Artas Robotic Fue Hair Transplant - Before And After Photos

[Bernstein Medical]

Bernstein Medical - Center for Hair Restoration Patient KZK was a thinning Norwood Class 3 before his hair transplant with medium thickness, slightly wavy, brown hair with a donor density of 2.2 hairs/mm2. He had one hair restoration session of 1,429 grafts. His “after” photos were taken one year following his hair transplant.


Overview:

Before / After:

Before Hair Transplant

After One Hair Transplant



Detail of Hairline:

Before Transplant

Position of Hairline

Placement of Grafts

Result After 1st Session


Top View:

Steps in hairline design and recipient site creation.

Before Hair Transplant

Position of Hairline

Placement of 1,429 Grafts

Results After 1 Year


Donor Area:

Donor harvest using the ARTAS Robotic System.

Donor Site Immediately Post-op

Donor Area 1 Year Post-op


See patients with similar characteristics in the Bernstein Medical photo galleries:

• Norwood Class: 3
• Surgical Sessions: 1 Session
• Hair Character: Brown, Slightly Wavy
• Hair Weight: Medium
• Donor Density: 2.2 hairs/mm2

Additional Resources:

• View Patient KZK's photo profile at Bernstein Medical
• Visit our comprehensive overview of the ARTAS Robotic System
• Visit our Hair Transplant Photos galleries or browse our patients by their Norwood Class
• Interested in a consultation? Click here to schedule a consult or here to read about our consultations
• New to hair restoration? Read our comprehensive guide to Hair Transplant surgery or our Hair Transplant FAQ
• Visit the Bernstein Medical YouTube channel

 

[razzmatazz91]

Looks Like a very good result. Not that it's possible to judge from a few pictures, but doesn't the partition there require more grafts?

I've heard that ARTAS is able to leave minimal scarring, and the dots seem quite small. Will this patient still be able to shave his head without looking unnatural?

 

[Bernstein Medical]

Looks Like a very good result. Not that it's possible to judge from a few pictures, but doesn't the partition there require more grafts?

I've heard that ARTAS is able to leave minimal scarring, and the dots seem quite small. Will this patient still be able to shave his head without looking unnatural?

Yes, if the patient wanted a more dominant frontal forelock than more grafts would have been required.

The ARTAS Robot leaves tiny dot scars that are visible if the patient shaves his head.

 

[IdealForehead]

Have there been any recent technological advances with ARTAS? I can appreciate the theoretical benefit of ARTAS, but when I looked at the technology some years ago, the conventional opinion among hair surgeons was it leads to too many transections compared to manual punching and although it was faster it was thus suboptimal.

Are there any studies that can demonstrate a superior yield or outcome from ARTAS? What has been the experience of your doctors using this technology? Has it changed over time?

Thanks.

 

[Bernstein Medical]

Have there been any recent technological advances with ARTAS? I can appreciate the theoretical benefit of ARTAS, but when I looked at the technology some years ago, the conventional opinion among hair surgeons was it leads to too many transections compared to manual punching and although it was faster it was thus suboptimal.

The ARTAS System has changed quite a bit since its introduction in 2011 and Restoration Robotics is constantly seeking to improve its performance, add functionality and enhance comfort for patients. I am a medical advisor to the company and collaborate with Restoration Robotics’ engineers on the latest modifications. Earlier this year, Dr. Michael Wolfeld and I published “What’s New in Robotic Hair Transplantation” in Hair Transplant Forum International outlining the latest updates to the robotic system, the ARTAS 9x.

Are there any studies that can demonstrate a superior yield or outcome from ARTAS?

Avram and Watkins published a study in 2014 which found that transection rates using the ARTAS Robot compare favorably to manual FUE procedures. In his study, Avram used the ARTAS 5x version of the robot and found the average transection rate of robotic procedures to be 6.6%. Since 2014, there have been 4 major upgrades to the robot leading up to the most recent one, the ARTAS 9x. With each upgrade, the speed of the system improves and the transection rate goes down.

What has been the experience of your doctors using this technology? Has it changed over time?

Bernstein Medical was one of the earliest adopters of the robotic hair transplant technology in 2011 and our practice has been a beta-test site for advances to the robot’s hardware and software ever since. We perform all of our FUE procedures with the ARTAS robot, and both Dr. Wolfeld and I find it to be consistently superior to hand-held devices.

 

[IdealForehead]

The ARTAS System has changed quite a bit since its introduction in 2011 and Restoration Robotics is constantly seeking to improve its performance, add functionality and enhance comfort for patients. I am a medical advisor to the company and collaborate with Restoration Robotics’ engineers on the latest modifications. Earlier this year, Dr. Michael Wolfeld and I published “What’s New in Robotic Hair Transplantation” in Hair Transplant Forum International outlining the latest updates to the robotic system, the ARTAS 9x.




Avram and Watkins published a study in 2014 which found that transection rates using the ARTAS Robot compare favorably to manual FUE procedures. In his study, Avram used the ARTAS 5x version of the robot and found the average transection rate of robotic procedures to be 6.6%. Since 2014, there have been 4 major upgrades to the robot leading up to the most recent one, the ARTAS 9x. With each upgrade, the speed of the system improves and the transection rate goes down.



Bernstein Medical was one of the earliest adopters of the robotic hair transplant technology in 2011 and our practice has been a beta-test site for advances to the robot’s hardware and software ever since. We perform all of our FUE procedures with the ARTAS robot, and both Dr. Wolfeld and I find it to be consistently superior to hand-held devices.

Thanks for the reply.

I have watched the video on ARTAS harvesting and it looks like similarly good technology.

I am wondering, if while we are talking, you might be willing to comment on maximum transplant density in recipient sites, and whether this technology in any way changes your targets with this.

Let's say, hypothetically, you had a patient with a mild balding pattern (eg. NW2), high overall density, and complete arrestation of further hair loss on medications. Let's say they wanted as close to a full restoration of their hairline as possible. Let's presume there is no concern about future balding, and donor hair can be used essentially without limitation for such a small procedure.

It is my understanding that in general, whether transplanting into a thin area to "thicken it up", or into a completely bald area, a limit of around 50-60 units/cm2 final total density is generally considered by many surgeons to be "safe".

What do you believe to be the maximum safe density in cases where maximum hair density is desired? What has been your experience with high density transplantation? Does using ARTAS in any way change your perspective on maximum safe densities?

Thanks again.

 

[Bernstein Medical]

Thanks for the reply. I presume this is Dr. Bernstein? Very good to have you on the forum if so.

I have sat in on robotic assisted prostatectomies & hysterectomies (Da Vinci) so I understand in principle the benefits a robotic device provides. In particular, I understand the benefits of working from a magnified stereoscopic viewpoint as well as the benefits of greater stability a robotic hand can provide over a human one.

I have watched the video on ARTAS harvesting and it looks like similarly good technology.

I am wondering, if while we are talking, you might be willing to comment on maximum transplant density in recipient sites, and whether this technology in any way changes your targets with this.

Let's say, hypothetically, you had a patient with a mild balding pattern (eg. NW2), high overall density, and complete arrestation of further hair loss on medications. Let's say they wanted as close to a full restoration of their hairline as possible. Let's presume there is no concern about future balding, and donor hair can be used essentially without limitation for such a small procedure.

It is my understanding that in general, whether transplanting into a thin area to "thicken it up", or into a completely bald area, a limit of around 50-60 units/cm2 final total density is generally considered by many surgeons to be "safe".

What do you believe to be the maximum safe density in cases where maximum hair density is desired? What has been your experience with high density transplantation? Does using ARTAS in any way change your perspective on maximum safe densities?

Thanks again.

If you don’t mind, I would like to comment on your questions as well as try to answer them.


In general, I do not recommend a hair transplant in a NW2 person since “complete arrestation of further hair loss on medication” is usually not possible and, if it were, it would not be known in advance.


The density limit is not based on safety, but on supply and demand. It is felt that one needs to lose over 50% of one’s hair volume for thinning to be noticeable. Given this, no more than 50% should be restored.


The average person’s FU density is about 80-85 FU/cm2 (not 100 as was previously thought) which gives a goal of about 42 FU/cm2. That said, for most people their supply/demand constraints make this achievable in only limited areas i.e. the forelock area. The math cannot work for large areas in a person that will someday be a NW6 or greater (which is a risk of most people who are balding at a young age (and there are generally the patients that want the flat hairline you describe).


FUE can increase the donor supply over just using FUT. It is not clear whether FUT or FUE yields more hair, as this will vary from patient to patient and will depend on grooming (hair length). For example; FUT will yield more hair in a person with a narrow dense fringe and loose scalp and FUE will yield more hair in someone with a tight scalp and very broad donor area. FUT will generally yield more in a patient who wears his hair long and FUE in some who wears his hair short. Other than the ARTAS being a very precise way of performing FUE, it doesn’t change the math per se.