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

[shookwun]

Lol at these minimal quotes you are citing them on


every one of those doctors said that FUT is superior, if of course you take the time to quote them on there entire post rather then taking pieces of information out that are critical.



FUE is out of patient desire, convenience and being less invasive. there is nothing more to it.

This is the driving factor why we choose FUE rather then FUT. this is our decision, and thats all that matters.

does it mean its better, no? because according to medical literature it isnt.

 

[JeanLucBB]

Lol at these minimal quotes you are citing them on


every one of those doctors said that FUT is superior, if of course you take the time to quote them on there entire post rather then taking pieces of information out that are critical.



FUE is out of patient desire, convenience and being less invasive. there is nothing more to it.

This is the driving factor why we choose FUE rather then FUT. this is our decision, and thats all that matters.

does it mean its better, no? because according to medical literature it isnt.

Why would I quote the whole article if I could take select points? That is outright nonsensical, are you denying they said those things? They said them and they are taken in context. You are the one who brought up Wolf specifically despite the fact he shat all over your argument. Nice job.

I never denied that FUT was the better procedure and that most doctors agree on this, however there are hundreds of Lorenzo and Erdogan results in the 5000-7000 range on average donors with people of average hair texture and thickness achieving close to full coverage. On top of that they are left with the option of SMP to increase the illusion of coverage. Rassman himself advocates this in one of his shitty f*****g pieces of "medical literature" and suggests that one can achieve the illusion of full coverage even with long hair with an FUE/SMP combo. The results from European FUE doctors such as Lupanzula, Erdogan and Lorenzo on a CONSISTENT BASIS (thousands of results) show that the American medical literature denying FUE potential above 5000 grafts for the average patient is lacking in legitimacy.

The majority of medical literature on hair transplants was, and is written by long term American FUT surgeons, who are having to increasingly compete with European FUE surgeons. There is a blatant conflict of interest here. If Rassman for one lies about having never caused necrosis on a patient, why would one trust him to to tell the truth on a matter like the FUE and FUT debate that could ultimately impact his business, considering how much more expensive it is to conduct an FUE in the US than a place like India or Turkey. There is business incentive for American doctors to convey in the medical literature they produce that FUT is the ideal procedure. This is undeniable.

And still, after all that it doesn't change the fact that one can get FUT after FUE.

 

[shookwun]

There is more scaring and trauma from FUE then there is FUT despite the fear mongering of a linear scar, and post operation stitches.

We are comparing a soft ball worth of scaring spread across our donor versus a linear scar on the most donor efficient area of the scalp.

math doesn't lie. 0.88mm and 4000 FUE versus a linear scar no more then 24cm strip that leaves a 1-2mm wide scar

it's easy to pin point horror story scars, but when we separate bullshit from the truth we can see that I am a paramount example of minimal scaring as a result of FUT from a competent surgeon.

 

[JeanLucBB]

but when we separate bullshit from the truth we can see that I am a paramount example of minimal scaring as a result of FUT from a competent surgeon.

Oh your scar is nice? Whatever happened to critcisms of anecdotal evidence?

Oh what's that? Minimal scarring from a competent surgeon?

From Rahal:

From Rassman (lovely necrosis on a scar):

http://www.hairlosshelp.com/forums/messageview.cfm?catid=5&threadid=65810

 

[shookwun]

Oh your scar is nice? Whatever happened to critcisms of anecdotal evidence?

Oh what's that? Minimal scarring from a competent surgeon?

From Rahal:

View attachment 61536

View attachment 61537


From Rassman (lovely necrosis on a scar):

http://www.hairlosshelp.com/forums/messageview.cfm?catid=5&threadid=65810

More extreme examples


What is the point of posting this?

its not difficult to find surgeries gone wrong.

Every surgeon has had hardships, does this take take away from there credibility?



I have given you more information then you need to work with.

Nobody cares at the end of the day. The only reason why people choose fue is out of convenience and nothing more.


HENCE WHY I HAD FUE. better surgery, not a chance.

 

[JeanLucBB]

More extreme examples


What is the point of posting this?

its not difficult to find surgeries gone wrong.

Every surgeon has had hardships, does this take take away from there credibility?



I have given you more information then you need to work with.

Nobody cares at the end of the day. The only reason why people choose fue is out of convenience and nothing more.


HENCE WHY I HAD FUE. better surgery, not a chance.

I agree the substantive truth of everything you say, however your final comment and the result of your last surgery are telling. FUE can achieve results that will please the average person regarding their expectations and donor capacity, and do so in a way that is more palatable regarding convenience.

It's a matter of a very small improvement in FUT over FUE, and saying that the average donor is capped at 5000 FUE is disingenuous as one can still get a lower yielding strip after FUE and utilise SMP for the illusion of more density. With the consistency and yields of manual punch FUE surgeons like Erdogan, Lorenzo and Lupanzula even moving up into the 5000-7000 range on the average patient without a moth-eaten donor look, arguing the NECESSITY of FUT as a first procedure is less compelling. And it can always be done afterwards.

 

[shookwun]

I agree the substantive truth of everything you say, however your final comment and the result of your last surgery are telling. FUE can achieve results that will please the average person regarding their expectations and donor capacity, and do so in a way that is more palatable regarding convenience.

It's a matter of a very small improvement in FUT over FUE, and saying that the average donor is capped at 5000 FUE is disingenuous as one can still get a lower yielding strip after FUE and utilise SMP for the illusion of more density. With the consistency and yields of manual punch FUE surgeons like Erdogan, Lorenzo and Lupanzula even moving up into the 5000-7000 range on the average patient without a moth-eaten donor look, arguing the NECESSITY of FUT as a first procedure is less compelling. And it can always be done afterwards.

this thread should be enough evidence for those to suggest there route of path.

FUE is a good choice if you're willing to live within that 5000 cap yield, which is more then sufficient if you are on finasteride and are not to advanced on the norwood scale. That, and having realistic expectations.

FUT is advisable for advanced norwoods who need more restoration then your average candidate. FUT + FUE and a long *** recovery