+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 11 to 18 of 18
  1. #11
    Moderator JoeTillman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HTsoon View Post
    I can agree with that Joe it makes sense, I guess Artas is better than an inexperienced surgeon, however, I've had only FUE and every FUE Doctor I've ever consulted with told me that if the Artas was better than them they'd buy 10 machines and be done with it, I still think both Manual punch and SAFE system is the gold standard for FUE. But no doubt like all things user error is usually at fault for poor results.
    And that is the point, HTsoon. It is better than an inexperienced surgeon, which automatically improves the level of care. That alone makes it a viable option for some people and we can only hope those that wield this tool will do so judiciously and ethically. Some of that comes down to the training.

    I think too many times people on the forums get caught up in the "who's the best" debates without realizing that they are talking about a 4 billion dollar industry. Realistically, I think that the vast majority of people that have hair transplant surgery have no idea who we're talking about in these debates and go to their local clinic. Patients will go to these clinics regardless and if they are inexperienced then I think having an ARTAS might help the patient to have a better level of care and better results than if the same inexperienced team tried to do the procedure via Neograft. Maybe it could be looked at being the lesser of two evils.

    Another way to look at this, and this is for the benefit of anyone that reads this, is that if you reverse the scenario the outcome may be far worse. Look at what some "top clinics" use as their tools of choice. It may be the SAFE system. It may be a sharp manual punch. What would be the outcome if an inexperienced clinic used the VERY SAME TOOLS as is used by top clinics? Would the result be the same? Absolutely not. The ARTAS however is updated based on the success to failure ratio of each and every graft that is scored since it first started operating several years ago. This means that a hair transplant doctor, working on his first patient, at least has the experience of over a million extractions baked into the software of the machine so the experience level is immediately and quantifiably higher than had he just picked up his first punch and got to work. THAT is what makes ARTAS potentially a good tool to have on the market.

    There was once a poster I used to get into regular debates with and he had this idea that doctors were obligated to tell their patients about better procedures if they were not offering it themselves. In other words, if a patient walked in to a clinic that used ARTAS and/or motorized punches he thought that it was unethical for them not to tell patients that manual punches are better. This showed me two things.

    1. How naive he was about what doctors feel may or may not be "better". Would it not stand to reason that if a doctor felt another procedure was so much better that would be worth mentioning to their patient that they would logically adopt this procedure into their own practice? In other words, why would a doctor use a procedure KNOWING it is inferior to another procedure? This never made sense to me.

    2. How naive he was about how many hair transplants are performed every day, worldwide, and how few doctors do what he feels is best for the patient. Realistically, he was only trying to steer business to his favourite doctor but even if there were 100 doctors in the same league as his own doctor they would still be pitifully overwhelmed by the sheer volume of patients seeking hair restoration.

    I digress, but in the end, while I personally would not lay down for an ARTAS procedure in it's current iteration, I feel that it has value. The question is, how are clinics being trained to use it? Are they being trained to know about donor depletion? Are they being trained to know what separates a viable graft from a compromised graft? I simply don't know but what I do know is that it is getting better. I'm seeing good results and I'm seeing smaller diameter punches. Mechanically, it can only get better still so the question will, as always, come down to the quality of the hand wielding this controversial tool.
    Joe Tillman
    The original Hair Transplant Mentor

    Interested to know which doctors I recommend?
    See the full list at HairTransplantMentor.com/hair-transplant-doctors

  2. #12
    Senior Member HTsoon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    160

    Default

    I agree, I would rather have Artas than an inexperienced surgeon/team perform extractions on me, however for the benefit of anyone reading, I think it's better to research thoroughly before agreeing to have surgery, there's so many fantastic FUE surgeons that have put in the time to learn the skill of FUE and have a trained team that produce consistent results that mirror FUT surgeons.

  3. #13
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    2

    Default

    It is our firm belief at Arocha Hair Restoration that the latest update to the ARTAS robot is a big improvement. The software is updated based on continuous unit feedback and so each update is a culmination of what has been learned EVERY day that the robot is used worldwide. This latest update is amazing and it is allowing for healthy grafts to be consistently extracted with .9mm punches.

    There are two reasons why a donor would be depleted using an ARTAS.

    1. The punches used were the older punches that had an inner cutting diameter of over 1mm.

    2. The extraction pattern was too tight for the number of grafts removed thus causing a density imbalance.

    In other words, if a patient had a depleted donor it is because the tool was not used properly and not because of the tool itself. This is not exclusive to the ARTAS and can and does happen regularly with manual punches and motorized punches.

  4. #14
    IAHRS Recommended Hair Transplant Surgeon Dr. Lindsey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    McLean, VA
    Posts
    1,185

    Default

    This may have been discussed elsewhere but here it is again.

    FUE is hard. Currently I do not see that mechanisms/robots/gadgets are better than a well trained human hand and human eyes. I do think, unlike some of my associates..., that eventually they will be better. I just don't think it will likely happen in the next 10 years, and I'm likely retiring in 12...so its not really a factor for me, but if say my son were to enter this field...I do think its an issue he will have to deal with.

    BUT I am occasionally wrong on these things..acme hair harvester could come out tomorrow and put everyone out of business, or Johnny's hair clone Inc...I just don't see it in the near future.

    I have talked with 6 artas doctors, and although any reader could say that I'm making this up....I'll tell you I heard the same thing from all 6. "We have to pay the company for each time the machine fires, whether we get a graft or not...and it costs the same for a singles as it does a multi. So we always shoot for multi hair grafts and have a cutter sliver them into the necessary singles. That is the most cost effective."

    Now that could be that I've only talked to 6 greedy guys, or I'm making it up, or its true of a bunch of those folks.

    You can sliver big hand extracted FUE's too...as I've seen personally from a practice less than 30 minutes from my office.

    Again, this thread is not to condemn everyone or a specific technique. Its title is PROCEED with CAUTION. Whether machine, by hand, fue or strip...do your research.

    Dr. Lindsey
    William Lindsey, MD
    Member, International Alliance of Hair Restoration Surgeons
    View my IAHRS Profile

  5. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    130

    Default

    so u see two poor results and now the ARTAS is inferior? lmao..... this is the second thread I've read from you in the last week where you make blanket statements cause uve seen a "Few" patient results and therefore everyone shud avoid it. the first one was concerning BHT which you don't even perform so its comical to hear u say it doesn't work.

    and now I see this thread lol. so u see a couple patients that didn't have great results from ARTAS and now you make a thread on the world wide web that it shud be avoided cause again "YOU" don't use it?
    Last edited by Winston; 02-10-2016 at 01:17 PM. Reason: Please refer to our posting policies and TOS.

  6. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    114

    Default

    The donor area does look depleted to me, I think some of you are being fooled by the low contrast between white hair and pink scalp. But the main issue is that nothing compares to examining somebody in person, which only Dr Lindsay was able to do. If people want to take the position that 2 small photos are better criteria than an in-person examination, then lets have that discussion.

    Also, if donor hair was harvested and didn't grow, that's wasted donor hair. Period. Do people really want to argue that? Because only complete rookies don't understand that wasting donor hair is a cardinal sin in HT. Forget about the politics of the goddamn robot, this patient had grafts taken, and got no yield. That cannot be condoned.

    I really can't believe some of the comments in this thread.

  7. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    341

    Default

    I feel sorry for the guys who could `win` an artas procedure whilst it was in it`s infancy. I think at the time it used a 1.4 mm punch, the donor area must have been devastated.
    ej

  8. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    262

    Exclamation

    Quote Originally Posted by ejj View Post
    I feel sorry for the guys who could `win` an artas procedure whilst it was in it`s infancy. I think at the time it used a 1.4 mm punch, the donor area must have been devastated.
    ej
    Thats what is crazy. Entities would promote this then and even now, (or allow it to be promoted) when it is still in its infancy. Lots of folks had issues with yield and what not. What happens to the harmed folks? And it is going through an upgrade that allows for recipient site creation and etc, its in infancy, dont push it on vulnerable folks. Especially when you had fda recalls on some parts for it and etc. im glad things are being monitored and recorded.

Similar Threads

  1. ARTAS Robot - The Evolution of FUE
    By rbernstein in forum Hair Transplant Results By IAHRS Recommended Surgeons
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-11-2015, 10:07 AM
  2. Suture removal caution by Dr. Lindsey McLean VA
    By Dr. Lindsey in forum Hair Transplant: Start Your Own Topic
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-22-2013, 08:44 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

» IAHRS

hair transplant surgeons

» The Bald Truth

» Recent Threads

Benefits of Resveratrol for hair and health
05-05-2022 01:46 AM
Last Post By felixten
Yesterday 11:59 PM
1800 graft repair case results by Dr. Lindsey
03-27-2024 08:38 AM
Last Post By Dr. Lindsey
03-27-2024 08:38 AM
Navigating the German Job Market as a Kenyan Citizen
11-04-2023 06:31 AM
Last Post By Keegan212
03-27-2024 03:51 AM