loss patterns evolve to over a NW4 over time it is important to look case by case to ensure the demands are met for the individual as much as possible.
Removing FUT would even affect some repair patients with punch grafting (they do unfortunately still exist) FUE cannot harvest as the donor is open whereas FUT can remove the punches, divide the FU ´s from the tissue to gain for some repair patients much needed hair, and leave them with a much improved donor than large 4mm scars.
To say FUT has had its day would rule out many people from being a viable hair transplant candidate unless they had to greatly reduce their goals and expectations.
Any surgical procedure will scar, linear or white dot scattered, and it is a price needed to be paid to gain more hair. There is no such thing as the perfect technique as we have a finite resource and it is surely best to give the option based on the persons ´ goals and expectations compared to their hair characteristics and long term planning, both donor and recipient.
Again, please do not misunderstand our thoughts, it is nothing to do with FUE only being good for temple filling, but it is important to look at all aspects and individuals.
Before anything it is important to state we are not in any way anti FUE, believing it to be a credible technique that has great benefits and both can sit side by side for the benefit of the patient.
At least two of the clinics you mention actually offer both techniques, I am sure it is not to pander simply for what the person asks for or their bank balance but because each technique can offer different benefits dependent on the circumstances of the individual, now and long term.
As you say FUE is more than just a temple filler, we never suggested otherwise; but not everyone is a suitable candidate for FUE for many reasons but would be for Strip, those with a lower than average donor density for example with progressive hair loss would not be able to receive a suitable coverage, even with a conservative hair line (obviously unless the donor was over harvested) whereas FUT would allow this, and then as the two techniques can sit side by side FUE could then harvest to reach the maximum hair count after FUT for the person.
To date there have been a handful of FUE results over 4000 plus grafts fully grown out compared to FUT, and it not because FUE is newer; as said there is always the exception to the rule but it is basic maths of supply and demand that dictates FUE will limit the numbers, as you said yourself. As most hair loss patterns evolve to over a NW4 over time it is important to look case by case to ensure the demands are met for the individual as much as possible.
Removing FUT would even affect some repair patients with punch grafting (they do unfortunately still exist) FUE cannot harvest as the donor is open whereas FUT can remove the punches, divide the FU ´s from the tissue to gain for some repair patients much needed hair, and leave them with a much improved donor than large 4mm scars.
To say FUT has had its day would rule out many people from being a viable hair transplant candidate unless they had to greatly reduce their goals and expectations.
Any surgical procedure will scar, linear or white dot scattered, and it is a price needed to be paid to gain more hair. There is no such thing as the perfect technique as we have a finite resource and it is surely best to give the option based on the persons ´ goals and expectations compared to their hair characteristics and long term planning, both donor and recipient.
Again, please do not misunderstand our thoughts, it is nothing to do with FUE only being good for temple filling, but it is important to look at all aspects and individuals.
topccat29
29 year HT veteran
Well I would agree it really comes down to what the patient wants as far as coverage and what they are willing to trade off. As Mickey posted there are positives and negatives to both procedures. When I speak of my own preference for fue knowing what I know now it is with the knowledge I would probably not achieve the same coverage as strip and that is a trade off I would be willing to accept while others may not.
What is most important is that the patient is fully informed so that they can make an educated choice that they feel is best suited for them.
What is most important is that the patient is fully informed so that they can make an educated choice that they feel is best suited for them.
Hattingen Hair
Valued member
Hi TC,
In your case FUE was your savior, and thankfully it gave you the chance to reach a level of restoration you are happy with my friend, your result inspires many.
We cannot agree more about your comment, the patient need to be informed, and times are changing, the internet makes it easier and sometimes harder to make decisions, but with research it is possible to understand the options and explanations available.
Of course there are pros and cons to each procedure, and thankfully there is otherwise more people could end up making the wrong decision, and no one wants that.
Very best wishes
In your case FUE was your savior, and thankfully it gave you the chance to reach a level of restoration you are happy with my friend, your result inspires many.
We cannot agree more about your comment, the patient need to be informed, and times are changing, the internet makes it easier and sometimes harder to make decisions, but with research it is possible to understand the options and explanations available.
Of course there are pros and cons to each procedure, and thankfully there is otherwise more people could end up making the wrong decision, and no one wants that.
Very best wishes
Dr Arvind
Valued member
hattingen wrote:
I do not agree.
I really think that most people with extensive hairloss would require :
1. FUSE/fue only (followed by a buzzcut to benefit from the less is more approach)
2. Strip FUHT + FUSE/fue (scalp + beard & body hair) and keep hair long enough to cover strip scar.
To say that fue suits smaller cases misleads readers into thinking that it is not suitable for larger sessions.
Regards,
Dr. A
I do not agree.
I really think that most people with extensive hairloss would require :
1. FUSE/fue only (followed by a buzzcut to benefit from the less is more approach)
2. Strip FUHT + FUSE/fue (scalp + beard & body hair) and keep hair long enough to cover strip scar.
To say that fue suits smaller cases misleads readers into thinking that it is not suitable for larger sessions.
Regards,
Dr. A
Hattingen Hair
Valued member
Hello Dr. Arvind,
As we said there are exceptions to the rule with FUE, very high donor starting density, excellent hair and skin characteristics overall; but from all the cases available to see there are very few restorations on higher NW scales with FUE, this is not a criticism, to have to remove say near on half the donor hair to provide the necessary grafts to restore a surface area is probably not in the patients best interests.
The less is more approach is valid for some but at what expense, not everyone wishes to sport a buzz cut, not everyone suits a buzz cut, simply their lifestyle a buzz cut may not be considered acceptable, having the donor hair literally a few mm ´s longer but allowing for greater restoration and donor planning is also not a bad option for the individual.
That aside from the aesthetic preference of the person smaller cases has to be defined, it was not that long ago 3000 strip was considered a mega session, now strips of 4,5000, even 6000 are being performed on good candidates, and yes we agree totally with you, to combine the techniques can give an individual the greatest choice and planning as hair loss progresses; it ´s simply down to the individuals 'personal situation and circumstances.
As we said there are exceptions to the rule with FUE, very high donor starting density, excellent hair and skin characteristics overall; but from all the cases available to see there are very few restorations on higher NW scales with FUE, this is not a criticism, to have to remove say near on half the donor hair to provide the necessary grafts to restore a surface area is probably not in the patients best interests.
The less is more approach is valid for some but at what expense, not everyone wishes to sport a buzz cut, not everyone suits a buzz cut, simply their lifestyle a buzz cut may not be considered acceptable, having the donor hair literally a few mm ´s longer but allowing for greater restoration and donor planning is also not a bad option for the individual.
That aside from the aesthetic preference of the person smaller cases has to be defined, it was not that long ago 3000 strip was considered a mega session, now strips of 4,5000, even 6000 are being performed on good candidates, and yes we agree totally with you, to combine the techniques can give an individual the greatest choice and planning as hair loss progresses; it ´s simply down to the individuals 'personal situation and circumstances.
B
Boberto
Valued member
Great Post Mickey. Agree with a lot of the points.
M
Mickey85
Member
hattingen wrote:
You are correct that two clinics I mentioned still offer FUT(Bisanga and Feriduni) however I cited them for pushing the bar because they frequently provide FUE megasessions and try to avoid FUT if they can. The other clinics however have entirely deserted FUT with the exception of Erdogan who may still provide FUT, I'm not entirely sure on that.
Whilst you say you never said FUE could not be good for more then just temple filling, the statement "It is widely accepted that FUE suits smaller cases" implies the total opposite and can certainly be interpreted as FUE being relegated to merely norwood 1 and 2 at most. Which is wrong in my humble opinion. If it was widely accepted that FUE is best for smaller cases, Lorenzo, Cole, Umar, Hakan, De Reys would all be out of work. Last I was told, Lorenzo is booked out for the whole of 2013(this was in November 2012).
I have to totally disagree when you say there are only a handful of 4,000+ grown out FUE cases. You have not seen Dr. Lorenzo's 180 videos on Youtube, many of which are in the 5,000+ graft range. Or Dr. Erdogan's successful Norwood 4 and 5 restorations. Or Dr De Rey's 5,000+ graft multisession results. I could go on and on but those 3 examples put the 'handful' notion to rest. Lorenzo really did change the game as he was the first FUE exclusive surgeon who put out visual proof of his large sessions which silenced the "Show me the successful FUE megasessions? They don't exist" crowd like Spex, Feller etc.
When you say not everyone is a candidate for FUE, I find that very strange because most people are candidates for FUE, more so than FUT. With FUE, only donor density is the key factor whilst with FUT, donor density AND scalp laxity are major factors, given the same amount of loss etc. FUE successfully eradicated one of the major prerequisites for hair transplantation and opened the door to many individual's who were either exempt due the lack of laxity or were operated on anyway by unethical surgeons which left them disfigured with a stretched scar.
"Any surgical procedure will scar, linear or white dot scattered" I find this line to be absolute fallacy. It is a total blanket statement designed to mitigate the patient and/or potential patient's hesitation of a linear scar. Used by the likes of Spex(in the past before he was employed by Feriduni), Feller, Jotronic, Janna etc who are not proponents of FUE as a standalone procedure and are predominantly or exclusively FUT orientated. Any surgical procedure leaves scars, but compare a 2,000 FUE procedure to a 2,000 FUT procedure. Shave them down to a grade zero and we will see which has more scarring. Even regardless of the physical scarring, why is it that the aforementioned individuals never mentioned the chances of permanent numbness in the donor from FUT? Or the change of direction of hair growth after a FUT procedure? Or the change in hair caliber and grouping gradation? The subterfuge of very important factors whilst simultaneously reiterating a VERY vague statement that all surgery leaves scars is absolutely dishonest and disingenuous. If a simple forum member like myself knows these serious flaws in FUT, then THEY definitely know about them and have known about them for a decade. It's like watching a BMW dealer and a Mercedes dealer berating the other company. Difference is at one time, surgeons got into medicine for the well being, health and care of the general public. I only see remnants of that now.
Again, this post is not entirely directed at you, but they contain my sentiments on the entire hair transplant industry, however unpopular my opinions are. I have similar views on how FUE was handled in its infancy by the likes of Woods, Cole and others also so I do not pretend FUE surgeons are the beacon of honesty and good will either.
Hey there, alot of what I posted in my post to you was not entirely directed at you or the clinic you represent. Alot of it was just my sentiments to how FUE is treated and looked at by FUT dominant clinics. However I still stand by everything I have said unequivocally.
You are correct that two clinics I mentioned still offer FUT(Bisanga and Feriduni) however I cited them for pushing the bar because they frequently provide FUE megasessions and try to avoid FUT if they can. The other clinics however have entirely deserted FUT with the exception of Erdogan who may still provide FUT, I'm not entirely sure on that.
Whilst you say you never said FUE could not be good for more then just temple filling, the statement "It is widely accepted that FUE suits smaller cases" implies the total opposite and can certainly be interpreted as FUE being relegated to merely norwood 1 and 2 at most. Which is wrong in my humble opinion. If it was widely accepted that FUE is best for smaller cases, Lorenzo, Cole, Umar, Hakan, De Reys would all be out of work. Last I was told, Lorenzo is booked out for the whole of 2013(this was in November 2012).
I have to totally disagree when you say there are only a handful of 4,000+ grown out FUE cases. You have not seen Dr. Lorenzo's 180 videos on Youtube, many of which are in the 5,000+ graft range. Or Dr. Erdogan's successful Norwood 4 and 5 restorations. Or Dr De Rey's 5,000+ graft multisession results. I could go on and on but those 3 examples put the 'handful' notion to rest. Lorenzo really did change the game as he was the first FUE exclusive surgeon who put out visual proof of his large sessions which silenced the "Show me the successful FUE megasessions? They don't exist" crowd like Spex, Feller etc.
When you say not everyone is a candidate for FUE, I find that very strange because most people are candidates for FUE, more so than FUT. With FUE, only donor density is the key factor whilst with FUT, donor density AND scalp laxity are major factors, given the same amount of loss etc. FUE successfully eradicated one of the major prerequisites for hair transplantation and opened the door to many individual's who were either exempt due the lack of laxity or were operated on anyway by unethical surgeons which left them disfigured with a stretched scar.
"Any surgical procedure will scar, linear or white dot scattered" I find this line to be absolute fallacy. It is a total blanket statement designed to mitigate the patient and/or potential patient's hesitation of a linear scar. Used by the likes of Spex(in the past before he was employed by Feriduni), Feller, Jotronic, Janna etc who are not proponents of FUE as a standalone procedure and are predominantly or exclusively FUT orientated. Any surgical procedure leaves scars, but compare a 2,000 FUE procedure to a 2,000 FUT procedure. Shave them down to a grade zero and we will see which has more scarring. Even regardless of the physical scarring, why is it that the aforementioned individuals never mentioned the chances of permanent numbness in the donor from FUT? Or the change of direction of hair growth after a FUT procedure? Or the change in hair caliber and grouping gradation? The subterfuge of very important factors whilst simultaneously reiterating a VERY vague statement that all surgery leaves scars is absolutely dishonest and disingenuous. If a simple forum member like myself knows these serious flaws in FUT, then THEY definitely know about them and have known about them for a decade. It's like watching a BMW dealer and a Mercedes dealer berating the other company. Difference is at one time, surgeons got into medicine for the well being, health and care of the general public. I only see remnants of that now.
Again, this post is not entirely directed at you, but they contain my sentiments on the entire hair transplant industry, however unpopular my opinions are. I have similar views on how FUE was handled in its infancy by the likes of Woods, Cole and others also so I do not pretend FUE surgeons are the beacon of honesty and good will either.
Last edited:
M
Mickey85
Member
Boberto wrote:
Thank you Boberto. I know you had a lot of misfortune but believe me, that lead you to a even greater path by going FUE with Bisanga. You avoided the stupid strip scar and your 5 month results are absolutely stellar. I'm so happy you got such a brilliant resolve after what you went through.
Hattingen Hair
Valued member
Our intention in posting was never to create an argument about techniques, as a clinic we have a duty to give a balanced and honest appraisal that is in the patient s well-being.
It was not a case that this was or was not directed to us, that is irrelevant and not the reason for contributing to the thread, in fact we considered it to be a good thread. We did not realise there was such fervour in the decision on techniques, and not sure how bringing people who have made no comment on this thread is relevant. You obviously have a passion for your beliefs much in the same way a hair loss sufferer hates losing their hair and the emotion it can creates.
FUE suitability; donor density is not the only key factor for FUE. FUE is a blind technique so there are certain aspects that cannot be known until the procedure starts and the first grafts are punched and then extracted to see their integrity. Other aspects such as exit points compared to inner skin direction, changeable depth of the FU ´s, skin characteristics, hair characteristics: fine mousy hair, low pigmentation, excessive curl as a few can make a person a bad FUE candidate; we are not suggesting it is every other case of course but there are many more issues that cannot be discounted and can either reduce the numbers it is safe to harvest or make them a non-candidate, and obviously there are reasons for FUT also.
Scarring; you find our statement to be a fallacy that FUT will leave a linear scar and FUE will leave some white dot scarring. This is a fact that cannot be disputed, and to deny this is misleading and incorrect medically.
We have said that with smaller procedures , and to not antagonise further with the numbers let ´s say 2000 grafts as you said; FUE on the right candidate can spread the extraction to leave limited signs of a hair transplant and density reduction in the donor area. Will it leave a linear scar no, but will it leave some degree of visible scarring yes, will this scarring look man-made or simply scattered it is impossible to say until the healing process is over.
IF you have a personal dislike to FUT and having a linear scar that is a different matter and personal, that is life and we are all allowed to agree and disagree in a mature sensible way but it is important there is a balance and the overall importance is that people researching are given this opportunity to understand the pros and cons.
Numbness, and even hair directional changes can also happen with FUE, to suggest they are the sole domain of FUT is incorrect.
This in general is positive if kept to none emotional issues or away from personal preference, either technique has helped many people restore their hair and give them a better life, and that is what hair restoration is all about.
It was not a case that this was or was not directed to us, that is irrelevant and not the reason for contributing to the thread, in fact we considered it to be a good thread. We did not realise there was such fervour in the decision on techniques, and not sure how bringing people who have made no comment on this thread is relevant. You obviously have a passion for your beliefs much in the same way a hair loss sufferer hates losing their hair and the emotion it can creates.
FUE suitability; donor density is not the only key factor for FUE. FUE is a blind technique so there are certain aspects that cannot be known until the procedure starts and the first grafts are punched and then extracted to see their integrity. Other aspects such as exit points compared to inner skin direction, changeable depth of the FU ´s, skin characteristics, hair characteristics: fine mousy hair, low pigmentation, excessive curl as a few can make a person a bad FUE candidate; we are not suggesting it is every other case of course but there are many more issues that cannot be discounted and can either reduce the numbers it is safe to harvest or make them a non-candidate, and obviously there are reasons for FUT also.
Scarring; you find our statement to be a fallacy that FUT will leave a linear scar and FUE will leave some white dot scarring. This is a fact that cannot be disputed, and to deny this is misleading and incorrect medically.
We have said that with smaller procedures , and to not antagonise further with the numbers let ´s say 2000 grafts as you said; FUE on the right candidate can spread the extraction to leave limited signs of a hair transplant and density reduction in the donor area. Will it leave a linear scar no, but will it leave some degree of visible scarring yes, will this scarring look man-made or simply scattered it is impossible to say until the healing process is over.
IF you have a personal dislike to FUT and having a linear scar that is a different matter and personal, that is life and we are all allowed to agree and disagree in a mature sensible way but it is important there is a balance and the overall importance is that people researching are given this opportunity to understand the pros and cons.
Numbness, and even hair directional changes can also happen with FUE, to suggest they are the sole domain of FUT is incorrect.
This in general is positive if kept to none emotional issues or away from personal preference, either technique has helped many people restore their hair and give them a better life, and that is what hair restoration is all about.
M
Mickey85
Member
hattingen wrote:
You do bring up some good points.
I bring up people who have not commented on this thread because they hold similar sentiments that FUE is only for slight recession and they reiterate the same things that you mention. Those individuals are public figures and post on public forums. You don't see it as relevant that they undersell FUE? This thread emanated from the fact that serious issues of FUT and FUE were being misconstrued, omitted etc. If everyone in the hair transplant industry were truthful, this thread would need not exist. There is the relevance.
In regards to the FUE suitability, Dr. Feriduni whom performs 50% FUE and 50% FUT has stated publicly(and I can link you to a Youtube interview of his where he states this) that most people are candidates for FUE over FUT. I agree there are more issues to be eligible but donor density is the main one surgeons look at prior to the procedure, as i stated 'major factors'. With FUT they look at laxity and density, everything else is determined during a procedure. Very rarely, if ever have I heard of a prominent and experienced FUE surgeon turning someone down(prior or during) due to excessive curl, inner skin direction etc. Surgeons like Umar and Bisanga have because adept at those issues. If a surgeon cannot overcome such issues during a surgery than they are HIS factors. It's like certain surgeons blaming 'fatigue' for their bad FUE yields when there are plenty of other surgeons doing 3,000 FUE grafts successfully.
When I said "that statement is absolute fallacy" I meant it has the tendency to mislead(which is a definition of fallacy) as it omits very important details. It's like saying "all surgeries result in scars, what's the difference?". I have heard various individuals whom are proponents of FUT use that line and it is always with an agenda. Never do I hear an FUE rep or clinic use that line. Quite telling. Yes I agree that FUT leaves a linear scar and FUE leaves dot scarring, as evident in the pros/cons I listed.
I do have a personal dislike for FUT. That however does not make me wrong. In fact this very thread was created to finally put in words and pictures as to why I dislike FUT and why I consider FUE to be a far superior procedure. Is FUE perfect? Hardly. Does FUE do away with MANY of the drawbacks of FUT? Unequivocally. Indisputably.
I acknowledged FUE can cause numbness in the pros/cons section but it is much rarer due to less severing of the nerves and less distance between the reconnecting nerves. Again, listed in the first two posts. However if you are going to say FUE can cause a change in direction of hair growth, I'm going to have to ask you to substantiate that claim as it is a bold one and one that I have not encountered.
You also conveniently evaded my rebuttal to your "only a handful of successful FUE sessions over 4,000 grafts" in which I presented Dr. Lorenzo and others as proof that there is much more than a handful.
You keep bringing up the 'emotional' aspect of my posting. However, whilst my postings can be charged and passionate, I am not remunerated by any individual in the hair transplant business. My thoughts are my own. You however are employed by a clinic. The constant use of "We" in your posts reinforces that. Never have I heard a representative stray from their clinic's philosophy, ever. A FUT rep will always reiterate the stance of the clinic they represent. A FUE rep will always echo the sentiments of their employer. I may be 'emotional' but that does not automatically make me wrong. Just because I do not sugar coat things and refrain from mentioning names of surgeons and reps does not make me wrong. If I am wrong, SHOW me where I am wrong.
You also say this thread would be better without personal preference? You seemed content with voicing YOUR opinion on it, why can't I? I created the pros and cons of FUE listed here and kept those postings impartial but I refuse to not have my personal say in the matter.
First off I just want to say this is friendly banter between two people of opposing views
You do bring up some good points. I bring up people who have not commented on this thread because they hold similar sentiments that FUE is only for slight recession and they reiterate the same things that you mention. Those individuals are public figures and post on public forums. You don't see it as relevant that they undersell FUE? This thread emanated from the fact that serious issues of FUT and FUE were being misconstrued, omitted etc. If everyone in the hair transplant industry were truthful, this thread would need not exist. There is the relevance.
In regards to the FUE suitability, Dr. Feriduni whom performs 50% FUE and 50% FUT has stated publicly(and I can link you to a Youtube interview of his where he states this) that most people are candidates for FUE over FUT. I agree there are more issues to be eligible but donor density is the main one surgeons look at prior to the procedure, as i stated 'major factors'. With FUT they look at laxity and density, everything else is determined during a procedure. Very rarely, if ever have I heard of a prominent and experienced FUE surgeon turning someone down(prior or during) due to excessive curl, inner skin direction etc. Surgeons like Umar and Bisanga have because adept at those issues. If a surgeon cannot overcome such issues during a surgery than they are HIS factors. It's like certain surgeons blaming 'fatigue' for their bad FUE yields when there are plenty of other surgeons doing 3,000 FUE grafts successfully.
When I said "that statement is absolute fallacy" I meant it has the tendency to mislead(which is a definition of fallacy) as it omits very important details. It's like saying "all surgeries result in scars, what's the difference?". I have heard various individuals whom are proponents of FUT use that line and it is always with an agenda. Never do I hear an FUE rep or clinic use that line. Quite telling. Yes I agree that FUT leaves a linear scar and FUE leaves dot scarring, as evident in the pros/cons I listed.
I do have a personal dislike for FUT. That however does not make me wrong. In fact this very thread was created to finally put in words and pictures as to why I dislike FUT and why I consider FUE to be a far superior procedure. Is FUE perfect? Hardly. Does FUE do away with MANY of the drawbacks of FUT? Unequivocally. Indisputably.
I acknowledged FUE can cause numbness in the pros/cons section but it is much rarer due to less severing of the nerves and less distance between the reconnecting nerves. Again, listed in the first two posts. However if you are going to say FUE can cause a change in direction of hair growth, I'm going to have to ask you to substantiate that claim as it is a bold one and one that I have not encountered.
You also conveniently evaded my rebuttal to your "only a handful of successful FUE sessions over 4,000 grafts" in which I presented Dr. Lorenzo and others as proof that there is much more than a handful.
You keep bringing up the 'emotional' aspect of my posting. However, whilst my postings can be charged and passionate, I am not remunerated by any individual in the hair transplant business. My thoughts are my own. You however are employed by a clinic. The constant use of "We" in your posts reinforces that. Never have I heard a representative stray from their clinic's philosophy, ever. A FUT rep will always reiterate the stance of the clinic they represent. A FUE rep will always echo the sentiments of their employer. I may be 'emotional' but that does not automatically make me wrong. Just because I do not sugar coat things and refrain from mentioning names of surgeons and reps does not make me wrong. If I am wrong, SHOW me where I am wrong.
You also say this thread would be better without personal preference? You seemed content with voicing YOUR opinion on it, why can't I? I created the pros and cons of FUE listed here and kept those postings impartial but I refuse to not have my personal say in the matter.
Hattingen Hair
Valued member
Dear Mickey85,
We are known as an FUT clinic but we do perform FUE and our knowledge is extensive; we also have a very open continued dialogue with our colleagues in the industry, including many of the names you have mentioned as FUE doctors; and entered into inter-clinic hands on collaboration to develop the knowledge on a broad scale across clinics for all concerned, patients obviously being the priority.
The posts on this thread were never, for us anyway, about which technique is better or worse but to give balance from a medical perspective, and aid in the education with our professional knowledge, and importantly that both can sit side by side for the greater benefit of the hair loss sufferer as both have pros and cons.
There is little point in continued discussion as you have said you have an inherent dislike for FUT so any dialogue is not going to be constructive, simply by definition.
You have obviously been busy researching and coming to your conclusions and we sincerely hope it brings you to the point if you are going to have a hair transplant it works out well for you.
Very best wishes
We are known as an FUT clinic but we do perform FUE and our knowledge is extensive; we also have a very open continued dialogue with our colleagues in the industry, including many of the names you have mentioned as FUE doctors; and entered into inter-clinic hands on collaboration to develop the knowledge on a broad scale across clinics for all concerned, patients obviously being the priority.
The posts on this thread were never, for us anyway, about which technique is better or worse but to give balance from a medical perspective, and aid in the education with our professional knowledge, and importantly that both can sit side by side for the greater benefit of the hair loss sufferer as both have pros and cons.
There is little point in continued discussion as you have said you have an inherent dislike for FUT so any dialogue is not going to be constructive, simply by definition.
You have obviously been busy researching and coming to your conclusions and we sincerely hope it brings you to the point if you are going to have a hair transplant it works out well for you.
Very best wishes
M
Mickey85
Member
So because I have an inherent dislike for FUT, to you that renders all my arguments void and moot... I debunked your "only a handful of successful 4,000+ FUE sessions" argument by bringing up Lorenzo. You said nothing. I asked you for proof that FUE can change the direction of hair growth. You said nothing. It seems like you merely got involved in this thread to downplay FUE which is fine is you can substantiate it. Everyday I become more and more convinced that FUE is becoming much more viable as it can now treat norwood 4s and 5s with a barbaric excision of 1cm+ wide strip of flesh just to get to the grafts...
Last edited:
M
Mickey85
Member
Have added "Return to athletic activity and weight lifting sooner" to the advantages list.
F
FutureFue
Valued member
Great thread Mickey, Mods is is possible to have this as a permanent sticky?
Similar threads
- Understanding Hair
- Hair Transplant-Hair Restoration Topics
