Can you tell me the difference between Neograft, the ARTAS robot and a manual technique for performing FUE?

As you may know, Dr. Pak and I are the patent holder inventor of two core technologies of the hair transplant robot, inventing it in 1998 and getting patents issued on them in 2006. We also hold a patent on the implanter used by Neograft so i am very familiar with this technology, originally invented by Dr. Pascal Boudjema of Paris France in the late 1990s. I am also the modern day inventor of the FUE procedure, doing these FUE procedures longer than anyone in the world, dating back to 1996 (see: newhair.com/procedures/fue/fue-artas-robot-robotic-fue-surgery/). I published the first article on FUE in 2002 and presented FUE to over 600 physician at the International Society for Hair Transplant Surgeons and gave out a DVD to each of them, and then the rest is history. The reason I patented the robot was because too many doctors failed to perform FUE successfully after I introduced the original FUE article, which is somewhat the case today. The ARTAS Robot leveled the playing field as far as doing successful extractions for FUE which for many doctors who had a problem performing manual FUE with good predictability, was a godsend. We hold now 17 US patents on various hair technologies with three more are pending. We routinely publish all of our advances in medical journals and medical textbooks (see: https://newhair.com/about/doctors/rassman/).

These three technologies all work well at performing FUE in the hands of an experienced surgeon. The ARTAS Robot is different in that all of the decision for FUE such as angle of the ‘attack’ of the drill, the depth of the two drills (sharp and dull) and the distribution of the extractions, are all computerized. In addition, the Robot has the advantage of only extracting the grafts with the most hairs because that is a programming task.  For the experienced surgeons, such high hair graft identification is routine and now the Robot can also do it.  Speed is important for FUE as the longer the grafts are out of the body, the potential worse the survival.  The Robot is a bit slower than the manual system in experienced hands.

Some newer punch designs, I believe, have improved the quality of the extracted grafts. These new ‘trumpet’ punches only recently appeared on the market. These punches were designed independently by Drs. Umar and Devoire and have a unique design which, now that we are using them, shows superior graft quality.  Graft quality with FUE has always been a problem since I pioneered the procedure in 1996. I redesigned punches continuously to find the best punch in my hands and only recently moved to the new ‘trumpet’ punches which we now are using daily.

It is very important to remember that the FUE component of the procedure is just one part of a large process and good quality control system must be put into place by the doctor to get the best results possible. Be wary of doctors who delegate the FUE process to independent ‘teams-for-hire’ where the technicians actually perform all of the surgery and anesthesia. The risk of death from inappropriate use of anesthetics is a real risk in such situations.  When comparing FUE with traditional strip surgery on a consistent quality basis, the Strip Surgery always wins for producing consistent 100% high quality grafts.  The use of the ‘trumpet’ punch in our hands has somewhat bridged that gap.