- Reaction score
- 556
.
Which Has Better Yield And Graft Survival, Robotic Fue Or Fut?
- Thread starter ManinBlack
- Start date
The question is better stated as who has better graft survival? People can spout off all they want about their technique and impress us with well worded arguments but in the end it all doesn’t mean jack. Show me your result. Show me what you can do and have done along with all the happy customers.
If you want to know who has results then go back and look at history over say the last 10 years or so. It can’t be changed it’s there for all to see. One only needs to take the time to look at it. Who did what and why were they doing it? Anyone can hand you an answer it doesn’t mean much because people tend to lie when it comes to money so the only answer is to look at the history.
The only thing missing from the history are many of the posts on some of the forums where patients complained about doctors. They were removed or archived. If one were actually here reading all those posts in real time a pattern would start to emerge and the pattern is clearly marketing fraud. Much of what you see posted to forums today is by young guys that don’t know much and many are working some kind of angle. The forums become a stage where they can present their act for the potential reader only. The reader might believe they are getting some type of inside information when in reality they are only looking at a giant presentation with very few real players.
If you want to know who has results then go back and look at history over say the last 10 years or so. It can’t be changed it’s there for all to see. One only needs to take the time to look at it. Who did what and why were they doing it? Anyone can hand you an answer it doesn’t mean much because people tend to lie when it comes to money so the only answer is to look at the history.
The only thing missing from the history are many of the posts on some of the forums where patients complained about doctors. They were removed or archived. If one were actually here reading all those posts in real time a pattern would start to emerge and the pattern is clearly marketing fraud. Much of what you see posted to forums today is by young guys that don’t know much and many are working some kind of angle. The forums become a stage where they can present their act for the potential reader only. The reader might believe they are getting some type of inside information when in reality they are only looking at a giant presentation with very few real players.
Last edited:
follicle2001
Established Member
- Reaction score
- 55
I'm sure plenty of people will disagree or go bananas if I say this but I still think that FUT has a higher yield overall. If yield is your primary concern then consider FUT. If the scar is your primary concern then consider FUE.
I agree for the majority of doctors FUT results in higher yield and FUE results in lower yield and for some extremely low yield. History clearly shows this to be true and some of the expert doctors publically state that the yields are low. Odds are for most considering a procedure there would be less risk with FUT unless they are able to find that minority with high yielding FUE which makes FUT a much safer bet for most.
If only a handful of doctosr have been achieving a high yields over the last 10-20 years while many of the rest including marketers and doctors were saying high yield was not possible what does this tell you? It tells you that only a handful of doctors were able to achieve high yield. It can be as simple as reading the history for the last 10-20 years then maybe those that keep asking the same question will start to better understand it.
Not everyone can run a 4 minute mile, not everyone can deadlift 600 lbs, not everyone can dunk a basketball, not everyone can paint a masterpiece, are you starting to get it yet? We do not all possess equal ability. That doesn't prevent others from competing they just don't get to the top.
If only a handful of doctosr have been achieving a high yields over the last 10-20 years while many of the rest including marketers and doctors were saying high yield was not possible what does this tell you? It tells you that only a handful of doctors were able to achieve high yield. It can be as simple as reading the history for the last 10-20 years then maybe those that keep asking the same question will start to better understand it.
Not everyone can run a 4 minute mile, not everyone can deadlift 600 lbs, not everyone can dunk a basketball, not everyone can paint a masterpiece, are you starting to get it yet? We do not all possess equal ability. That doesn't prevent others from competing they just don't get to the top.
Last edited:
- Reaction score
- 15
Dormant grafts? What are those? I thought the only disadvantage of FUT was that it caused a little scarring.
- Reaction score
- 15
I don't think FUE has 94% survival rate. It was somewhere around 70, i think. I read somewhere that FUE can cause depletion of the donor area and many follicles are lost due to transection. Also, I don't think the scar is a pretty big deal. I mean, even if it's bad, it seems like a small price to pay for having hair again. Besides, if you keep your hair long, it won't even be noticeable. It's not like you're going to shave your head every day. I really don't see what all this hate is about.
- Reaction score
- 15
Actually, scarring can still occur with FUE if the punch used is too large, which will leave lots of pockmark scars on your scalp. That's worse than a thin line scar imo.
- Reaction score
- 15
follicle2001
Established Member
- Reaction score
- 55
This is turning into a pissing contest between FUE and FUT boosters.
I do agree that most FUE docs are just not getting a 94% yield. Just not what I see in the real world and online. Sorry.
I also think that FUT scars are, in real life, mostly undetectable. Yes, in most cases you cannot shave your head after FUT but most guys just do not want to do that anyway so they don't care. FUE patients risk a different type of scarring and overharvesting (which can look even worse than an FUT scar and which cannot be corrected), so both surgeries have risks.
For high Norwood patients I still think FUT is a better option-more grafts, better grafts, higher yield.
For low Norwood patients FUE may be a better option.
Both surgeries will be around for a long time going forward.
One sided cheerleading for one surgery over the other is just pointless, lowers the quality of discussion here, and convinces nobody of anything.
I do agree that most FUE docs are just not getting a 94% yield. Just not what I see in the real world and online. Sorry.
I also think that FUT scars are, in real life, mostly undetectable. Yes, in most cases you cannot shave your head after FUT but most guys just do not want to do that anyway so they don't care. FUE patients risk a different type of scarring and overharvesting (which can look even worse than an FUT scar and which cannot be corrected), so both surgeries have risks.
For high Norwood patients I still think FUT is a better option-more grafts, better grafts, higher yield.
For low Norwood patients FUE may be a better option.
Both surgeries will be around for a long time going forward.
One sided cheerleading for one surgery over the other is just pointless, lowers the quality of discussion here, and convinces nobody of anything.
- Reaction score
- 15
Please post your full details on a separate thread. I'm sure everyone will highly appreciate it.