How Many Potential Donor Grafts Do You Lose In The Long Run If You Get Fue For Your First Procedure?

[kj6723]

For guys with mild-moderate male pattern baldness that need minimal hairline work or whatever done, it certainly is appealing in the short term to get an FUE, and it is the popular way of thinking around here that this is the way to go, pretty much solely for the reason of avoiding the FUT scar

Now my understanding is that in order to get the maximum number of grafts in the long run, FUT must be done first, and for all following procedures FUE. I believe I've read that you can get an extra 2000-3000 grafts this way, although I might be off with that number, if our local experts could qualify please. My understanding is also that you cannot get a FUT once you've had FUE

That seems like a significant number of grafts. If sh*t really hits the fan, it could be the difference between fullhead and not. Now I'm fairly certain and hopeful that my male pattern baldness is following the path of my father's side, with slow receding hairlines, but after seeing a picture of my mom's bald grandfather recently, I was reminded that in this lifelong battle nothing is certain, and cautious planning could make a huge difference one day if things really go south, if finasteride and dutasteride fail me, and advanced norwooding hits. Although I am prepared to move my entire beard onto my crown as a last resort if need be, I would prefer to have the option of maxing out scalp donor as much as possible as a safety net

I can live with having to 3 guard my hair to hide a FUT scar. Am I crazy for wondering if FUT is the safer long term option even for guys who are on finasteride and not balding aggressively at the moment?

 

[kj6723]

@shookwun

 

[JeanLucBB]

Incorrect, seeing as you CAN still get an FUT after an FUE, however the strip will yield less relative to what it would have prior to FUE.

Just think about this logically, the donor has a finite and fixed number of donor hairs. Taking out a graft is taking out a graft no matter the method, you aren't going to magically create any new hairs by taking a strip out on the first go and moving to FUE the second time. There is no physical limitation inhibiting taking out a strip post FUE. You may be able to take out less via FUT after multiple FUEs, but the option is still there. Anyone arguing otherwise is arguing against basic logic. You cannot create grafts out of nowhere, they are either there or they aren't.

A strip fundamentally removes surface area, it doesn't diffuse the donor zone. Why couldn't you remove surface area after an diffusing the donor zone? The answer is you can, and that maximising donor zone can be done through utilising both methods, no matter the order.

One could argue that FUE has a higher transection rate damaging the donor to a greater degree, however for top doctors this is in the range of 3-5%. There will be very little difference to someone who opts for FUE and then FUT rather than FUT and then FUE, however starting with FUE you have the chance of never needing to receive a linear scar.

Ultimately, go with the doctor who you think has the best results, consistency and reputation in your price range. Forget the type of procedure, although particularly with FUT based doctors like Rahal some tend to be much more proficient with FUT.

 

[shookwun]

Incorrect, seeing as you CAN still get an FUT after an FUE, however the strip will yield less relative to what it would have prior to FUE.

Just think about this logically, the donor has a finite and fixed number of donor hairs. Taking out a graft is taking out a graft no matter the method, you aren't going to magically create any new hairs by taking a strip out on the first go and moving to FUE the second time. There is no physical limitation inhibiting taking out a strip post FUE. You may be able to take out less via FUT after multiple FUEs, but the option is still there. Anyone arguing otherwise is arguing against basic logic. You cannot create grafts out of nowhere, they are either there or they aren't.

A strip fundamentally removes surface area, it doesn't diffuse the donor zone. Why couldn't you remove surface area after an diffusing the donor zone? The answer is you can, and that maximising donor zone can be done through utilising both methods, no matter the order.

One could argue that FUE has a higher transection rate damaging the donor to a greater degree, however for top doctors this is in the range of 3-5%. There will be very little difference to someone who opts for FUE and then FUT rather than FUT and then FUE, however starting with FUE you have the chance of never needing to receive a linear scar.

Ultimately, go with the doctor who you think has the best results, consistency and reputation in your price range. Forget the type of procedure, although particularly with FUT based doctors like Rahal some tend to be much more proficient with FUT.

There is a reason why people like rahal quote 2000 for frontal hairline restoration and a Turkish fue surgeon quotes 3000 for the same result. Because there is a large percentage that don't even grow post operation. Of course you don't realise it because how could you?

Do you have a instrument telling you how many of your grafts survived?




You are blindly punching and tugging out each fue graft, and to say there is a 3-5% for maragin of error is ridiculous.


There is a reason why all the top doctors around the world recommend fut over fue for hair restoration. It's not over convenience and money, rather the results are superior to that of fue.


We are comparing a strip that is cut and individually dissected under a microscope for accuracy versus a blind approach of manually pulling every fue graft from your entire head.


Do the math, it doesn't take a genius to understand that fut is still the gold standard. There is no risk of donor depletion with fut. An individual strip leaves a small linear scar where as fue leaves a baseball size of scaring scared out on your entire head.


Fue is far more traumatizing for the scalp then fut. By volume and internal damage that's caused.


We choose fue out of convenience, but the truth is the procedure is inferior to fut. This is the only reason why a lot of us go for fue, rather then accepting the truth.

Most doctors will advise against fue unless the surgery itself is small.

 

[JeanLucBB]

There is a reason why people like rahal quote 2000 for frontal hairline restoration and a Turkish fue surgeon quotes 3000 for the same result. Because there is a large percentage that don't even grow post operation. Of course you don't realise it because how could you?

Do you have a instrument telling you how many of your grafts survived?




You are blindly punching and tugging out each fue graft, and to say there is a 3-5% for maragin of error is ridiculous.


There is a reason why all the top doctors around the world recommend fut over fue for hair restoration. It's not over convenience and money, rather the results are superior to that of fue.


We are comparing a strip that is cut and individually dissected under a microscope for accuracy versus a blind approach of manually pulling every fue graft from your entire head.


Do the math, it doesn't take a genius to understand that fut is still the gold standard. There is no risk of donor depletion with fut. An individual strip leaves a small linear scar where as fue leaves a baseball size of scaring scared out on your entire head.


Fue is far more traumatizing for the scalp then fut. By volume and internal damage that's caused.


We choose fue out of convenience, but the truth is the procedure is inferior to fut.

"Do you have a instrument telling you how many of your grafts survived?"

Yes various clinics have photographic analysis methods and software to do this. Not difficult.

From ******** - via Swoop

"Anyway, we also talked about FUE. I did bring up the question of growth yield to Dr. ********.

He doesn't think there is any difference in growth yield between FUT and FUE in his practice.

Hope that helps,

Damian."

From Hasson and Wong:

"It is now possible to produce graphs very very close in quality to that produced by strip excision and some microscopic dissection. The only difference is the amount of perifollicular fat surrounding the follicles. This means that the follicles are more exposed and require a modification of the insertion technique. This is accomplished by the use of inserter pens or distention of the recipient sites immediately prior the graph insertion. At Hasson and Wong we have spent years perfecting the FUE technique to the level that it compares favorably to our strip technique."

Konior:

"I posed this same question about growth yields in person to one of the leading hair restoration surgeons in N. America Dr. Raymond Konior who performs both FUT & FUE and his answer was "A graft is a graft."


"Do the math, it doesn't take a genius to understand that fut is still the gold standard. There is no risk of donor depletion with fut. An individual strip leaves a small linear scar where as fue leaves a baseball size of scaring scared out on your entire head."

Except in the case in the case you go to a fantastic doctor like Rahal but still end up with this:

Don't act like large scars and shock loss surrounding the scar doesn't exist with patients who go to great FUT doctors.

Also do you have a source to back up "internal damage that's caused."? That sounds like Dr. Feller cool-aid.

There is no way someone can look Erdogan, ********, Feriduni or Lorenzo results (and Erdogan and Lorenzo in particular have more than any other doctors online aside from H+W) and argue they are less consistent than a single FUT doctor in the world. Believe me, I've looked when searching for my doctor and I found more low yielding and cosmetically poor results with Rahal, Feller and Hasson + Wong than I did FUE results with Erdogan and Lorenzo. I haven't seen a single moth eaten donor from both Lorenzo and Erdogan either even moving up into the 5000-7000 graft range, and I have seen hundreds of bad scars from top-end FUT doctors.

 

[shookwun]

"Do you have a instrument telling you how many of your grafts survived?"

Yes various clinics have photographic analysis methods and software to do this. Not difficult.

From ******** - via Swoop

"Anyway, we also talked about FUE. I did bring up the question of growth yield to Dr. ********.

He doesn't think there is any difference in growth yield between FUT and FUE in his practice.

Hope that helps,

Damian."

From Hasson and Wong:

"It is now possible to produce graphs very very close in quality to that produced by strip excision and some microscopic dissection. The only difference is the amount of perifollicular fat surrounding the follicles. This means that the follicles are more exposed and require a modification of the insertion technique. This is accomplished by the use of inserter pens or distention of the recipient sites immediately prior the graph insertion. At Hasson and Wong we have spent years perfecting the FUE technique to the level that it compares favorably to our strip technique."

Konior:

"I posed this same question about growth yields in person to one of the leading hair restoration surgeons in N. America Dr. Raymond Konior who performs both FUT & FUE and his answer was "A graft is a graft."


"Do the math, it doesn't take a genius to understand that fut is still the gold standard. There is no risk of donor depletion with fut. An individual strip leaves a small linear scar where as fue leaves a baseball size of scaring scared out on your entire head."

Except in the case in the case you go to a fantastic doctor like Rahal but still end up with this:

View attachment 61414

View attachment 61415

Don't act like large scars and shock loss surrounding the scar doesn't exist with patients who go to great FUT doctors.

Also do you have a source to back up "internal damage that's caused."? That sounds like Dr. Feller cool-aid.

There is no way someone can look Erdogan, ********, Feriduni or Lorenzo results (and Erdogan and Lorenzo in particular have more than any other doctors online aside from H+W) and argue they are less consistent than a single FUT doctor in the world. Believe me, I've looked when searching for my doctor and I found more low yielding and cosmetically poor results with Rahal, Feller and Hasson + Wong than I did FUE results with Erdogan and Lorenzo. I haven't seen a single moth eaten donor from both Lorenzo and Erdogan either even moving up into the 5000-7000 graft range, and I have seen hundreds of bad scars from top-end FUT doctors.

Konior and h&w have always had preference for fut. Do you believe this by coincidence or the fact that fut produces better yield and quality results.


How is this even an argument? ******** and all those surgeons you mention always recommend fut over fue.

There is no denying fue is great procedure but the margin for error in graft handling is for more likely then fit where the grafts are all laid out accordingly.


We can argue about this all we want, but there is a logical reason why doctors routinely advise patients to strip first before fue

 

[JeanLucBB]

Konior and h&w have always had preference for fut. Do you believe this by coincidence or the fact that fut produces better yield and quality results.


How is this even an argument? ******** and all those surgeons you mention always recommend fut over fue.

There is no denying fue is great procedure but the margin for error in graft handling is for more likely then fit where the grafts are all laid out accordingly.


We can argue about this all we want, but there is a logical reason why doctors routinely advise patients to strip first before fue

By its nature FUT will always minimize trauma to the graft, but ultimately doctors like Lupanzula, Erdogan, Feriduni, Konior etc show results and consistency of results with FUE that are so close to FUT that there is zero necessity for a patient to make up their mind purely on the basis of procedure.

FUT is the better procedure on average, but the most consistent doctors I have come across after looking at thousands and thousands of results are Erdogan and Lorenzo, both FUE exclusive surgeons. Anyone comparing the FUT and FUE of surgeons at the top end like ********, Feriduni or Konior will be unable without photographic analysis find a cosmetic difference in yield per graft between either method.

There is no evidence anymore that anyone NEEDS to do FUT or risk a bad scar to achieve phenomenal results, and they can ultimateg get FUT after FUE anyway to maximize donor, albeit with a lower yield on the strip. Still am yet to see an erdogan 5000-7000 graft take donor that looks as bad as the worst 5% of strip scars from top FUT surgeons.

 

[sunchyme1]

By its nature FUT will always minimize trauma to the graft, but ultimately doctors like Lupanzula, Erdogan, Feriduni, Konior etc show results and consistency of results with FUE that are so close to FUT that there is zero necessity for a patient to make up their mind purely on the basis of procedure.

FUT is the better procedure on average, but the most consistent doctors I have come across after looking at thousands and thousands of results are Erdogan and Lorenzo, both FUE exclusive surgeons. Anyone comparing the FUT and FUE of surgeons at the top end like ********, Feriduni or Konior will be unable without photographic analysis find a cosmetic difference in yield per graft between either method.

There is no evidence anymore that anyone NEEDS to do FUT or risk a bad scar to achieve phenomenal results, and they can ultimateg get FUT after FUE anyway to maximize donor, albeit with a lower yield on the strip. Still am yet to see an erdogan 5000-7000 graft take donor that looks as bad as the worst 5% of strip scars from top FUT surgeons.

http://www.hairlossexperiences.com/forum65/2963-2.html

what u think about this guy?

 

[DoctorHouse]

There are really two advantages to FUT over FUE. FUT does not require you to shave the donor and in some case the recipient and its usually not as costly as FUE. I think in large graft cases a majority of doctors will recommend FUT over FUE but most patients will not follow their recommendation and still do FUE in order to avoid the cutting and longer recovery time. And from a doctor's point of view, they tend to make more money when the patient will not follow their recommendation so most will never refuse to do a large FUE case. Dr Cole has already posted that with his experience and skill, he can get about equal yield with FUE and FUT so it does depend on the surgeon's skill. Eventually they learn to harvest the FUE graft to the point that they won't transect them. Even technicians could transect grafts taken from a FUT strip if they are not careful enough.

 

[JeanLucBB]

http://www.hairlossexperiences.com/forum65/2963-2.html

what u think about this guy?

Should have done FUT because his donor already looked diffused pre-op but that is one seriously huge area to cover and he was never getting full coverage even with FUT. Supposedly he had been told he was a bad candidate but wanted it anyway and had low expectations. Yield still looks good.

For the average patient they can achieve very strong results through FUE alone though.

 

[shookwun]

it's better to accept the truth on someones intake that exclusively does both surgeries and is not bias against certain methods.



Pray that your 5000 average donor is enough.

 

[JeanLucBB]

it's better to accept the truth on someones intake that exclusively does both surgeries and is not bias against certain methods.



Pray that your 5000 average donor is enough.

View attachment 61500
View attachment 61502

Rassman is a hack. His results are not aesthetically pleasing and are very much behind the times with visibly poor yields and an overall lack of artistry. I've seen multiple necrosis cases from Rassman on old forum posts which he himself has posted on, and yet on Realself and Reddit has claimed that he has never seen one in his clinic in over 20 years of practising. Not to mention the guy is a strong proponent of and force behind the invention of the ARTAS. He is nothing but a marketer. Compare his results per graft and among similar hair texture cases with other FUT surgeons like Rahal, Cooley, H+W and its very, very clear he is behind the times. Note that he also uses a motorized, not a manual punch like top-end FUE surgeons. No doctor that does both but FUE with a motorized punch can be considered to be a jack of both trades, they are simply an FUT surgeon who offers FUE on the side.

If you can't trust him to tell the truth about his necrosis cases, and his results are visibly poor compared to other doctors in 2017 there is very little reason to take this study seriously. He is an embarrassment.

This is what FUE can do with a clearly less than average donor, medium coarse hair and 5000 grafts on a norwood 6. Again, this patient can STILL GET FUT after this FUE if he chooses. Laughable studies from hack doctors past their prime are not evidence against FUE. Even Ron Shapiro has suggested recently they are not seeing a significant difference between FUE and FUT yields. The total donor capacity will not shift dramatically whether one chooses FUE or FUT first up with a top-end FUE doctor using a manual punch.

 

[shookwun]

Nobody cares about anecdotal posts and theories from patient advisory.


Medical literature > everything else.


it's easy to cherry pick individual cases, which is primarily what you see out of every doctor after transplant result. We tend to showcase our best work, which is relatively normal and not cause for concern. But to take extremes as examples is laughable at best.



Most people who have transplants are not satisfied, and like many need many additional transplants to give them satisfaction.


There is nothing to argue except your random slant of an attack on Dr Rassman, which proves nothing against his credibility and being a pioneer within the industry. If you took time to read the article, there is no bias rather facts upon expectations. I will take advice from someone who reaches out in the industry to personally help others on a personal and professional level then a money extremist which is commonly seen nowadays,.

 

[topcat]

Most people who have transplants are not satisfied, and like many need many additional transplants to give them satisfaction.

A slight tilt of the head of the patient pictured above your post and the illusion is gone. See it in person and you will rethink the whole idea.

 

[JeanLucBB]

Nobody cares about anecdotal posts and theories from patient advisory.


Medical literature > everything else.


it's easy to cherry pick individual cases, which is primarily what you see out of every doctor after transplant result. We tend to showcase our best work, which is relatively normal and not cause for concern. But to take extremes as examples is laughable at best.



Most people who have transplants are not satisfied, and like many need many additional transplants to give them satisfaction.


There is nothing to argue except your random slant of an attack on Dr Rassman, which proves nothing against his credibility and being a pioneer within the industry. If you took time to read the article, there is no bias rather facts upon expectations. I will take advice from someone who reaches out in the industry to personally help others on a personal and professional level then a money extremist which is commonly seen nowadays,.

His results look like sh*t across the board and don't hold up to any other highly regarded modern transplant doctor, FUE or FUT. If you think differently you need your eyes checked, and I recommend everyone else look for themselves.

He has caused multiple cases of necrosis (one on an FUT scar, fancy that) and lied on Realself and said he has never seen it in his clinic. His results are visible poorer and less aesthetically pleasing than any highly regarded doctor in the industry. If that is the type of person you want to legitimise, go ahead, but you look like a deranged zealot.

That study is a joke, a group of random observation and arbitrary numbers with nothing to back it up. You clearly have very little understanding of objectivity and medical literature in general, but the fact that a doctor wrote something doesn't automatically legitimise it as a piece of accurate medical literature. Not to mention the piece is vague and all over the place, with no concrete conclusions and f*** all references.

And no, considering this is a numbers game like you yourself proposed, if a norwood 6 can achieve full coverage with 50-60 micron (around average) donor zone and a straight hair texture, then it can be achieved for others. And again, you can perform FUT after FUE. You can't magic grafts into existence that wouldn't otherwise be there by choosing FUT first. The grafts are either there, or they aren't.

Rassman is a strong proponent of the ARTAS, does the fact that he was a "pioneer" (actually he wasn't, he stole the idea of FUE from Dr. Woods and claimed he invented it) mean it is the ideal means of FUE? One can be a pioneer, but still an incompetent idiot. Learn how logic works.

 

[JeanLucBB]

I will take advice from someone who reaches out in the industry to personally help others on a personal and professional level then a money extremist which is commonly seen nowadays,.

He would not lie about having never caused necrosis on a patient on Reddit and on Realself despite forum evidence to the contrary unless he was a money extremist.

 

[shookwun]

His results look like sh*t across the board and don't hold up to any other highly regarded modern transplant doctor, FUE or FUT. If you think differently you need your eyes checked, and I recommend everyone else look for themselves.

He has caused multiple cases of necrosis (one on an FUT scar, fancy that) and lied on Realself and said he has never seen it in his clinic. His results are visible poorer and less aesthetically pleasing than any highly regarded doctor in the industry. If that is the type of person you want to legitimise, go ahead, but you look like a deranged zealot.

That study is a joke, a group of random observation and arbitrary numbers with nothing to back it up. You clearly have very little understanding of objectivity and medical literature in general, but the fact that a doctor wrote something doesn't automatically legitimise it as a piece of accurate medical literature. Not to mention the piece is vague and all over the place, with no concrete conclusions and f*** all references.

And no, considering this is a numbers game like you yourself proposed, if a norwood 6 can achieve full coverage with 50-60 micron (around average) donor zone and a straight hair texture, then it can be achieved for others. And again, you can perform FUT after FUE. You can't magic grafts into existence that wouldn't otherwise be there by choosing FUT first. The grafts are either there, or they aren't.

Studies and practice that withstand your posts that hold no logical grounds other then your own google searches and patient advisors

Right, I have seen it all now.

The article itself has a page full of citations, and references but I was unable to crop everything together with exception to the article itself.


More sources and feed back from credible doctors on FUE, and mega sessions that source our article of Dr Wolf, and Rassman and personal experiences

http://www.ishrs.org/content/exploring-limits-follicular-unit-extraction

Dr Konior: This case is of interest as I’ve been receiving more consult requests from unhappy patients who have had FUE sessions of 4,000-6,000 grafts. This patient appears to have good characteristics for decent coverage if 4,000 grafts were actually harvested, and if 4,000 grafts survive. I assume there is some donor density reduction secondary to shock, so your recommendation for 6-8 months of patience is logical. What is the upper limit for a single session FUE harvest, single day or multi-day, that the group feels comfortable with? Perhaps my loupes are not strong enough, but in my opinion, the upper range of these mega harvests is extraordinary.'

A slight tilt of the head of the patient pictured above your post and the illusion is gone. See it in person and you will rethink the whole idea.

Poor bloke seems to think cherry picked results account for what a majority of people can expect.

the micro dots scaring are all clearly evident, even whilst the hair is grown out.

 

[shookwun]

Dr Ron Shapiro

Ron Shapiro: The answer to the question of how many grafts we can obtain from an average donor area with FUE and how well they will survive is very important. There are four factors to take into consideration: 1) naturalness, 2) density and coverage, 3) least visible scarring, and 4) least amount of pain post-op.

Meeting a patient’s expectations of naturalness and density and coverage are the two most important goals in determining if a patient will be happy with his hair transplant. Of course, having the least visible scarring in the donor area and the most comfortable post-op course are also important to patients. In my opinion and from my experience personally, they are not as important as naturalness and density. Lately, it seems like factors 3 and 4 are driving the market more than factors 1 and 2.

Patients have always been drawn to “less invasive” alternative procedures in all areas of medicine. But most surgeons know that, although less invasive procedures have a place, they don’t always give better clinical results. This mind-set, desiring less invasive procedures, combined with the aggressive marketing campaign unfairly comparing the degree of difference between FUT and FUE with respect to the donor area is what is driving the growth of FUE much more than the more important differences in clinical results achievable in the recipient area with respect to naturalness. Density. With respect to naturalness, both techniques are probably the same.

With respect to density and coverage, there have been and continue to be differences. In the beginning, when FUE first came on the scene 10-12 years ago, it was certainly not as good as FUT with respect to density and coverage, which is determined by two things only: 1) the total number of grafts you can safely obtain from the donor area before it begins to look bad, and 2) the survival of those grafts immediately and in the future. By survival we mean both growth and caliber. Of course, there are tricks to make “less look like more” with respect to proper pattern and distribution of grafts as well as the use of things like SMP, but these would be equally used in both techniques. A true comparison of FUE and FUT with respect to their ability to produce is dependent on supply and survival.

I don’t think even the most vocal proponent of FUE would say FUE is as good as FUT with respect to density and coverage. With FUE you could not harvest the same number of grafts as FUT or achieve the same survival on a consistent basis as FUT grafts due to the more fragile nature of FUE grafts having less surrounding tissue. Hence, at least in the beginning (the years 2002 to about 2007), if FUE practitioners were honest, they could not say they were able to produce the same (and certainly not better) degree of density and coverage as FUT on a consistent basis. Yet patient demand for this “less invasive procedure” continued to grow for the reasons stated above and not because of better clinical results in the recipient area with respect to density. However, over the past 5 years, things have changed. There have been major modifications of the FUE procedure to address its shortcomings. We now have multiple FUE harvesting techniques that can produce grafts with very low transection rates. In addition, there have been advancements that allow the punch to go deeper without transection enabling the production of heartier grafts with more surrounding tissue similar to FUT grafts (not better…but maybe as good). New holding solutions and the use of implanters have also addressed the issue of survival.

So, with respect to survival of FUE grafts, I see the potential for FUE to become equal to FUT and in many cases it may already be there. The last remaining piece of the puzzle is: What is the short- and long-term donor supply with exclusive FUE? I have gone to almost every FUE workshop and find as many “FUE experts” as I can and ask: “Ok…now honestly…when an average patient comes to your office, how many grafts do you believe you can get from the scalp donor area before problems arise? Not your best or exceptional cases…but your average.”

I would ask Bijain Feriduni, Jim Harris, Jean Devroye, Christian ********, Patrick Mwamba, José Lorenzo, the doctors at DHI who have only been doing FUE for 15 years and others. Remember, this is for AVERAGE patients with a donor FU density of 80-85 FU/cm². The numbers will be higher with higher densities. Four to five years ago, the most I asked was if they felt they could count on getting safely 4,000-5,000 grafts in two to three visits if they used a 0.9mm punch. Most liked to do no more than 2,000 grafts per visit. If they were skilled, they did all 2,000 in 1 day; if they were slower, they did the 2,000 over 2 days. Most used the expanded donor area to get this number with the justification that they had to go into the expanded area otherwise there would be a visible step off between the harvested and non-harvested areas. When asked what percent of the donor area they harvest, they usually said about 15-20% per pass, so a total of 30-40% total. Obviously, this changes with patients with higher or lower density, but this is the average I would hear.

In the last few years, in general, the max number that can be harvested has gone up. But there has been a divergence:

This idea of 5000-7000 FUE is laughable at best. keep dreaming!

Most people will be lucky to achieve 5000.

 

[JeanLucBB]

Studies and practice that withstand your posts that hold no logical grounds other then your own google searches and patient advisors

Right, I have seen it all now.

The article itself has a page full of citations, and references but I was unable to crop everything together with exception to the article itself.


More sources and feed back from credible doctors on FUE, and mega sessions that source our article of Dr Wolf, and Rassman and personal experiences

http://www.ishrs.org/content/exploring-limits-follicular-unit-extraction

Dr Konior: This case is of interest as I’ve been receiving more consult requests from unhappy patients who have had FUE sessions of 4,000-6,000 grafts. This patient appears to have good characteristics for decent coverage if 4,000 grafts were actually harvested, and if 4,000 grafts survive. I assume there is some donor density reduction secondary to shock, so your recommendation for 6-8 months of patience is logical. What is the upper limit for a single session FUE harvest, single day or multi-day, that the group feels comfortable with? Perhaps my loupes are not strong enough, but in my opinion, the upper range of these mega harvests is extraordinary.'





Poor bloke seems to think cherry picked results account for what a majority of people can expect.

the micro dots scaring are all clearly evident, even whilst the hair is grown out.

You complain of my anecdotal evidence, and yet you raise an ISHRS case of surgeons primarily discussing anecdotal evidence, with no name Turkish clinics with bottom of the barrel technicians obviously using motorised punches. Half of these doctors are laughably claiming that even 5000 is not possible on a regular basis or in a single two day session. Did they miss the literally HUNDREDS of Erdogan results on the International forum? The hundreds of Lorenzo results?

Note from Jerry Wong clearly expressing this:

"Keeping my fingers crossed for this man but it does not look good. His donor may be done. The numbers alone don’t tell very much as to whether it’s good FUE vs. bad FUE."

From Bradley Wolf

"
If the fat on FUT grafts contained unique stem cells or genes (nuclear material), they would have shown up on the study. FUT doesn’t have anything that FUE doesn’t have that FUE needs to regrow.

2. The other week when placing, I watched my FUE grafts closely and noted it wasn’t any more difficult to keep them hydrated than FUT grafts. If they are left out, they will dry faster, however, no graft taken by any harvesting method should ever be left out to dry for any length of time, period.

3. A placer who is experienced and proficient at placing FUT grafts needs to be adept at grabbing naked individual follicles that occasionally get separated at the DP end and need to be gathered to be placed with the rest of the graft. The skills necessary to place FUE grafts should be known by anyone who places FUT grafts well. FUE grafts can be grabbed across the bulbs and successfully placed. An egg can be picked up with a pair of pliers. My FUE results are as good as my FUT results and sometimes even better since FUE grafts often contain more hairs per graft. Yes, FUE grafts are more difficult to place, and yes, there is more chance of damage, but it can be done successfully, as well as FUT grafts, although it may be more difficult and take longer."

From Shapiro:

"But a lot have become comfortable with 6,000-6,500 grafts (FUE). I think the reason has been the more consistent use of small punches, the ability to use SMP if they get in trouble, the use of ACell/PRP in the donor area to try and regrow a little donor hair from transected or residual stem cells (this in not for future harvesting but to diminish the appearance of “gappiness” and enable slightly more to be harvested before it looks bad)."

 

[JeanLucBB]

Dr Ron Shapiro



This idea of 5000-7000 FUE is laughable at best. keep dreaming!

Most people will be lucky to achieve 5000.

And even if they hit a roadblock due to donor capacity at 5000, they can still get an FUT albeit with a lower yield on the strip. To deny this is simply a lie.