Water Jet in FUE

Dr Rassman,

This following thread discussed one of your patents: hair-restoration-info.com

Now in the patent there is a discussion of fluid being introduced during the procedure to separate the follicles. This is the same discussion that i saw on a hairloss forum you gave about the new FUE2 procedure which you said uses a water jet principle.

What i wanted to know what are your thoughts on Dr feller’s comments that

1. Because the follicles are tiny, no amount of suction is powerful enough to actually grip and pull the graft out with any appreciable traction.
2. The second is that FUE practitioners acknowledge that appreciable amounts of fluid are NOT required for FUE as once breifly thought in 2004. In fact, the less fluid the better.

Thanks

The patent mentioned in that forum was actually built by Dr. Jae Pak when he worked for me as a biomechanical engineer (before he became a doctor) and it was proven to work. The patent was eventually purchased by Restoration Robotics and there is an actual robot that does the FUE extraction (still in development, as far as I know). The patent they are referencing in that thread is not FUE2.

1. Before all of this, there was another device designed by Dr. Boudjema in the late 1990’s that incorporated suction for the FUE. It did grip the follicle and pull the grafts out with traction, but it was not efficient.
2. FUE is highly variable in terms of how it is performed and who it is performed on. There is no rule. Less fluid does not mean it is better. Sometimes more fluid works on some patients.

Since I introduced the FUE technique to the ISHRS meeting in 2002, FUE has blossomed and took a life of its own with different techniques and opinions by doctors all over the world! I believe it is a wonderful thing, as doctors will continue to innovate the technology and technique. To date, there is no one standard accepted universal method for the perfect FUE and that means that no one technique seems better for all of the doctors and all of the patients. Variability in technique is not good for patients as the concept of standardization just does not materialize, which is the sign of a mature technology.