Is Fut Still An Option Today Or Not?

shdrs

New Member
So I did a lot of research on hair transplants a few years ago and decided that FUE was the way to go and FUT was an outdated method. I even read topics of people calling it "barbaric".

I finally decided to meet some good doctors for a consultation and I was a little surprised one of them actually strongly recommended doing a FUT operation.

First doctor was Dr. Feriduni. He said that my donor wasn't very great, as my hair is very thin. Because my hairloss is pretty advanced, he suggested going with a higher hairline and 2000 grafts (FUE), possibly adding MHP to fill in the gaps.

Second doctor was Dr. ********. He said the exact same thing about my hair being thin. He actually suggested a combination of both FUT (3000) and FUE (1500), for fuller coverage. His argument was that only doing the FUE would be "doing it half-assed".

From what I gathered in the past, both doctors are very highly praised in the community. I am a little torn on what to do now. Dr. ******** told me the scar would be very minimal, but I'm so brainwashed by what I read on this forum a while ago that I never could see myself doing a FUT.

What do you guys think? Has technology advanced? Does FUT really have advantages that FUE doesn't have? I always thought that FUT was just an easier/more primitive way of doing a transplant?

Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.
 

AnxiousAndy

Senior Member
My Regimen
FUT has a higher graft yield so gives better results, minus the scar.
 

Erkan

New Member
My Regimen
Obviously the main disadvantage of FUT is the scar. However, it's still an option for people who doesn't cut their hair very short or are not qualified for FUE. Like AnxiousAndy wrote before, more hair can be transplanted with FUT as well. So FUT isn't outdated as you may think.
 

SeanFUE

Established Member
My Regimen
FUT is ideal for most hair types. FUE varies for different hair types.

Some surgeons nail it better, some apparently don’t with all hair types.
 

JeanLucBB

Senior Member
My Regimen
So I did a lot of research on hair transplants a few years ago and decided that FUE was the way to go and FUT was an outdated method. I even read topics of people calling it "barbaric".

I finally decided to meet some good doctors for a consultation and I was a little surprised one of them actually strongly recommended doing a FUT operation.

First doctor was Dr. Feriduni. He said that my donor wasn't very great, as my hair is very thin. Because my hairloss is pretty advanced, he suggested going with a higher hairline and 2000 grafts (FUE), possibly adding MHP to fill in the gaps.

Second doctor was Dr. ********. He said the exact same thing about my hair being thin. He actually suggested a combination of both FUT (3000) and FUE (1500), for fuller coverage. His argument was that only doing the FUE would be "doing it half-assed".

From what I gathered in the past, both doctors are very highly praised in the community. I am a little torn on what to do now. Dr. ******** told me the scar would be very minimal, but I'm so brainwashed by what I read on this forum a while ago that I never could see myself doing a FUT.

What do you guys think? Has technology advanced? Does FUT really have advantages that FUE doesn't have? I always thought that FUT was just an easier/more primitive way of doing a transplant?

Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

********'s strip is cheap as hell and his work rivals any of the great US and Canadian FUT surgeons in my opinion. You will probably get a slightly better yield and graft quality from strip, maximise your donor and best of all the cost savings with FUT would be good enough that you could afford a second surgery with a top but extremely cheap FUE surgeon like Erdogan to perfect things.

I'd do the 3000 graft FUT with ********, then get a 3000 graft FUE with Erdogan a few years down the track.
 

Roberto_72

Moderator
Moderator
My Regimen
Obviously the main disadvantage of FUT is the scar. However, it's still an option for people who doesn't cut their hair very short or are not qualified for FUE. Like AnxiousAndy wrote before, more hair can be transplanted with FUT as well. So FUT isn't outdated as you may think.
I can assure you that there will be one day in which you want to buzz your hair and can't.
if FUE had been widely available in 2005, I would have gone for it.
 

WhitePolarBear

Banned
My Regimen
I can assure you that there will be one day in which you want to buzz your hair and can't.
if FUE had been widely available in 2005, I would have gone for it.

"I can't shave my head!"

"I can't go bald!"

"But you don't understand, I just can't go bald!"

Yeah right.

Hard to predict how you will feel about something in the future.

It's like some people who think that they won't care about their looks at the age of 30, or 50, or 70.

Then you have your 88 year old grandfather ask you about teeth whitening and you realize, you never stop caring.

Of course neglecting your looks has less negative consequences on your life once you're in your 60's, but that doesn't mean you'll be OK with suboptimal looks.
 

JeanLucBB

Senior Member
My Regimen
I can assure you that there will be one day in which you want to buzz your hair and can't.
if FUE had been widely available in 2005, I would have gone for it.

High norwood FUE work with broad coverage is always going to lead to visible scarring as well though. Better off just accepting the scarring, choosing the doctor you are happy with and fits your needs then going for SMP if the scarring is a problem later on. FUT scars with SMP and a hundred or so beard grafts are barely noticeable.
 

Kidbako

Established Member
My Regimen
So I did a lot of research on hair transplants a few years ago and decided that FUE was the way to go and FUT was an outdated method. I even read topics of people calling it "barbaric".

I finally decided to meet some good doctors for a consultation and I was a little surprised one of them actually strongly recommended doing a FUT operation.

First doctor was Dr. Feriduni. He said that my donor wasn't very great, as my hair is very thin. Because my hairloss is pretty advanced, he suggested going with a higher hairline and 2000 grafts (FUE), possibly adding MHP to fill in the gaps.

Second doctor was Dr. ********. He said the exact same thing about my hair being thin. He actually suggested a combination of both FUT (3000) and FUE (1500), for fuller coverage. His argument was that only doing the FUE would be "doing it half-assed".

From what I gathered in the past, both doctors are very highly praised in the community. I am a little torn on what to do now. Dr. ******** told me the scar would be very minimal, but I'm so brainwashed by what I read on this forum a while ago that I never could see myself doing a FUT.

What do you guys think? Has technology advanced? Does FUT really have advantages that FUE doesn't have? I always thought that FUT was just an easier/more primitive way of doing a transplant?

Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.
I would ask questions about their suture closure techniques and maybe some pics of the scar left on previous patients.
Or get fut first then fue into scar a few years
Down the road may be an option.
 

Johnmpb

Established Member
My Regimen
I've read (and don't quote me on this) that the maximum yield over the lifetime of several transplants is higher with fut. with fue, the surgeon has to strategically cherry pick follicular units and space out the scarring. From what I understand, the best way to maximize your total grafts for transplants is to get as many fut grafts as possible then go with fue to finish off the supply. Most of the guys with stellar results like joe Tillman and Spex both did several fut then finished off with fue and even some bht.
 

shookwun

Senior Member
It depends realy.


if you go the FUT route then you better be prepared to deal with a long recovery but potentially higher yield in the long run. However, shaving it is not an option unless like FUE you have micro-pigmentation done shortly afterwards. However, the limitations would mean you could not have the hair as short as you would with FUE.

hair transplantation is a big commitment and requires good planning by a competent doctor.


FUE is a great approach, and the recovery process is far more simple in that regards. I believe FUT in the long run will potentially give you 2-4k more grafts, but as aforementioned comes with a longer recovery. it's easy to say this, and that until you actually go under the knife and realise how streneous the whole process of having a transplant, and having a recovery that's psychologically and mentally straining.

Don't be discouraged, AS FUE does run risk of making you look like a thin cue ball on the back when done under the wrong hands. FUE deals with a higher area of harvestation through out the entire head, where as FUT is a small linear scar.
 
Top