Could FUE2 Replace the Strip Method? (Part 1)

This is a long piece, so I’m breaking it up into 2 separate parts. Here’s part 1, with the 2nd part coming at the same time tomorrow…

Do you believe that the FUE 2 (or standard high yield FUE) process could completely replace the strip method of hair transplantation? Why or why not?

There are practical problems with the FUE2 method of harvesting. First, the patient must have his hair clipped widely if he wants/needs extensive grafting above 600-800 grafts (the number of grafts which can be taken from a small area is very density dependent). Most people will not allow us to clip their hair that short and certainly people who have had previous strip harvesting will often not want to have their hair clipped that way either. Many patients who come for FUE end up switching to a strip technique, because of the haircut issue alone.

The FUE’s maximum number of grafts, compared to a strip harvest, will produce less hair with FUE. The strip method of harvesting obtains the donor hair from what the surgeon calls the sweet spot. The FUE can not get the number of grafts from the sweet spot as well as the strip, but the FUE may be limited at each surgery. I read a great deal about the reported FUE megasessions and although I am convinced that much of the hype of 3,000 graft FUE sessions are misrepresented and promoted based upon false claims by less than honorable doctors, the public wants to see this happen and they are ready to believe almost anything a slick doctor tries to sell.

So for the patient who is bald and needs a high numbers of grafts, the strip harvesting method is superior because more hair can be moved in a single session, minimizing the number of sessions when compared to FUE harvesting. For those people who want to get the job done quickly and they need graft numbers in the thousands of grafts, the strip method is far more time efficient.

On the other hand, a new dynamic can be created where people take multiple sessions of 500-800 grafts every 6-8 months until they add enough hair to create what they want. A slow approach has many advantages including:

1. Spreading the costs over a longer time
2. Developing a changed image very slowly so that nobody will ever recognize the change
3. Minimal pain and very fast recovery without limitations on any activities from weight lifting to scuba diving, and so on.

There is a place for both choices and for those men who are not very bald, the ability to achieve reasonable results in one or two sessions are a practical approach to the problem.

Check back for part 2 tomorrow…