Pilofocus was always going to be a cost-benefit challenge to traditional FUE techniques. Taking individual follicles from underneath the scalp would be a preferable method over harvesting from outside the scalp as, when done properly, it leaves no visible punctuate scarring. However, the lack of hair in the areas where the follicle was removed, even from underneath, would be obvious the more you harvest, just like with FUE.
Unfortunately, the time it takes to harvest follicles from beneath the scalp compared to the time it takes to harvest the same number of follicles above the scalp is just not worth it financially. Pilofocus is far more labour-intensive, even with refined instrumentation, hours and hours of experience and good hands. It would require multiple sessions to harvest the same number of follicles a decently-skilled FUE hair restoration surgeon could do in only one session. If the binary option were between FUT and Pilofocus, there would be a market for those who don't want to have the strip scar. But as FUE becomes more widely available, instrumentation becomes more refined (such as smaller punch tools) and even robotics plays a part, it is harden to envision a future where Pilofocus is a mainstay option.
Having said that, the recent study showing the use of surgical microfilaments placed beneath the scalp as a way to induce growth factors and restore, in part, thinning follicles, Pilofocus may find a new life as the means by which these sutures can be placed with greater accuracy.
12-17-2017 09:30 PM
bagger
Quote:
Originally Posted by kirklandism
Pilofocus was always going to be a cost-benefit challenge to traditional FUE techniques. Taking individual follicles from underneath the scalp would be a preferable method over harvesting from outside the scalp as, when done properly, it leaves no visible punctuate scarring. However, the lack of hair in the areas where the follicle was removed, even from underneath, would be obvious the more you harvest, just like with FUE.
Unfortunately, the time it takes to harvest follicles from beneath the scalp compared to the time it takes to harvest the same number of follicles above the scalp is just not worth it financially. Pilofocus is far more labour-intensive, even with refined instrumentation, hours and hours of experience and good hands. It would require multiple sessions to harvest the same number of follicles a decently-skilled FUE hair restoration surgeon could do in only one session. If the binary option were between FUT and Pilofocus, there would be a market for those who don't want to have the strip scar. But as FUE becomes more widely available, instrumentation becomes more refined (such as smaller punch tools) and even robotics plays a part, it is harden to envision a future where Pilofocus is a mainstay option.
Having said that, the recent study showing the use of surgical microfilaments placed beneath the scalp as a way to induce growth factors and restore, in part, thinning follicles, Pilofocus may find a new life as the means by which these sutures can be placed with greater accuracy.
Could you please elaborate or direct me to a link discussing this topic. I am a diffuse thinner so I am very interested in this. Thank you.
