I never liked this device. I think the hand punch that turns very slowly is safer and results in a higher yield. That has been my actual experience.
But the bigger issue is this. When this device was first introduced the punch size created almost triple the size of wound area compared to what skilled doctors were using in the way of small hand punches. So in order for one to sell this procedure they would have had to advise the patient that the potential scar size was 3 times larger. I can't imagine anyone signing up if they were actually told. So were they told? How could someone offer a procedure in good conscience if they knew there was something out there that in all likelihood would cause the patient less harm? That's the part I didn't get?
For me trust is about observing past behavior over time and if I see some anomalies then I lose that trust.
I would suggest going to a skilled doctor that uses a small hand punch and go with a much smaller procedure. Then assess the result over 1 year and if it looks like the yield was good go back and thicken it up. It's a safer plan in my opinion. Don't go back to the same doctor and waste any more donor. Most only have about 5000 fu available or less and you have used close to 50% already.
Ask for your money back based on the marketing being false and when the marketing is false the FTC rules apply. If necessary print up the FTC rules and regulations, highlight relevant points and bring it with you to share with the doctor if necessary.
But the bigger issue is this. When this device was first introduced the punch size created almost triple the size of wound area compared to what skilled doctors were using in the way of small hand punches. So in order for one to sell this procedure they would have had to advise the patient that the potential scar size was 3 times larger. I can't imagine anyone signing up if they were actually told. So were they told? How could someone offer a procedure in good conscience if they knew there was something out there that in all likelihood would cause the patient less harm? That's the part I didn't get?
For me trust is about observing past behavior over time and if I see some anomalies then I lose that trust.
I would suggest going to a skilled doctor that uses a small hand punch and go with a much smaller procedure. Then assess the result over 1 year and if it looks like the yield was good go back and thicken it up. It's a safer plan in my opinion. Don't go back to the same doctor and waste any more donor. Most only have about 5000 fu available or less and you have used close to 50% already.
Ask for your money back based on the marketing being false and when the marketing is false the FTC rules apply. If necessary print up the FTC rules and regulations, highlight relevant points and bring it with you to share with the doctor if necessary.
Last edited:
I like this Cole blog article on the device. What stands out for me is the phrase "perfect class action lawsuit waiting to happen" and that applies to more then this device it most especially applies to marketing.
I put this picture up several years ago as an example of the size difference in punches.It's not to scale but the percentage difference is the same and it's huge. I also wrote at that time that the marketers will hitch their wagon to those doctors that adopt the device regardless of if something better is available. They will do it because that is where the easy money will be made. Several discounted this ever happening.
When there is money to be made it happens. Doesn't matter if there is something better if you can't sell that something better by highly skilled doctors because they don't deal with marketers you go with what you can sell.
https://www.forhair.com/the-truth-about-robotic-hair-transplant-surgery/
I put this picture up several years ago as an example of the size difference in punches.It's not to scale but the percentage difference is the same and it's huge. I also wrote at that time that the marketers will hitch their wagon to those doctors that adopt the device regardless of if something better is available. They will do it because that is where the easy money will be made. Several discounted this ever happening.
When there is money to be made it happens. Doesn't matter if there is something better if you can't sell that something better by highly skilled doctors because they don't deal with marketers you go with what you can sell.
https://www.forhair.com/the-truth-about-robotic-hair-transplant-surgery/
Last edited:
- Reaction score
- 0
I have worked as an FUE surgical tech for several years. In my opinion, Robotics may some day be the standard. A friend of mine owns a Tesla and mentions the time he nearly wrecked on auto pilot going into a traffic circle. I doubt the engineers, whose input were responsible for the robot design are in the same class as Elon Musk. IMO robotics in 2017 is for doctors who don't want to take the time to be excellent FUE doctors. Not easy to learn and people who say which is better FUE or FUT are not taking into consideration that it's really the doctor behind the procedure that matters. The best FUE is better than the best FUT. Sorry if that offends anyone, but it's the truth. I have seen results good and bad of both with my own eyes.
- Reaction score
- 3,815
Impossible. FUT doesn't put nearly the same amount of force on the individual grafts as FUE so there is no magical way FUE results can be better. The only difference is that FUE allows cherry picking of multi-hair grafts unlike FUT so a typical result of say 3000 FUE grafts may look better because there are more hairs.
If we solely look at haircount and all other variables being equal, FUT results will always yield better results. The scarring is another issue, but solely in terms of results in the recipient FUT will always be equal or better.
Yes and part of the truth is some of the doctors that were very early adopters posted to the forums on the differences is manual punch sizes and how it was essential to use a punch that was small enough not to transect the graft while also not transecting the surrounding grafts. Some of them even posted surgical pictures along with the postings.This of course was years an years ago and that is why it's important to gather information over time and keep good records. The punch sizes being advised were in the range of .75-.85 yet some of those same doctors went on to promote robotics with a punch size that covered an area 3 times the size of the small punch sizes when the procedure was first offered.
How does one explain this?
Why would someone do this.
Does this benefit or harm the patient?
Does past behavior serve as an indicator for future behavior?
Do you think the patients were informed?
I also had a patient sit in my house several times that had the robot used on his head. It was a small rectangle where all the grafts were taken which resulted in a very poor extraction pattern. When the forum marketers found out that he was speaking with me they contacted him and had the doctor refund all of his money then removed the doctor from the paid for list. They also offered the patient a job since they knew he was seeking employment. Sometimes that is how they operate. Find out the need of the consumer/poster and build rapport. They also wanted to know more about me. How do you explain their curiosity? Why would they care if I was helping someone out? In fact why do some posters have the same worries?
I'm sure you are a good tech. How long have you worked in the industry? I'm just curious.
- Reaction score
- 3,815
You should have put your marketing degree to use and got a job with that hair transplant clinic that was hiring.