NeoGraft Hair Transplant: Will this New Device Make FUE More Affordable And Safe?

[PayDay]

Great show last night guys. You guys sounded like you were having a blast. Vey informative as usual too! How come TeeJay got to do the show with you guys. I want in.

Paul

[Winston]

The show was very entertaining , I enjoyed listening very much. Hairloss stuff can be so dry when I read about it, but it’s cool to listen to the people in the know talking about it.

I still don’t know however if the Neograft is a good thing or a bad thing. Spencer seems to be on the fence about it and Dr. Law said it had some value, but Dr. Feller makes it out like it’s worthless. What’s the answer?

[TeeJay73]

I'll throw in my 2-cents as a pure layman and as a happy hair transplant patient (strip method). I even had a chance to say this on the show last nite. (Thanks Spencer, you're THE MAN!).

If I am going to undergo cosmetic surgery (and I have), then I am going to do as much research and due diligence beforehand as possible. When I put all of the information that I have learned regarding the strip method next to all of the information that I have learned regarding FUE (regardless of how the FUE is performed, machine, or no machine), I conclude that the strip method has a substantially greater knowledge base attached to it and is significantly more time-tested, trusted, and "doctor approved". I also conclude that the strip method produces consistently, very well-known high yield rates (meaning that the % of transplated grafts that grow in their new area is 90% or more). The FUE method, on the other hand, and again based on what I have read and learned, seems to produce very sporadic yield rates, sometimes as low as 50%.

The mere fact that "yield" is a focus point in HTs means that when a patient undergoes an HT, he/she is actually reducing the total # of hairs on his head. He/she is simply creating the illusion of a fuller head of hair thru the cosmetic redistribution of hairs across the head. If I am going to pay my money to reduce the total # of hairs on my head, then I am going to go with the method that offers the best possible guarantee of the minimization of this reduction, and the strip method seems to be the clear winner. I'm too conservative and I'd be too nervous to undergo FUE of any type, not knowing what % of my precious grafts were going to survive the surgery. And I'd be on "pins & needles" for the 6 months or so that are needed to get some idea of the HT results. So, as a pure layman, FUE isn't something I'd even consider, irrespective of how the grafts are extracted (machine, or no machine).

I say this, and at the same time have complete and total admiration for Dr. Bauman. If I lived in Florida, there is not a doubt in my mind that I'd choose him to be my physician. His results are incredible and I love the fact that he is so leading-edge in his practice, using the latest tools and technologies in an effort to make patients happy and advance the surgical HT field. I like to be leading-edge in my own work, too, using the latest tools and technologies, even if they aren't time-tested yet, or accepted entirely by my peers and colleagues.

I guess the dividing line here is this: as a doctor, charging ahead with new tools and technologies, as well as challenging them, ultimately benefits HT patients, even if it may not seem so at the immediate moment, and it certainly endears me (and probably other patients) to the doctors that use and/or challenge these new tools and technologies. But as a patient that is altering his physical appearance (quite expensively, too!) and undergoing the risks of surgery, I am just not interested in the additional risk that FUE seems to come with, no matter how it is performed, even if that means the strip method is slightly more invasive and produces a linear scar, both of which in my opinion (as a veteran HT patient) are no big deal.

TeeJay