Advantages and disadvantages of the ARTAS Robotic Assisted FUE ?

[markee]

Just wondering whats the pros and cons are ?

[JoeTillman]

The advantages are that it doesn't get tired so there is zero fatigue and that it can be more accurate than a human. Emphasis on the word "can", not "is" as there are subtleties that a pneumatic punch can't pick up on as opposed to a hand held manual or even a motorized punch.

The disadvantages come down to the judgement behind each procedure and that is dictated by the doctor and/or the team operating the robot. The robot is dumb, it can't make decisions other than those that are programmed in regarding dimensions, distances and angles. It can't decide how wide of an extraction zone should be created to prevent overharvesting. It doesn't have the dexterity to go into all areas of the FUE donor zone even with the newest 9X update. It doesn't decide which size punch should be used for each case and in different areas of the donor zone for that same cases. In other words, it's just a tool and as I've always said, a tool is only as good as the hand the wields it. For instance, I've seen some horrible ARTAS results where the donor was depleted and the growth was poor but I've also seen some excellent ARTAS work by doctors that know what they're doing, like Dr. Arocha in Texas. I personally witnessed how an experienced hair transplant doctor like Dr. Arocha can make decisions that prevent a disaster result when using the ARTAS. A lesser doctor would have proceeded unabated on the case I was observing and problems would have been the result.

Don't choose a doctor based on his or her tools. Choose your doctor based on their results.

[JeanlucBergman]

The advantages are that it doesn't get tired so there is zero fatigue and that it can be more accurate than a human. Emphasis on the word "can", not "is" as there are subtleties that a pneumatic punch can't pick up on as opposed to a hand held manual or even a motorized punch.

The disadvantages come down to the judgement behind each procedure and that is dictated by the doctor and/or the team operating the robot. The robot is dumb, it can't make decisions other than those that are programmed in regarding dimensions, distances and angles. It can't decide how wide of an extraction zone should be created to prevent overharvesting. It doesn't have the dexterity to go into all areas of the FUE donor zone even with the newest 9X update. It doesn't decide which size punch should be used for each case and in different areas of the donor zone for that same cases. In other words, it's just a tool and as I've always said, a tool is only as good as the hand the wields it. For instance, I've seen some horrible ARTAS results where the donor was depleted and the growth was poor but I've also seen some excellent ARTAS work by doctors that know what they're doing, like Dr. Arocha in Texas. I personally witnessed how an experienced hair transplant doctor like Dr. Arocha can make decisions that prevent a disaster result when using the ARTAS. A lesser doctor would have proceeded unabated on the case I was observing and problems would have been the result.

Don't choose a doctor based on his or her tools. Choose your doctor based on their results.

In the hands of one skilled in its use, does the ARTAS have the potential to be BETTER or even equal to those skilled with the use of a handheld manual punch? I can't say I've been impressed with the ARTAS results I have seen, and on a cost basis while it might cheapen the procedure for the doctor, it doesn't seem to result in the same cost reduction for the patient.

[JoeTillman]

In the hands of one skilled in its use, does the ARTAS have the potential to be BETTER or even equal to those skilled with the use of a handheld manual punch? I can't say I've been impressed with the ARTAS results I have seen, and on a cost basis while it might cheapen the procedure for the doctor, it doesn't seem to result in the same cost reduction for the patient.

Fair question.

I think that ARTAS, in the hands of a good doctor that was already good with FUE before ARTAS, can be just as good when compared to handheld FUE . I don't see it being better. In fact, the only potential for being better which would involve it's lack of fatigue is irrelevant when you still have to stop the machine to allow for graft extraction and to reposition the patient.

I've seen really good results from Dr. Arocha with the ARTAS and by "really good" I mean that the results were natural looking, the growth seemed to be equal to any other high yield procedure, the donor zone was in great shape, and the patient was happy. Those are the check boxes that matter in the end, nothing else. The cost issue is something else altogether, as any cost is only a cost that the local market will accept and if someone feels they got a result that was worth what they paid, then I'm in no position to criticize.

[Gregory Turowski, MD]

The robot is not dumb! It is actually a very advanced and complicated machine. I have been using it from the beginning (my Chicago based robot was one of the first in the world) and it offers amazing advantages over manual methods. It went through numerous upgrades - like Windows - now it is 10.0 and it is faster and more precise than ever. No human ca harvest over 1000 grafts/per hour and make sites over 3000/per hour avoiding injury to the existing hairs. It is simply impossible for a human eye/hand
I have been very pleased with the results and opened my second clinic in Poland to share this amazing technology with the Europeans. The results is what counts please visit my site robotic-hair-transplant.com to see before and afters. Talk is cheap - results are real! But as in the real world it is not only the machine that counts it is a team work. You will not win Formula 1 race in a Ferrari without an excellent team and a driver

[JoeTillman]

The robot is not dumb! It is actually a very advanced and complicated machine. I have been using it from the beginning (my Chicago based robot was one of the first in the world) and it offers amazing advantages over manual methods. It went through numerous upgrades - like Windows - now it is 10.0 and it is faster and more precise than ever. No human ca harvest over 1000 grafts/per hour and make sites over 3000/per hour avoiding injury to the existing hairs. It is simply impossible for a human eye/hand
I have been very pleased with the results and opened my second clinic in Poland to share this amazing technology with the Europeans. The results is what counts please visit my site robotic-hair-transplant.com to see before and afters. Talk is cheap - results are real! But as in the real world it is not only the machine that counts it is a team work. You will not win Formula 1 race in a Ferrari without an excellent team and a driver

Thanks for your comments, Dr. Turowski. Do you mind sharing your experience using manual methods of hair restoration before you started using ARTAS?

Regarding the "dumb" comment, there is no disagreement in it's complexity and advanced engineering. It really is impressive, but my comment is based on the fact that the machine only makes decisions based on specific parameters that are input by the operator. It does not make judgement calls that dictate whether or not a procedure should move forward when the initial round of test grafts show a 30% transection rate. It will continue to extract at the touch of a button, all controlled by a human, regardless of the damage being done. It does not dictate which punch size will be used and it does not dictate when a patient should have a break. It is a machine, doing it's job, at the discretion and control of a human with no choice on how the procedure moves forward. It is a dumb machine regardless of how fast it may or may not be. In my opinion the smartest machine on Earth, man, knows that in any cosmetic surgery speed isn't really the goal of the patient but lately it seems to be the goal of ARTAS practitioners wishing to generate social media buzz.

[Gregory Turowski, MD]

We still use Neograft machine for hair transplant. It is slower and operator depended. I do not think it has any advantage over ARTAS other than being cheaper to operate. As mentioned above, ARTAS is a great tool as long as it is operated by conscious human. Nothing can be done without skilled and experienced team ARTAS just helps to achieve this goal which is the most natural results

[JoeTillman]

We still use Neograft machine for hair transplant. It is slower and operator depended. I do not think it has any advantage over ARTAS other than being cheaper to operate. As mentioned above, ARTAS is a great tool as long as it is operated by conscious human. Nothing can be done without skilled and experienced team ARTAS just helps to achieve this goal which is the most natural results

And that is the original point of my post, Dr. Turowski. The human element is still essential to the final result and ARTAS is just another tool in the toolbox. The good thing is that with IAHRS doctors like you and others at the helm of any procedure being performed (ARTAS or otherwise) the patient has, in my view, a higher probability of satisfaction.