I really liked this interview! Dr. Muresanu did an excellent job explaining when and why FUT and FUE are appropriate strategies. With the clinic I went to my first surgery was an FUT of 5000 grafts; the maximum my scalp would allow. The second surgery I had was 2300 FUE. I’m extremely happy with how well this combo worked out. Research is the most important thing anybody can do for themselves. Thanks you for all your hard work Joe!
If you are doomed to be norwood 6 in the long run then you should aim to have a FUT to get as many grafts as possible. I would say 2 to 3 fut strips and then fue is ideal. Gotta secure all the safe donor hair as you can.
I feel like Dr. Muresanu's opinion on this topic is a fact but few doctors like to admit it because unlike Dr. Muresanu they cannot deliver both fantastic FUT and FUE results, so they claim one is superior, based on which technique they are better at.
I know some doctors that are very experienced with FUE truly believe it is superior, and I respect that, and I even agree that some larger cases can be adequately addressed with FUE alone, but the FUT first approach does ring true for me BUT the warning of the donor scar stretching cannot be understated.
@@hairtransplantchannel Hi Joe, do you mean the FUT scar stretching over your lifetime? Or stretching during recovery if you're not careful? If the former, how do you minimise such stretching?
The only counter argument is that doing fut after fue can become problematic since it becomes more difficult to dissect a strip generally the consensus is to start with fut first
Scar aside, i think people are scared off by FUT because it is perceived as a more surgically invasive procedure. The perception that more things can go wrong. Given the choice, most will go FUE even if FUT is more advised.
True. This is always the case but it also has to do with how FUE clinics have portrayed FUT. Even today, I see supposedly reputable FUE only clinics comparing to FUT with photos of donor scars that were from thirty years ago and from unscrupulous clinics. The donor scars you see in the advertisements are nothing like the worst scars from good clinics. It's kind of odd to me that their is even a debate in these ads by comparing to FUT because so few clinics even perform it.
Very accurate point. I got an FUT megasession done in 2016 at the age of 28. I must admit that the first night after surgery it was painful. However I don't regret having a linear 29 cm scar at the back of my head (which I will fix with an FUE body hair transplant). I am unlucky to find myself at the age of 34 with a lower than average density donor. Unfortunately DHT has affected it too. So if I had gone for FUE 6 years ago, I don't even want to imagine how bad and destroyed my donor would look now.
I might have FUT performed by Dr. Aron Nusbaum. I hope I'm making the right decision. I'll need between 1800-2300 grafts to restore the temple regions that have receded 🤞
@@Rh0021 I have no doubt he would have done great work for me. I am flying to Europe next month for the FUE procedure. The extreme reduction in price with a world class surgeon pushed me in that direction.
@@hairtransplantchannelGreat video. If l did understand what Dr Muresanu said, for advanced hairloss it is better to start with fut and then fue ? Am I correct ?
I would also add if you've had big f u e sessions you'll probably still have scarring which won't look that great if you shave your head at least with a strip scar it's much easier to use something like SMP to cover it up if you decide to shave the head
@@vflwob5 okay you might be right on that especially if it's a bad fut scar that would make sense I just thought because the fue scars are so much spread apart it might be difficult
Awesome Joe! I like when clinics evaluate all options on a customised path for patients. I am trying to find an answer on how big the FUT grafts are (in terms of skin chunk diameter) compared to FUE ones. I know FUE ones vary according to the mm punch used. Some FUE clinics claim that the skinnier the graft, the less visible the scarring on the donor will be. I agree with this but on the other hand, it is also true that the graft skin chunk diameter depends on the hair shaft thickness. So 0.7 mm punch may work well on some patients but may be risky for others. So FUE punches range from 0.5 to 1 mm (I may be wrong here but that's thr range I read about). But what's the FUT standard in terms of skin chunk diameter of the graft? I feel it's larger than the FUE 0.7-0.8 mm average.
Hi Simone. You're asking a very good question. The answer is "microscopes". To explain, you have to understand that the reason why microscopes were first introduced into FUT was because of the limitations of using jewellers loupes when dissecting grafts out of strip tissue. The grafts could be seen, sure, but the comprehensive view that proper stereoscopic dissecting microscopes gave was much better, and included a 3D aspect that you cannot get with loupes. This allowed for a much lower transection rate when the "slivers" were reduced to their proper follicular units. But, the grafts could also then be further refined with excess tissue removal in order to make them thinner. This sparked the great debates of the early 2000's of "skinny vs. chubby" grafts, and several informal studies were done by various clinics. The problem is that these clinics had no experience with such graft refinement thus their conclusions were that chubby grafts grew better. In more experienced hands, the results would have been different. What does this have to do with your question? It's the backstory for the facts. The recipient site created to receive a new graft, regardless of whether it is harvested using FUT or FUE, is irrelevant. An FUE graft that can be placed into a .6mm incision is no different than an FUT graft that can be placed into a .6mm incision. The extraction method is irrelevant because with the use of proper microscopes, the graft can be made to fit. Yes, it does also depend on the size of the hair shaft or shafts diameter but this is assuming all things are equal. There is more to it than what I explained but it should be a basic answer before you ask more questions. I hope it helps.
@@hairtransplantchannel hey Joe, this was very helpful, including the backstory on the early 2000 debate. Many thanks for sharing your knowledge. I get it, no difference between FUE and FUT. So I guess for FUT it's all down to how the FUT team processes / dissects the strip. They decide how chubby/skinny the grafts should be before implanting them to the recipient area. The reason why I asked this question is because I cannot not find much info or data on the Donor Domiance vs Recepient Dominace topic. This fascinates me because I fear that a scarred recepient tissue (my strip scar to be camufflaged with FUE grafts) may have a stronger negative influence on a skinny graft compared with a chubby one. Whereas a chubby graft means more protection for the hair as its surrounded by a thicker shield of healthy skin. This could be even more relevant long term, like 3-4 years post surgery once the transplanted graft starts a new anagen phase. If skinny enough, the graft may adjust itself to the new "low quality environment" (scarred tissue with no sebaceous glands, lower blood supply, thinner layer) and therefore regrow thinner as it struggles to thrive like it used to when growing out of healthy tissue. This may also be even more concerning for grafts coming from a donor area which is no longer looking youthful and strong but giving signs of a possible DHT genetic deterioration.
very nice video. I have a question about density. which method works best to maximize the density. I want to lower my hairline and have seen many cases where the transplanted area is not as dense as the existing area.
@@hairtransplantchannel not you promoted other clinics as the best clinics, satya clinic is the best clinic in the world! Dr suhail is the best doctor!
I really liked this interview! Dr. Muresanu did an excellent job explaining when and why FUT and FUE are appropriate strategies. With the clinic I went to my first surgery was an FUT of 5000 grafts; the maximum my scalp would allow. The second surgery I had was 2300 FUE. I’m extremely happy with how well this combo worked out. Research is the most important thing anybody can do for themselves. Thanks you for all your hard work Joe!
Thank you, Tyler, for your support.
If you are doomed to be norwood 6 in the long run then you should aim to have a FUT to get as many grafts as possible.
I would say 2 to 3 fut strips and then fue is ideal. Gotta secure all the safe donor hair as you can.
I feel like Dr. Muresanu's opinion on this topic is a fact but few doctors like to admit it because unlike Dr. Muresanu they cannot deliver both fantastic FUT and FUE results, so they claim one is superior, based on which technique they are better at.
I know some doctors that are very experienced with FUE truly believe it is superior, and I respect that, and I even agree that some larger cases can be adequately addressed with FUE alone, but the FUT first approach does ring true for me BUT the warning of the donor scar stretching cannot be understated.
@@hairtransplantchannel Hi Joe, do you mean the FUT scar stretching over your lifetime? Or stretching during recovery if you're not careful? If the former, how do you minimise such stretching?
You forgot to put The link to his chanel! Great vídeo! Keep the good job! 👏🏻
You're right!!! Fixed. Thank you:)
Hattingen the go-to place in Europe for big strip. Amazed how many grafts they were able to get for me.
Glad you had a good experience.
The only counter argument is that doing fut after fue can become problematic since it becomes more difficult to dissect a strip generally the consensus is to start with fut first
Scar aside, i think people are scared off by FUT because it is perceived as a more surgically invasive procedure. The perception that more things can go wrong. Given the choice, most will go FUE even if FUT is more advised.
True. This is always the case but it also has to do with how FUE clinics have portrayed FUT. Even today, I see supposedly reputable FUE only clinics comparing to FUT with photos of donor scars that were from thirty years ago and from unscrupulous clinics. The donor scars you see in the advertisements are nothing like the worst scars from good clinics. It's kind of odd to me that their is even a debate in these ads by comparing to FUT because so few clinics even perform it.
Very accurate point. I got an FUT megasession done in 2016 at the age of 28. I must admit that the first night after surgery it was painful. However I don't regret having a linear 29 cm scar at the back of my head (which I will fix with an FUE body hair transplant). I am unlucky to find myself at the age of 34 with a lower than average density donor. Unfortunately DHT has affected it too. So if I had gone for FUE 6 years ago, I don't even want to imagine how bad and destroyed my donor would look now.
I might have FUT performed by Dr. Aron Nusbaum. I hope I'm making the right decision. I'll need between 1800-2300 grafts to restore the temple regions that have receded 🤞
Well no surgery is guaranteed but Dr. Nusbaum is incredibly skilled and his work is as natural as it gets.
@@hairtransplantchannel I've also heard good things about Dr. Nader. Have you seen his work? It looks pretty good.
You will be a great care as Dr. Nusbaum did my strip procedure. He specializes in density and preserving the donor area.
@@Rh0021 I have no doubt he would have done great work for me. I am flying to Europe next month for the FUE procedure. The extreme reduction in price with a world class surgeon pushed me in that direction.
@@pherylihy58 Which doctor did you end up going with? Are you happy with the results?
FUE vs FUT?
*Dr Zarev* - “hold my drink”
Funny, but Zarev can't work miracles. If the donor hair isn't there, it isn't there.
@@hairtransplantchannel only joking with you Joe buddy
@@Xvc2345 No, I know. I actually did chuckle:)
@@hairtransplantchannelGreat video. If l did understand what Dr Muresanu said, for advanced hairloss it is better to start with fut and then fue ? Am I correct ?
@@Poupipoupi-bw2bl I believe so, yes.
my crown is fine, but hairline is Norwood 3 I would say. FUE is my preference if i decided on surgery.
I would also add if you've had big f u e sessions you'll probably still have scarring which won't look that great if you shave your head at least with a strip scar it's much easier to use something like SMP to cover it up if you decide to shave the head
fut fan here but flat out wrong. I have talked to multiple smp providers, every single one said that fue is way, way easier to conceal.
@@vflwob5 okay you might be right on that especially if it's a bad fut scar that would make sense I just thought because the fue scars are so much spread apart it might be difficult
Awesome Joe! I like when clinics evaluate all options on a customised path for patients. I am trying to find an answer on how big the FUT grafts are (in terms of skin chunk diameter) compared to FUE ones. I know FUE ones vary according to the mm punch used. Some FUE clinics claim that the skinnier the graft, the less visible the scarring on the donor will be. I agree with this but on the other hand, it is also true that the graft skin chunk diameter depends on the hair shaft thickness. So 0.7 mm punch may work well on some patients but may be risky for others. So FUE punches range from 0.5 to 1 mm (I may be wrong here but that's thr range I read about). But what's the FUT standard in terms of skin chunk diameter of the graft? I feel it's larger than the FUE 0.7-0.8 mm average.
Hi Simone. You're asking a very good question. The answer is "microscopes". To explain, you have to understand that the reason why microscopes were first introduced into FUT was because of the limitations of using jewellers loupes when dissecting grafts out of strip tissue. The grafts could be seen, sure, but the comprehensive view that proper stereoscopic dissecting microscopes gave was much better, and included a 3D aspect that you cannot get with loupes. This allowed for a much lower transection rate when the "slivers" were reduced to their proper follicular units. But, the grafts could also then be further refined with excess tissue removal in order to make them thinner. This sparked the great debates of the early 2000's of "skinny vs. chubby" grafts, and several informal studies were done by various clinics. The problem is that these clinics had no experience with such graft refinement thus their conclusions were that chubby grafts grew better. In more experienced hands, the results would have been different.
What does this have to do with your question? It's the backstory for the facts. The recipient site created to receive a new graft, regardless of whether it is harvested using FUT or FUE, is irrelevant. An FUE graft that can be placed into a .6mm incision is no different than an FUT graft that can be placed into a .6mm incision. The extraction method is irrelevant because with the use of proper microscopes, the graft can be made to fit. Yes, it does also depend on the size of the hair shaft or shafts diameter but this is assuming all things are equal. There is more to it than what I explained but it should be a basic answer before you ask more questions. I hope it helps.
@@hairtransplantchannel hey Joe, this was very helpful, including the backstory on the early 2000 debate. Many thanks for sharing your knowledge. I get it, no difference between FUE and FUT. So I guess for FUT it's all down to how the FUT team processes / dissects the strip. They decide how chubby/skinny the grafts should be before implanting them to the recipient area. The reason why I asked this question is because I cannot not find much info or data on the Donor Domiance vs Recepient Dominace topic. This fascinates me because I fear that a scarred recepient tissue (my strip scar to be camufflaged with FUE grafts) may have a stronger negative influence on a skinny graft compared with a chubby one. Whereas a chubby graft means more protection for the hair as its surrounded by a thicker shield of healthy skin. This could be even more relevant long term, like 3-4 years post surgery once the transplanted graft starts a new anagen phase. If skinny enough, the graft may adjust itself to the new "low quality environment" (scarred tissue with no sebaceous glands, lower blood supply, thinner layer) and therefore regrow thinner as it struggles to thrive like it used to when growing out of healthy tissue. This may also be even more concerning for grafts coming from a donor area which is no longer looking youthful and strong but giving signs of a possible DHT genetic deterioration.
When hair cloning will come to us?😔
Does FUT require more training than FUE ?
Absolutely.
very nice video. I have a question about density. which method works best to maximize the density. I want to lower my hairline and have seen many cases where the transplanted area is not as dense as the existing area.
Good Video
I agree, Dr. Sever does a good job and is quite articulate.
FUE is limited and destroyes donor
How much did he paid you?
A lot.
@@hairtransplantchannel satya clinic in india is the best hair clinic in the world! doctor maked new vidoe.
@@laurafbkliniek4196 sure they are
@@laurafbkliniek4196 There is no such thing as the best clinic in the world. Just the best clinic for you.
@@hairtransplantchannel not you promoted other clinics as the best clinics, satya clinic is the best clinic in the world! Dr suhail is the best doctor!