03-08-2012, 12:29 AM
I am hoping to discuss specific tools and techniques used to implant the harvested FUs. Assuming that all other factors are equal (e.g. extraction, FU treatment in between extraction and implantation, quality and artistry, doctor / tech skill levels, etc.), it seems to me that the process of making the recipient-incision and inserting the FU into it - the technique of actual graft-insertion - is very important – that this is a step which can have a big effect on viability (of both FUs and native follicles), and perhaps even ‘make or break' a good HT surgery. Yet it does not seem to be ‘standard across the board’. Of course each doctor has his/her own preferences for this step, and it is the overall efficacy of the insertion step that is most important for results. All other things being equal, I suspect that the best insertion technique is that which (A) produces the most natural, lasting results, (B) minimizes the percentage of FUs that survive the transplant, and (C) minimizes the percentage of native follicles that are killed. I know that some doctors use a flat-blade to make (straight) incisions, some use a hypodermic needle to make ('C'-shaped) incisions, and others use 'other tools'. I have begun to suspect that a technique that involves actually creating the incision and then ‘shoe-horning’-in the FU (either as the incision is made or as the incision tool is pulled from the incision) might hold inherent advantages over techniques which involve ‘stuffing’ the FU into a ‘slit’ incision with jeweler’s forceps. Thoughts on this? One reason i am looking into this is because I suspect the FU should not be handled by the bulb, meaning, if forceps are used to insert the FU, it must be 'grabbed' with the forceps ABOVE the bulb, making it more difficult to insert (for basic mechanical reasons, largely because the FU is flexible, the bulb is of larger diameter than the shaft, and that bulb must be inserted into an incision which is naturally 'closed' when the scalp skin is relaxed). So I wonder if this is the reason the ‘choi’ tool was developed. Does the choi tool (A) make the implant incision, inserting the FU as it does, and then leave the FU implanted as it is pulled from the scalp? If so, might it not hold inherent advantages, should the tool actually work well, and the doctor actually WANT to use it? I have also been told that improvements have been made on this tool over the last 15 years or so, and that the tool now comes in various 'sizes', e.g. for different sizes of FU implantation, which would seem to be advantageous also. Is it still only available in sizes larger than the newest ‘slit-blades’?