Why do Hair Transplant Strip Surgery if FUE is More Evolved?


I'm slowly learning about hair transplants and there is a lot of information to take in. If the FUE method is the latest technique, why do people still get FUT? I thought the FUE technique was better since it is less invasive and leaves no big donor scar. I know FUT is cheaper, but what are the advantages of both? Many people on here seem to opt for FUE.


There are benefits and drawbacks to both surgeries. Both procedures (follicular unit transplantation FUT and follicular unit extraction (FUE) have come a long way and are considered revolutionary procedures. Most wouldn't consider FUE more evolved than FUT, though it's generally agreed to be less less invasive. FUE is attractive to patients because it's less invasive and eliminates a linear scar. FUE does leave scarring in form of little white dots, which in the best cases, are very well concealed by the surrounding hair, even when trimmed short. However, due to the additional forces and strains placed on the graft during extraction and placement, it is much easier to damage the grafts and negatively impact hair growth yield. Most well respected physicians in the field agree that not all patients are candidates for this surgery. With ultra refined follicular unit hair transplantation (FUT), surgeons can perform larger sessions, maximize growth yield, and minimize the appearance of the donor scar with the revolutionary trichophytic closure technique. This procedure is more invasive and additional surgical risks exist. These risks are significantly reduced when you select a clinic with a high degree of consistency in producing excellent results. It also costs less. Learn more about the differences between follicular unit extraction (FUE) and follicular unit transplantation (FUT).

Bill Associate Publisher/Editor