Queries on FUE scarring

[Dav7]

I've been giving some thought today about the scarring process involved with the FUE technique in hair transplantation. For instance we are always hearing about the infamous strip scar, and on how FUE avoids this horrible faith. However while it's true that FUE is not a scarless procedure, and that most of us understand this, bar some naive (particularly younger) individuals, wouldn't it also not be the case that

(a) The scaring caused by FUE is equal, if not more scar inducing than FUT/ Strip? The scar tissue is just more dispersed as opposed to concentrated as is the case with FUT.

(b) The scaring caused by FUE could in fact be more unnatural and visually obvious (particularly when tanned, or for naturally tanned or darker skinned individuals) given that thousands of white dots would be present around the donor area when shaved.

(c) In continuation from point b, don't FUT scars actually look less suspicious or odd than FUE scarring? For instance, it's a long linear line and while obvious it could be attributed to any type of surgical procedure, e.g. lobotomy, infill of a scar caused by an assault by a person or dog. Whereas FUE scarring dotted over the entire region could have no comparable causes?

(d) The FUT scar is a lot neater and more localised than the scar tissue caused by FUE which results in thousands of small dots around the perimeter of the head.

(e) FUE scarring will be noticeable anyway if you shave your head.

(f) And lastly, would it not be the case that an FUT scar is actually easier to deal with, given that it's localised in one area as opposed to the dispersed nature of FUE scarring, e.g. it can be infilled with grafts and/ or SMP down the line. Whereas FUE scarring would a lot more difficult, lengthy and costly to fix in the long run?


These are just questions and I don't mean this to be a pro-FUT thread because I'm still open to getting either procedure down the line. However, I thought it would be interesting to raise the above points because FUE is always made to seem like a visually harmless technique, while strip scars get a bad rep.

[35YrsAfter]

I've been giving some thought today about the scarring process involved with the FUE technique in hair transplantation. For instance we are always hearing about the infamous strip scar, and on how FUE avoids this horrible faith. However while it's true that FUE is not a scarless procedure, and that most of us understand this, bar some naive (particularly younger) individuals, wouldn't it also not be the case that

(a) The scaring caused by FUE is equal, if not more scar inducing than FUT/ Strip? The scar tissue is just more dispersed as opposed to concentrated as is the case with FUT.

(b) The scaring caused by FUE could in fact be more unnatural and visually obvious (particularly when tanned, or for naturally tanned or darker skinned individuals) given that thousands of white dots would be present around the donor area when shaved.

(c) In continuation from point b, don't FUT scars actually look less suspicious or odd than FUE scarring? For instance, it's a long linear line and while obvious it could be attributed to any type of surgical procedure, e.g. lobotomy, infill of a scar caused by an assault by a person or dog. Whereas FUE scarring dotted over the entire region could have no comparable causes?

(d) The FUT scar is a lot neater and more localised than the scar tissue caused by FUE which results in thousands of small dots around the perimeter of the head.

(e) FUE scarring will be noticeable anyway if you shave your head.

(f) And lastly, would it not be the case that an FUT scar is actually easier to deal with, given that it's localised in one area as opposed to the dispersed nature of FUE scarring, e.g. it can be infilled with grafts and/ or SMP down the line. Whereas FUE scarring would a lot more difficult, lengthy and costly to fix in the long run?


These are just questions and I don't mean this to be a pro-FUT thread because I'm still open to getting either procedure down the line. However, I thought it would be interesting to raise the above points because FUE is always made to seem like a visually harmless technique, while strip scars get a bad rep.

Not a crime to be pro-FUT. Some men will not wear their hair short and don't care about scarring as long as it's hidden. Someone once made the point... If you're going to shave your head, why get a hair transplant?

There are many variables to think through with both procedures. A few to consider are:

1.) Family history of hair loss
2.) Donor characteristics.
3.) FUE punch size.
4.) How short will you wear your hair?
5.) Skill and experience of the doctor.
6.) Are you prone to hypopigmentation?
7.) Scalp laxity.

Both procedures have their possible downsides:
With FUE it's white dotting or hypopigmentation. Often, even hypopigmented FUE donor extraction sites are not readily visible with a #1 Guard Length: 1/8 inch (3.2 millimeters) even though they become visible on a shaved head.

With strip there is the possibility of a widened scar. Even the thinnest, best strip scar jumps out at you on a shaved head. As a general rule, FUE allows shorter haircuts without any visible scarring.

35YrsAfter also posts as CITNews and works at Dr. Cole's office
Cole Hair Transplant
Atlanta, GA USA
Phone 678-566-1011
The contents of my posts are my opinions and not medical advice

[gillenator]

As long as you go to someone competent who uses a smaller punch size with great yields to support that smaller size, then the extractions heal with very little scarring showing. It also depends on how good of a healer that you are.

In the former days of FUE, many docs trying the isolated extraction technique were using much larger punch sizes then now. Good experienced docs have mastered the smaller punches.

Still, many docs learning FUE today still start out using larger punches and this is one of many reasons why you want to stay with someone that has the competence.