| Home | News | Find a Doctor | Ask a Question | Free |
Medicamat PUNCH HAIR MATIC ®
Company website
http://www.medicamat.com/materiel/hair-transplant/punchhairmatic.html?L=1
Brochure
http://www.bioscor.com.au/assets/nu-hair%20matic%20brochure.pdf
Heck, a tool like this could bring FUE down below the cost of FUT, it would improve consistency, and it would open the market to more people.
.
» Medicamat PUNCH HAIR MATIC ®
»
» Company website
» http://www.medicamat.com/materiel/hair-transplant/punchhairmatic.html?L=1
» Brochure
» http://www.bioscor.com.au/assets/nu-hair%20matic%20brochure.pdf
»
» Heck, a tool like this could bring FUE down below the cost of FUT, it
» would improve consistency, and it would open the market to more people.
»
»
»
»
»
» .
Wow 
Any doc can comment?
» Wow Any doc can comment?
Indeed. I’d love to see their comments… considering this device was released in 2004.
I’m wondering how long they want us to keep paying ~$8/ fue graft?
.
I believe the smallest punch size that can be used is 1 or 1,1 mm. This is way to big for modern FUE.
Anyway, if this company is for real they should bring it at one of the ISHRS meetings and do a live demonstration in front of other FUE-strip docs.
I would be interested (and many other docs) to see how the grafts look like.
Greetz
» I believe the smallest punch size that can be used is 1 or 1,1 mm. This is
» way to big for modern FUE.
»
» Anyway, if this company is for real they should bring it at one of the
» ISHRS meetings and do a live demonstration in front of other FUE-strip
» docs.
»
» I would be interested (and many other docs) to see how the grafts look
» like.
»
» Greetz
I don’t know why they were never at an ISHRS meeting. Than again, sometimes you have to seek technology rather wait for it find you. Regardless, I just emailed them to ask. Hopefully some of the doctors on this forum will follow suit.
.
Rev,
Why don’t you e-mail the doctors on the list (that we established for Acell) about this technology? Maybe some of them don’t know about it. Several of them thanked me for the e-mail about Acell. Sometimes we have to push it.
» Rev,
»
» Why don’t you e-mail the doctors on the list (that we established for
» Acell) about this technology? Maybe some of them don’t know about
» it. Several of them thanked me for the e-mail about Acell. Sometimes
» we have to push it.
Will do, I’ll draft a quick letter later tonight and fire it off. This technology makes allot of sense to me from a business model perspective.
We also need to keep ours eyes peeled for the ‘Restoration Robotics Inc’ model. Supposedly, it’s like this Punch Hair Matic only it’s fully automated. Unfortunately, I couldn’t find their website/email to inquire about their progress.
.
Cool…it’s nice to have some useful members of the forum.
One thing to consider. I think that it’s best to say that you’re a HT patient / prospective patient so they don’t think that you’re a salesman for this company. I did have one doc ask me about that.
Take Care,
Bill
» Cool…it’s nice to have some useful members of the forum.
»
» One thing to consider. I think that it’s best to say that you’re a HT
» patient / prospective patient so they don’t think that you’re a salesman
» for this company. I did have one doc ask me about that.
»
» Take Care,
» Bill
No problem Bill. The way I see it, we have to start acting like a community, or nothing will ever get done. I just fired off a letter to the clinics on the list. This is what I wrote:
Hello, I’ve been researching a doctor/clinic for my hair transplant, but I was struck by the scars associated with strip surgery, the inconsistencies among some clinics, and the high costs of FUE. After some additional research I came across a company in France (Medicamat) that offers an automated FUE device called the ‘Punch Hair Matic’. They claim their tool can perform FUE in half the time with minimal medical staff (I guess that means low overhead). I included the company links below.
I want to be clear that I’m not a salesperson; I’m just a potential patient that’s frustrated with my current options. I’m also amazed that a tool like this could bring FUE down below the cost of FUT, and it would open the market to more people (like myself). Do you think your clinic could take advantage of this technology? I’m eager to hear back from you.
Medicamat PUNCH HAIR MATIC®
http://www.medicamat.com/materiel/hair-transplant/punchhairmatic.html?L=1
http://www.bioscor.com.au/assets/nu-hair%20matic%20brochure.pdf
Regards
XXXXX
.
Great Letter…Keep us posted.
Take Care,
Bill
» » Cool…it’s nice to have some useful members of the forum.
» »
» » One thing to consider. I think that it’s best to say that you’re a HT
» » patient / prospective patient so they don’t think that you’re a
» salesman
» » for this company. I did have one doc ask me about that.
» »
» » Take Care,
» » Bill
»
» No problem Bill. The way I see it, we have to start acting like a
» community, or nothing will ever get done. I just fired off a letter to the
» clinics on the list. This is what I wrote:
»
»
» Hello, I’ve been researching a doctor/clinic for my hair
» transplant, but I was struck by the scars associated with strip surgery,
» the inconsistencies among some clinics, and the high costs of FUE. After
» some additional research I came across a company in France (Medicamat) that
» offers an automated FUE device called the ‘Punch Hair Matic’. They claim
» their tool can perform FUE in half the time with minimal medical staff (I
» guess that means low overhead). I included the company links below.
»
» I want to be clear that I’m not a salesperson; I’m just a potential
» patient that’s frustrated with my current options. I’m also amazed that a
» tool like this could bring FUE down below the cost of FUT, and it would
» open the market to more people (like myself). Do you think your clinic
» could take advantage of this technology? I’m eager to hear back from you.
»
» Medicamat PUNCH HAIR MATIC®
» http://www.medicamat.com/materiel/hair-transplant/punchhairmatic.html?L=1
» http://www.bioscor.com.au/assets/nu-hair%20matic%20brochure.pdf
»
» Regards
» XXXXX
»
» .
without real knowledge i will voice my laymen’s opinion.
punch matic is going to kill a lot of good donor hair/follicles because it is not going to be as precise.
good for doctor bad for hair, bad for patient.
I emailed some clinics a few days ago, and I received 3 replies thus far. Here’s an abbreviation
“the device will make work more efficient but detract from the quality of the technique.”
“a robot/machine has no sense of feeling or tactile judgement as well as only being as good as the programming, in our opinion it will never be used by serious HT doctor who is looking to perform FUE at the highest level”
"a good FUE doc will sit bent over you for hours in very close proximity punching and extracting and trust me if he really thought it was not necessary he would gladly find a more efficient method but the reality is it is labour intensive and takes dedication, understanding and patience. "
“we will not be offering this service and frankly the day we do is the day we shut up shop and I would suggest to you any that offer it you steer clear of, because ironically it is just about money. Faster extraction, lowers the cost, means more people can be treated and it becomes no different to a production line when speed and cost efficiency is important and quality is secondary.”
“in our opinion it is better to extract grafts manually instead of with a machine. There are many variables that need to be accounted for during an FUE procedure : graft depth, angle, skin type… We are not aware that a machine can overcome the fingertip feeling which is required to properly extract grafts.”
"we are a hair transplant institute, not a science institute. If someone can proof his or her machine can overcome the human skills necessary to perform FUE correctly we would be very interested.
“the machine presented as punch hair matic is unknown to us. If they are sure it is bullet proof they should send it for review at an ISHRS meeting.”
.
I think it is a good point that was brought up by the clinic. They are a HAIR TRANSPLANT INSTITUTE and not a SCIENCE INSTITUTE. That’s why it’s important for members of this forum to bring the science to the doctors. I’m sure many of them (contrary to popular belief) just take the technology available to them and use it…never looking for new technology themselves.
» US Clinic (globalhairinstitute.com):
» They’re already using it in their New York and Phoenix offices. They’d
» be happy to discuss the procedure.
» --------------------------------------------------------------------
» - “surprisingly you have found the only clinic in the United States that
» is offering the services of the Punch Hair Matic. GHI has been contracted
» by the distribution company to train all of the doctor’s offices in the use
» of the Punch Hair Matic System. We already employ the use of this machine
» in our New York and Phoenix offices.”
I quickly looked over the GHI site. The befores/afters aren’t that impressive and it isn’t clear (at least at a glance) how many grafts the featured patients received. But, putting that aside, I wonder
Why they don’t mention the machine on their webpage since their NY and Phoenix offices are using it. I’m interested in whether they have seen more damaged grafts with the machine.
Why they say they can only do 700 - 1000 grafts per day. The Hair Matic site says “A complete session of 700 grafts can be performed by one doctor with one assistant in two hours only.” So, doesn’t that dramatically increase the number of grafts that can be done in the NY and Phoenix offices?
Why they charge $5 per graft. Granted, that’s inexpensive for non-mechanized FUE, but it is very expensive for a procedure that can be done as quickly and easily as this machine allows.
Maybe they are still experimenting with it. However, that isn’t what is implied, in my opnion, by saying, “GHI has been contracted by the distribution company to train all of the doctor’s offices in the use of the Punch Hair Matic System. We already employ the use of this machine in our New York and Phoenix offices.” That sounds like they’re saying “We use this machine.”
I applaud them for trying the machine out, but there doesn’t appear to be any change in the price despite the much quicker procedure. If I’m wrong, hopefully they’ll fill us in.
» I quickly looked over the GHI site. The befores/afters aren’t that
» impressive and it isn’t clear (at least at a glance) how many grafts the
» featured patients received. But, putting that aside, I wonder
»
» 1. Why they don’t mention the machine on their webpage since their NY and
» Phoenix offices are using it. I’m interested in whether they have seen more
» damaged grafts with the machine.
»
» 2. Why they say they can only do 700 - 1000 grafts per day. The Hair Matic
» site says “A complete session of 700 grafts can be performed by one doctor
» with one assistant in two hours only.” So, doesn’t that dramatically
» increase the number of grafts that can be done in the NY and Phoenix
» offices?
»
» 3. Why they charge $5 per graft. Granted, that’s inexpensive for
» non-mechanized FUE, but it is very expensive for a procedure that
» can be done as quickly and easily as this machine allows.
»
» Maybe they are still experimenting with it. However, that isn’t what is
» implied, in my opnion, by saying, “GHI has been contracted by the
» distribution company to train all of the doctor’s offices in the use
» of the Punch Hair Matic System. We already employ the use of this
» machine in our New York and Phoenix offices.” That sounds like they’re
» saying “We use this machine.”
»
» I applaud them for trying the machine out, but there doesn’t appear
» to be any change in the price despite the much quicker procedure. If
» I’m wrong, hopefully they’ll fill us in.
I agree that the GHI website is vague, that their photos aren’t clear, and that their prices don’t parallel an automated tool (they quoted me 0-1000 = $7/graft, 1000-2000 = $6/graft, 2000-3000+ = $5/graft). Despite those concerns, I still think these devices have great potential… especially if more clinics started to use them. The two European clinics that replied to my email were under the impression this device removes the human factor - it doesn’t. There’s room for improvement in the hands of a capable surgeon.
I emailed GHI with the concerns other clinics posed using an automated machine (follicle damage), and this is what I was told:
"I do not understand how anyone can make a decision about a tool without ever using it or seeing it function in a live situation. I spent two weeks in Paris working with the machine. I found the machine produces the same grafts as the handheld punch. I have modified the technique for use of the machine. We prefer the double punch technique with the machine. "
"The only difference is the machine is much faster at the harvest due to the suction associated with the dull punch. "
“I feel completely confident in the machines ability to produce the same results we have seen using our hand help double punch.”
.
»The two European clinics that replied
» to my email were under the impression this device removes the human factor
» - it doesn’t. There’s room for improvement in the hands of a capable
» surgeon.
Hi rev,
With respect I did not blindly reply to your email without looking at their web site and basing my opinions on their data. I appreciate it is not totally robotic in respect it requires the punch to be placed by hand and from what I can understand obviously in the recipient too. My concerns regarding this the principle we feel of using a drill and the potential damage to the graft that can be caused as well as peripheral damage
I quote from their site:
“1- A punching-sucking handpiece consisting of an electric micromotor with a hollow shaft receiving a small-diameter ( 0.8 mm , 1 mm , or 1.2 mm ) punch.”
The smallest tool they use is larger than our smallest, let a lone their large punches up to 1.2 and they state that only 1,2 or 3 hair FU can be removed, so this leaves me to believe that transection and peripheral damage will be high, especially on patients with high density in the donor. Splitting of FU will occur also if only up to a 3 hair can be removed.
The punch sucking handpiece, so if I understand this correctly the FU is severed from the tissue then gets suck up a tube to a holding flask or can be directly transferred to the “implanting handpiece”. FUE grafts are so delicate and must be handled with so much care with the least amount of abrasion or foreign bodies touching them as possible. The thought of them being sucked through a tube, landing in a flask then transferred maybe twice again makes no sense and could only cause potential damage.
“Implanting handpieces, which are transparent hollow cylinders with pneumatic pistons. The transparency of the handpiece makes it possible to view the graft before insertion, if necessary.”
This sounds familiar to another device that was going to revolutionise placement. Placement of the FU in a tube that does not cater for the size of the individual FU makes it nigh on impossible to place correctly with the angles and direction; from what I understand it makes the slit also? and this is not done prior?
I am not trying to poor cold water on moving forward and would love to be proved wrong with proper case studies on transection rate and graft survival; but these are genuine concerns that we believe leave this flawed. If this can show that graft survival is high, transection is minimal, donor healing good then great…we will see.
I respect your opinion Phil, and I realize you expressed very genuine concerns. My last intent was to refute, or demean your comments; simply put, I’m not qualified to do so. I’m not a medical practitioner, or even a pharmaceutical salerep. I’m just a guy whose frustrated with the current stalemate in this industry. Strip is barbaric, FUE is expensive, and nobody wants to examine more cost effective options. Something’s gotta give.
Having said that, I received a forth reply from another doctor:
" This is interesting technology, but needs a lot more development and proof of effectiveness before being applied clinically. I suspect initially with its use fees would still have to be high to recoup equipment costs."
» I respect your opinion Phil, and I realize you expressed very genuine
» concerns. My last intent was to refute, or demean your comments; simply
» put, I’m not qualified to do so. I’m not a medical practitioner, or even a
» pharmaceutical salerep. I’m just a guy whose frustrated with the current
» stalemate in this industry. Strip is barbaric, FUE is expensive, and nobody
» wants to examine more cost effective options. Something’s gotta give.
»
» Having said that, I received a forth reply from another doctor:
» " This is interesting technology, but needs a lot more
» development and proof of effectiveness before being applied clinically. I
» suspect initially with its use fees would still have to be high to recoup
» equipment costs."
Hi rev,
Apologies if I came across a little terse, it was not my intention, I only wished to add to the debate. I agree the Industry should look into and try to push forward the technology for the best of the patient, results and costs; unfortunately not all new is better sometimes.
Do not wait for strip to disappear any time soon either, FUT & FUE are different techniques not just the extraction process but in terms of graft numbers and donor management; in our opinion they can complement rather than fight which is better.
» » I respect your opinion Phil, and I realize you expressed very genuine
» » concerns. My last intent was to refute, or demean your comments; simply
» » put, I’m not qualified to do so. I’m not a medical practitioner, or even
» a
» » pharmaceutical salerep. I’m just a guy whose frustrated with the
» current
» » stalemate in this industry. Strip is barbaric, FUE is expensive, and
» nobody
» » wants to examine more cost effective options. Something’s gotta give.
» »
» » Having said that, I received a forth reply from another doctor:
» » " This is interesting technology, but needs a lot more
» » development and proof of effectiveness before being applied clinically.
» I
» » suspect initially with its use fees would still have to be high to
» recoup
» » equipment costs."
»
» Hi rev,
»
» Apologies if I came across a little terse, it was not my intention, I only
» wished to add to the debate. I agree the Industry should look into and try
» to push forward the technology for the best of the patient, results and
» costs; unfortunately not all new is better sometimes.
»
» Do not wait for strip to disappear any time soon either, FUT & FUE are
» different techniques not just the extraction process but in terms of graft
» numbers and donor management; in our opinion they can complement rather
» than fight which is better.
Phil
sorry , i didnt read the whole thread. too lazy 
. so is this product something good or not? if yes, i could ask a ht agent, i know, who works together with several good ht docs (most do offer FUE) to show it to these docs. so is it something good or not?
| Home | News | Find a Doctor | Ask a Question | Terms of Use & Privacy |
This is an advertising site for paid advertisers to showcase successful hair restoration results only. It is not the mandate of this site to engage in the discussion of failed, unsuccessful procedures, lawsuits, litigations, refunds or complaint cases. Surgical hair restoration procedures carry risks. Please do thorough research, consult your own physician and investigate a doctor's background carefully before making a decision. By proceeding to use our site, you agree to abide by our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy at http://hairsite.com/terms-of-use/ where you can also find a list of HairSite's sponsoring physicians.