Posts

Greetings,

Here is another one of our FUE hair transplant patients showing his result approximately 1 year after his procedure. As you can see the results are very natural. Something that I try to convey to prospective patients is the fact that not all hair transplants are not created equal. This is living art, and as such every artist will create a different hairline, with different densities of hair, different angles and orientations of the transplanted hair, etc. There are so many variables that make the difference between an excellent result, versus a decent result, versus a bad result. There are also many variables in the donor harvesting that can diminish or ruin the donor zone for the future, versus preserving as much donor hair as possible for future procedures and taking out only the grafts necessary for the current situation. Many clinics don’t expect the ever see the patient again and take most or all of their donor hair in a single procedure. This is extremely shortsighted as hair loss is a continuing process and its very important to evaluate any prospective hair transplant patient not just what they look like today, but to predict their endpoint of hairloss to the best of our ability and then determine how many grafts will be required over time to address current loss, and also keep up with continuing loss. This is why I perform every hair transplant consultation personally and don’t have “consultants” performing these on my behalf. I want every patient to be evaluated by myself  and to hear realistic expectations for the  short term and long term from me personally. I also want the opportunity to examine the patient and get their hair loss history so that I can have a good idea about future loss as well. This is also why I personally extract every hair follicle from the donor zone as well, while many other doctors delegate this to technicians. This is a crucial step both in getting intact follicular units for a successful hair transplant, while also preserving as much of the donor zone as possible for future procedures. Before choosing your hair transplant surgeon/ artist, make sure you have seen many hundreds of before and after photos by that surgeon that look aesthetically pleasing to you. Also make sure your surgeon is seeing you in the consultation and performing the harvesting of the hair personally. Finally, make sure your surgeon has a singular focus in hair restoration and doesn’t have a menu with many different cosmetic procedures and hair is just one item on the menu. There is a reason why specialists do nothing else but hair restoration, and to be great at something is to do that same thing many times over.

Marc Dauer, M.D.

hair transplant result

This is a FUE hair transplant result by Dr. Marc Dauer

FUE hair transplant

This is a FUE hair transplant result by Dr. Marc Dauer

FUE hair transplant

This is a FUE hair transplant result by Dr. Marc Dauer

hair transplant

This is a FUE hair transplant result by Dr. Marc Dauer

Greetings,

Here is a patient of mine who is a norwood 6 (severe for of hair loss) with very fine straight hair. As I have previously discussed fine straight hair will give a completely different amount of cosmetic density in comparison to coarse curly hair (which is the best and most ideal for greatest cosmetic density).

The patient was looking to frame his hairline with hair and create as much density as possible over the frontal and mid scalp, while having FUE to preserve the option to cut the hair on the sides and back very short and avoid a linear scar.

His results are shown below after 2 procedures and a total of 2663 grafts. We are going to do an additional procedure to increase the density, but there is already a huge difference between the pre op photos and the current photos.

It can be described as turning him from someone who is perceived as bald, to someone who is perceived as having a thinning receding hairline, which is a big difference in look and perception.

All the best,

Marc Dauer, M.D.

FUE hair transplant photo in a norwood 6 patient

FUE hair transplant photo in a norwood 6 patient

FUE hair transplant photo in a norwood 6 patient

FUE hair transplant photo in a norwood 6 patient

FUE hair transplant photo in a norwood 6 patient

FUE hair transplant photo in a norwood 6 patient

FUE hair transplant photo in a norwood 6 patient

FUE hair transplant photo in a norwood 6 patient

Greetings,

As more and more physicians purchase the ARTAS robotic machine for automated FUE there seems to be much more information and misinformation regarding the benefits of FUE and specifically of the ARTAS machine performing the extractions. I am a self described “tech geek” and “gadget fanatic”. This is why when the robot was initially introduced I was very intrigued and wanted to immediately investigate it as it seemed like a perfect fit for my personality. What I found was grafts that did not looks as good as my manual FUE grafts and scars in the donor region that were significantly larger than my hand held FUE scars. It was so dramatic that I decided not to purchase the machine.

Regarding the scarring from the ARTAS FUE, most of the reasons for undergoing FUE in the first place is the elimination of the linear scar and the ability to cut the hair very short without any scarring evident. What I saw from the ARTAS was “moth-eaten” donor regions after a single procedure (see photos below) thus negating the possibility to even shave the hair short! In addition this moth eaten donor area after a single procedure would also preclude the patients from harvesting additional grafts from the same area, which is also a huge negative, as almost all people continue to need additional grafts over time as hair loss progresses with age.

What the ARTAS does provide to physicians who purchase it is the marketing “wow” factor of having a robot harvest their FUE grafts. This can be a powerful marketing tool and in many cases can even allow the physician to switch the patient out to a strip procedure if they realize that FUE is not for them. It also can take the physician completely out of the harvesting equation by delegating technicians to perform the entire FUE harvest without the physician even being in the room. Finally, manual FUE is an acquired art, and not every hair transplant surgeon is capable or proficient in this art, and the ARTAS machine allows everyone to get into the FUE game without knowing how to extract grafts manually.

In my practice, I perform all my FUE harvesting personally with a hand held punch that typically measures 0.9mm in diameter. I perform about 50/50 FUE and FUT and am equally proficient in both. My job as a hair transplant surgeon is to educate my patient as to the benefits and drawbacks of both FUE and FUT and to let them make the decision that works best for them.

My advice is to research extensively before choosing a physician. Make sure you have seen many results (both donor and recipient regions) of both procedures. Most importantly, don’t be fooled by the “marketing hype”. Choose a physician that you truly trust, as a competent and ethical physician will always afford the best chance of a great result.

All the best,

Marc Dauer, M.D.

This is a patient who had a small number of FUE grafts harvested via the ARTAS one time. The scarring is very evident.

This is a patient who had a small number of FUE grafts harvested via the ARTAS one time. The scarring is very evident.

This is a photo from the latest edition of the ISHRS magazine showing the difference between the holes from the ARTAS and a manual .8mm FUE punch.

This is a photo from the latest edition of the ISHRS magazine showing the difference between the holes from the ARTAS and a manual .8mm FUE punch.

 

This is a photo of one of my FUE patients 6 months after harvesting just over 1600 grafts with a 0.9mm punch tool.

This is a photo of one of my FUE patients 6 months after harvesting just over 1600 grafts with a 0.9mm punch tool.ARTAS