What are your thoughts on surgeons who don’t split grafts or use microscopes?

[rj11]

Just wanted to get some opinions on this.

Some surgeons don’t split grafts or use stereo microscopes like the Vision Engineering Mantis and instead work with just loupes with 8x magnification for example. I think the idea is to keep the grafts intact and avoid extra handling but doesn’t that kind of rely on the patient having enough natural single-hair grafts for areas like the hairline and temples? If there aren’t many could that mean possibly taking grafts from outside the safest part of the donor zone?

 

[JoeTillman]

Just wanted to get some opinions on this.

Some surgeons don’t split grafts or use stereo microscopes like the Vision Engineering Mantis and instead work with just loupes with 8x magnification for example. I think the idea is to keep the grafts intact and avoid extra handling but doesn’t that kind of rely on the patient having enough natural single-hair grafts for areas like the hairline and temples? If there aren’t many could that mean possibly taking grafts from outside the safest part of the donor zone?

The use of stereoscopic microscopes is the singular foundation that separated FUT from mini-micro grafting 30 years ago when Bobby Limmer introduced the concept. EVERYONE scoffed and said they weren't necessary. Ten years later FUT was the only option offered by better clinics and mini-micro grafting was the old way. It wasn't to say that natural results could not come of it, but the actual survival rates were found to have increased as well due to better visualization during dissection.

Microscopes aren't used just for singles. That's a fallacy developed by clinics that took up the idea of microscopes after my video ten years ago where I reminded the industry about their use case value. They're used for all grafts if the clinic understands the concept of dissection and not just using them to separate grafts based on the number of hairs in each.