Tweet
That’s an important article, So is this statement, "Dr. Martin A. Makary, an associate professor of surgery and health policy and management at John Hopkins University and one of the study’s authors, said that, while the future for robotic surgery is promising, there is a gray area when it comes to assessing the difference between doctor and device error. "
Tell me, do we know what percentage of mishaps were caused by human error and what percentage were cause by machine malfunction? Do you know how many people are killed every year in hospitals due to human error?
And how many hair transplant patients are harmed by the hands of unethical or undertrained human hands every year?
Tell me, do we know what percentage of mishaps were caused by human error and what percentage were cause by machine malfunction? Do you know how many people are killed every year in hospitals due to human error?
And how many hair transplant patients are harmed by the hands of unethical or undertrained human hands every year?
You are right. Human error is possible. Depending on what a real patient reveals, such examples are showcased by patients who went to certain docs and revealed the poor outcomes online. This is indeed true for regular surgeries and etc where various tools, machines, and robots are used. Some surgeries are under the shirt or in the bone and etc. however, this form of surgery is cosmetic in nature where perfection and art is key and the area involved is highly visible. One screw up and it is all eyes on you. What if the Artas extraction and buttons go haywire and the machine keeps drilling automatically, it cant even distinguish light colored or blonde hairs, and, indicates uses for darker hair types. How would it extract African American curly hairs or those with different diameters and textures? I mean there is clearly a reason why certain ISHRS clinics publically announced they stopped using it. A car is like this robot, an underexperienced user can drive it, and fatal cosmetic accidents may happen. For me, as a patient, It is hard to see a major plus point utilizing it for my own surgery. There are folks that had extractions done by it, it was revealed on some other forums, that they had low yield. I spoke with few folks who are planning to get hair restoration and they want to make 100% sure it isn't the robot. Aside from that, they also mentioned they'd prefer surgical extractions and incisions done by the doctor and that the doc be only dedicated to them, as the sole patient, on the day of the procedure. Even now, some docs have 2 patients or more per day depending on their teams and surgical protocols. Some docs have more than 2 patients a day and this robot is excellent for docs that would like to save time on extractions, thus, enabling them to do more than the typical surgical FUE procedure they normally do. It speeds up the process, so that i think is a major plus point for them. Team members can utilize it for extractions. In some cases, it acts as a loophole where a tech can use the machine like a surgeon, as legally techs can't do surgical extractions themselves in almost every state.
You got valid points, but again, if machine arm, software, electrical malfunction or anything happens at a clinic where some doc may not know how to do manual FUE as backup or is not as proficient in FUE overall as they relied heavily on this robot, then the patient is at a higher risk. I see a model developing where docs may not be proficient and rely heavily on this machine for fue, and that can be scary. There are docs that go to FUE conventions and learn extraction techniques by hand on patients and there are docs that may rely on this machine. It is like any general plastic surgeon, who may not be a hair expert, will be able to capitalize on this machine, but it may create further risk for a patient with limited donor trying to obtain high level of cosmetic change. You should read some of the debates and concerns presented across forums. It's got a lot of hair loss sufferrers and docs concerned.
Not to take away from the doctor's thread. I think very few docs, who perform FUE, follow Dr. Bhatti's type of surgical protocol. He does his own extractions and incisions and focuses on that one patient at a time. That is ideal trait many patients are looking for when it comes to FUE hair restoration. FUE has come a long way and doctors have perfected their methods. There where days where bigger than 1 mm punches were used, creating dot patterns in the back of the head. Now, docs have learned the art of extraction using smaller punches where applicable.
Dr. Bhatti, do you see presentations and successes with FUE more often? I mean at the events/conferences you might attend? Do surgeons talk about techniques and tools they use and how FUE has changed?
Regardless, the human hand is at this time superior to any machine due to the mind that controls it. This is assuming enough experience has been gained through years of trial and error. 
Comment