1st timer for hair transplant...strip or FUE?

cheddar66

New Member
Reaction score
0
Hi guys
Sorry if this has been asked before. Im going to try an hair transplant and was wondering what most of you would prefer?
I never went on any meds ever and am in my late 30s.
My temples are receding a bit but the surgery would be mostly for the top of my head where my hair is thinning.
I was told I could do an hair transplant without taking meds before.
Would you opt for strip or FUE? I noticed the strip is quite cheaper also.
Just wondering the pros and cons.
Thanks in advance!!
 

Stephen788

Established Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
98
At the end of the day it's your choice and yours alone just remember that. I've have just have an FUE procedure and signed up to this site to post my results as they happen. I have done a lot of research maybe to much but I can conclude that although FUE is double the price it is 100% the right option. FUT is an outdated procedure, it maybe cheap but there is a reason for it. If you have FUT you will obviously be left with a massive scar but you'll also be in a lot of discomfort after the procedure. your scar maybe hidden with long hair but what if you want to shave it in the future? With FUE you can have an unshaven option or a shaven option. The benefits to this is that your whole head will be the same length and after 10 days all the blood and scabs will have disappeared making it impossible to detect a transplant happened. With fut your sides of your head are going to be longer to hide the scar and your top will be bald which means you will look odd for a few months.
 

cheddar66

New Member
Reaction score
0
At the end of the day it's your choice and yours alone just remember that. I've have just have an FUE procedure and signed up to this site to post my results as they happen. I have done a lot of research maybe to much but I can conclude that although FUE is double the price it is 100% the right option. FUT is an outdated procedure, it maybe cheap but there is a reason for it. If you have FUT you will obviously be left with a massive scar but you'll also be in a lot of discomfort after the procedure. your scar maybe hidden with long hair but what if you want to shave it in the future? With FUE you can have an unshaven option or a shaven option. The benefits to this is that your whole head will be the same length and after 10 days all the blood and scabs will have disappeared making it impossible to detect a transplant happened. With fut your sides of your head are going to be longer to hide the scar and your top will be bald which means you will look odd for a few months.

Thanks for your advice
My hair has always been relatively long. I dont like crew cuts so much. Also Im not bald on top or anything. I have fair coverage. After the FUT wouldnt new hair just be added to the existing hair making it look thicker except with many blood scabs? They dont shave the top or anything correct?
Thanks!
 

cheddar66

New Member
Reaction score
0
In 2015, it's really a no-brainer, you should go for FUE.

Yeah I know..but money is an issue for me. I know it shouldnt be an issue when it comes to hair but I must consider cheaper options if I cant afford fue

- - - Updated - - -

Also I visited a few clinics and got some good info. One point that a FUT doctor pointed out is that at some other clinics here in korea and what I also noticed is..the FUE staff are fairly young and I was told that the surgeon performs many slits while the assistants insert the hair etc. compared to FUT where the doctor does the actual insertion of the hair totally by himself. Of course he will speak highly of his method but is this a factor?
Korea has many pretty assistants haha and Im sure they are educated but experience does play a role.
Thanks
 

Lollerme

Banned
Reaction score
4
Everyone will speak highly about their preferred method and talk down the other one.

Why have you never taken any meds before? It's pretty dumb to do an hair transplant without doing the big 3 for at least a year.... For all you know you could be a good responder and maintain it for the rest of your life by only taking a pill each day!

My honest opinion is that a hair transplant should be your last way out if nothing else has worked before:
FUT if your hair is longer and you will not shave your hair, better yield and more grafts
FUE if you know you will continue losing it or plan on wearing your hair short

It all depends on the surgeon on how good results you will get, there's butchers in both camps.

Don't expect a miracle though, it will only be half as dense as your normal hair as there's simply not enough hair in your donor area!
 

cheddar66

New Member
Reaction score
0
For the 100th time, this is not true anymore in 2015.

I was listening to "The Bald Truth" a week ago and Joe Tillman who is an absolute reference in hair transplantation said there was no difference of yield between FUE and FUT anymore.

He said maybe there will be a 94% yield of the FUT and a 92% yield for the FUE, how can people lose sleep about that and argue on the forums about such small differences of yield?

FUT has no reason to be anymore. I know you're short on money but I will give you an important piece of advice no: you don't save money on something as crucial as a hair transplant.

If you have to pay 10000€ to be sure to get a state-of-the-art result, you should pay that amount. If you have to travel to Turkey or Belgium to get it done, you do that.

A failed hair transplant can ruin your appearance forever. Don't underestimate the importance of a surgery, don't treat this lightly. You could regret it for the rest of your life.

Thanks for the info!!!
But wouldnt the surgery be a one and done thing?? Even with or without medicine?
 

shookwun

Senior Member
Reaction score
6,295
Obviously FUE if you have the money


FUT is for those who a) cannot afford FUE b) Need more then 4000 grafts. In this case FUT is more optimal.


FUE is almost twice as expensive as FUT. Be prepared to have shock loss around the ears, and general scar area once you have FUT.
 

cheddar66

New Member
Reaction score
0
Obviously FUE if you have the money


FUT is for those who a) cannot afford FUE b) Need more then 4000 grafts. In this case FUT is more optimal.


FUE is almost twice as expensive as FUT. Be prepared to have shock loss around the ears, and general scar area once you have FUT.

Thx for the info!
Sorry do you mean loss around where the strip would be taken from?
 

Lollerme

Banned
Reaction score
4
He said maybe there will be a 94% yield of the FUT and a 92% yield for the FUE, how can people lose sleep about that and argue on the forums about such small differences of yield?
Isn't 94 % better than 92 %? You can glorify FUE all you want, fact is that both has its pros and cons
 

shookwun

Senior Member
Reaction score
6,295
yeah bro, you will have shock loss around the strip, and along the ears. It'll grow back within three-four months.



strip sucks, you'll have a lot of downtime, and it's hard to disguise the fact that you had something done. luckily for me I was in the process of switching jobs, and had a few months off to heal.


Overall strip sucks... but that's the price you got to pay if you cant afford FUE. it's literally half the price. I was quoted for 2000 grafts fue around 16000-16900, FUT at 9800. Around 4.50 for fut and between 8.15-8.45 USD for FUE with RAHAL.
 

Meridian1000

New Member
Reaction score
0
Enough of this misinformation. Strip certainly has it's merits, say for instance if you actually want your transplanted hair to grow. This may seem like sarcastic hyperbole, but having had an FUE from a top clinic and experiencing itching, dumbness, and a moth eaten donor area even after 9 months, this is not the scar-less procedure many on here would have you believe.

I'm not saying FUE does have it's merits either, but it's not 90% growth rate by any stretch and I wish I had strip done. I'd take a well performed scar over the coin sized bald spots in the back of my head. Though we never know how a scar will heal, Strip is still the safer option and far from outdated. The notion of stabbing the back of someones head hoping you don't transect a follicle is outdated, especially if a technician is performing the extractions. Really do your own research and talk to patients who have had large FUE sessions to see how happy they are. You may be surprised by the different perspective compared to the mass FUE marketing surge on these forums.
 

follicle2001

Established Member
Reaction score
54
I am astonished at how some people come to these boards and pretend to act as if they are the be-all and end-all of advice to some poster who just asked for information.

FUE and FUT each have merits and problems. Boards like these tend to accumulate people who have strong feelings about one or the other. Many people here have had FUT or FUE and cheerlead for what they had, at least in part, to validate their own decisions. Trashing a surgery does not help anything and discourages meaningful discussion.

Here is a less biased, and possibly more fair presentation of FUT versus FUE:

FUT may be a better choice for older men and men with more advanced loss and people who do not want to shave their head. Many people do not want to shave their head, and most older men do not want a super short cut as is currently popular with young men. Some people who have FUT have a noticeable scar, but the vast majority do not.

FUE may be a better choice for younger men, people with earlier hair loss, and people who want super short cuts. Some people who have FUE have a moth-eaten appearance in their donor afterward or get over harvested, but the vast majority do not.

Most FUE and FUT scars are very hard to detect if the surgery is done by an experienced operator and the person is a good candidate.

Many people will get FUT AND FUE over the course of their lifetime depending on what they want at different points in their restoration.

FUT and FUE are both going to be around for a long time.

Pick what is best for you and you will be happy.
 

arfy

Established Member
Reaction score
17
Just because somebody does FUE doesn't mean they're good at it. "Top doctor" is arguable and often in the eye of the beholder. Doctors can easily build up an undeserved good reputation, by only posting their best result photos. That might not be the typical outcome though, but guys start recommending him based on photos, and not actual experience.

Personally, I would not choose to undergo a strip surgery, knowing what the process is (a strip of scalp is cut away, and the gap is stitched up. The strip of scalp is dissected into grafts.) FUE surgery seems less stressful, and if things go wrong, it's not as bad as when strip surgery goes wrong.
 

BaldingMan

Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
8
Hi guys newbie here, I have been set on getting a FUT for about a year now, as I never have my hair short and like mentioned it's cheaper. This is a very interesting thread to read. Like someone mentioned I thought a hair transplant was perminant without mess
 

follicle2001

Established Member
Reaction score
54
Also, worth noting that the short haircuts that are currently popular are VERY short. Most FUT pts can have their hair cut to about 1/2 inch and not have the scar visible. Still pretty short overall.
 

Pequod

Experienced Member
Reaction score
100
I am not sure what people are talking about when it comes to yield and FUT vs FUE. If we are only talking one session then the yield with FUE is nearly 100% unless they screw up some extractions, but with FUT there are the dormant follicles that I don't think get placed so it is probably around 88% because you have that waste.

If you look at multiple procedures then that may be where FUT has a higher total number of grafts so the yield may be higher in theory, but this could also be subjective so it would not be easy to prove.

If you look at survivability of grafts I think FUT has a higher success rate, and this is much more important than yield. It doesn't matter how the yield is if the grafts never grow. For someone having an FUE I would focus more on this.

I would consider having a small FUE done first to see how they do before committing to a megga session to make sure it comes out well. The problem is a small FUE doesn't do a lot, so this is why people take the risk and go all the way.
 

Roberto_72

Moderator
Moderator
My Regimen
Reaction score
4,538
I am not sure what people are talking about when it comes to yield and FUT vs FUE. If we are only talking one session then the yield with FUE is nearly 100% unless they screw up some extractions, but with FUT there are the dormant follicles that I don't think get placed so it is probably around 88% because you have that waste.

If you look at multiple procedures then that may be where FUT has a higher total number of grafts so the yield may be higher in theory, but this could also be subjective so it would not be easy to prove.

If you look at survivability of grafts I think FUT has a higher success rate, and this is much more important than yield. It doesn't matter how the yield is if the grafts never grow. For someone having an FUE I would focus more on this.

I would consider having a small FUE done first to see how they do before committing to a megga session to make sure it comes out well. The problem is a small FUE doesn't do a lot, so this is why people take the risk and go all the way.

I have had strip done. If I could go back, I would not do it again, I would do FUE because I wish I could buzz hair every now and then.
 

Rocknroutlaw

Established Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
115
Just another personal perspective...
I am taking the cost comparison out of the equation, as I have enough means for either options.
I am currently a NW3 to NW3v (slightly improved from a definite NW3v with medication).
I am a long hair with long fringe and layers kind of guy (think Jon Bon Jovi in late 80's or Farrah Fawcett). I hate the idea of having short lengths, particularly if I had to shave it all for FUE. I am aware that some offer shaving donor area only, but it does make the extraction slightly more difficult. Surgeons tend to advise against a partial shave for FUE, and I know Dr. ******** would simply not do it without a full shave.
If I was to go down the FUE route, the length that I feel comfortable wearing would take literally three years to grow from a complete shave, and will take lots of styling cuts in various stages to reach.
However, with FUT the only 'empty' areas will be the strip across the back/sides and recipient area (temple only, which is suffering from diffused hair loss). To restore the style and length which I am comfortable wearing should take roughly 9-12 months including shedding. I am well aware that the appearance after FUT transplant will be rather odd, and I am prepared to go through that phase. Scarring is no issue to me, as I intend to always wear it long. With the laxity of 1.4cm, it would allow extracting 3000-3500 grafts, so it is likely that a reasonably non-balding hairline as well as realistically-expected thickness can be achieved.
I have so far been advised against transplanting the crown/vertex, as the thinning does not appear overly severe and shock loss is always a risk. Pending on the response to Finasteride/minoxidil/dermarolling, further assessment will be made on it. If crown needs doing later, FUE is still an option to address it.
There are conflicting opinions on whether FUT has a higher yield (some surgeons still believe so).... but certainly it should never yield lower than FUE.

With the above considered, I conclude FUT as the preference for someone such as myself.
However, I do concede that if you intend to have the standard traditional men hairstyle with short back and sides, FUE would most likely be preferable.
 
Top