Is FUE the Best Hair Transplant Technique?
novice clinics and physicians are offering FUE as the most
advanced ultimate solution for hair loss. Some times it is even
presented as 'non-surgical' hair transplant especially by non specialist
doctors offering 'cheap but best' hair transplant deals.
An aware patient knows that FUE & Strip are both harvesting same hair roots
and therefore neither is absolutely superior to other. Also, each procedure has its
presented as 'non-surgical' hair transplant especially by non specialist
doctors offering 'cheap but best' hair transplant deals.
An aware patient knows that FUE & Strip are both harvesting same hair roots
and therefore neither is absolutely superior to other. Also, each procedure has its
own set of disadvantages, which must be brought to prospective
patient's notice, before mutually deciding upon the technique
of restoration. While, there are inherent advantages of FUE,
which I have discussed before, proclaiming that FUE is 'always'
the best is stretching the truth too far.
One problem that FUE holds is the number of grafts that can be
harvested in one session of transplant. Although, a larger number
of grafts can now be harvested, the number is still not comparable
to strip technique. The chief reason for this is technique itself.
When performed properly and carefully, FUE is labour and technique
intensive, and therefore lesser number of grafts can be harvested.
Some clinics have now started using hair transplant robots for
safe yet efficient extraction of hair follicles. However, not all clinics utilise such sophisticated machinery. In rat race to offer cheapest rates many use drill machines as FUE extractor. This coupled with inexperienced and unqualified staff cause nothing but injury to surrounding follicles and high wastage of hair roots.
Ultimately, the patient is left with a scarred donor area and poor growth in transplated hairs.
safe yet efficient extraction of hair follicles. However, not all clinics utilise such sophisticated machinery. In rat race to offer cheapest rates many use drill machines as FUE extractor. This coupled with inexperienced and unqualified staff cause nothing but injury to surrounding follicles and high wastage of hair roots.
Ultimately, the patient is left with a scarred donor area and poor growth in transplated hairs.
 |
| Proper Technique of FUE. Note use of small punch, minimal bleeding and limited harvest. Also not that permanent hair zone is not breached. |
It is claimed as a "No Scar" technique. Rest assured, it is NOT so.
Any cut in the skin will cause some scarring. The valid question, therefore,
is visibility of scars. Which technique gives less visible scars?
Here I agree with FUE proponents, that scars are less visible with short
hairs in FUE after one session. On shaving or close trim, these scars can
be seen as white dots in the scalp. They appear light colored because of removal of melanin (Hair pigment) and reduced blood supply in that area. After multiple sessions this can cause 'moth eaten' appearance in donor
area, especially in dark skinned people.
Some clinics even call FUE as non-surgical technique. This is
also a bogus claim, as anesthesia, incision by small punch and physical removal of hair roots with forceps and placement in incisions
can not be non surgical. FUE maybe minimally invasive surgery in
respect to punch size used but overall invasiveness is only determined
by the extent of the procedure and the harvesting protocol.
Multiple incisions made on skin during FUE have a ripple effect on the surrounding skin. This can result in abnormal orientation of remaining hair and difficulty in future extraction.
Another common problem with large FUE sessions is that, one
has to often go beyond the safe donor zone. By doing so we expose
the potentially balding area to scarring. More importantly, one can
implant temporary hair in bald areas, which are prone to hair fall in future. An experienced surgeon rarely makes such mistake but a novice may offer you many more grafts than are actually safe, just to seal the deal.
Remember, more is not always better in hair transplant.
To summarise, patients should be clear that both strip technique and
FUE are credible hair transplant techniques and both give good results
when performed properly at a good hair transplant clinic.
Branding one technique as advanced just
because its new is dangerous. Both have their pros and cons; and both
have their own place in hair restoration.
 |
| Poor scarring after FUE. Two sessions of 2500 FUs done at another clinic using Bio Hair Transplant. |
also a bogus claim, as anesthesia, incision by small punch and physical removal of hair roots with forceps and placement in incisions
can not be non surgical. FUE maybe minimally invasive surgery in
respect to punch size used but overall invasiveness is only determined
by the extent of the procedure and the harvesting protocol.
Multiple incisions made on skin during FUE have a ripple effect on the surrounding skin. This can result in abnormal orientation of remaining hair and difficulty in future extraction.
Another common problem with large FUE sessions is that, one
has to often go beyond the safe donor zone. By doing so we expose
the potentially balding area to scarring. More importantly, one can
implant temporary hair in bald areas, which are prone to hair fall in future. An experienced surgeon rarely makes such mistake but a novice may offer you many more grafts than are actually safe, just to seal the deal.
Remember, more is not always better in hair transplant.
To summarise, patients should be clear that both strip technique and
FUE are credible hair transplant techniques and both give good results
when performed properly at a good hair transplant clinic.
Branding one technique as advanced just
because its new is dangerous. Both have their pros and cons; and both
have their own place in hair restoration.
Comments
Post a Comment