Impressive very help full
[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by Dr. Woods[/postedby]
I am sorry, but can you tell me again, what do the words FUSE stand for ?ed the term FOLLICULAR SINGLE UNIT EXTRACTION, or FSUE
And this was advertised in the Australian Media around 1994/5. It was then abbreviated to FUE
I think FUSE means follicular unit single extraction. Is this correct ?
Dr Ray Woods[/quote]
Find the full form and the entire description of FUSE for yourself on our website Ray.
See the video for the expanding needle concept.
I know it takes you time so here’s the video once again
The video will help you understand the concept.
Regards,
Dr. A
P.S. - (what age does to people?!)
Dr. Arvind Poswal's presentation at ISHRS 2012 meeting. from arvind poswal on Vimeo.
[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by Dr. Woods[/postedby]
Transection has ALWAYS been a massive issue in strip surgery.
Its just that the patient doesn’t know about it while its happening. Same goes for FUE
And I wish Dr Nigram all the best in his work
Dr Ray Woods[/quote]
Good thread, isn’t it interesting that whenever posters talk about transection, we always associate that with FUE, I too was somehow conditioned into believing that strip was immune to the problem because nobody ever brought that up.
In 1989, all I had was a pair of tweezers and a range of hypodermic needles.
I dissected out follicles much the same way as Arvinds technician shows here, but I found it too slow, erratic, and prone to dissection. To get results, I would have to offer strip surgery, and that , unlike Arvind, I refused to do.
fsue, or fue , had to stand alone. And it does.
And it just keeps getting better with age…and that’s priceless
Dr Ray Woods.
Dr Woods,
I love reading your thoughts,want more of you posting on the forum and sharing your thoughts.
Am i correct when i say…
FUE TRANSECTION IS A MYTH…
When a follilce is transected in FUE, from upper,middle or lower half…the follilce is not wasted …as it’s bottom root with it’s blood supply is intact,it grows back…
This should clear doubts and claims of fut surgeons and patients that fue transection means loss of follicle,just that recipient implantation is lesser…which can be taken care of…
Another advantage with fue ,which is more significant is …one can immediately implant the graft after extraction in minutes…instead of keeping the graft outside scalp for hours as in fut…
You can elaborate to the patients…why FUT still exists…when this technique of FUT should be in history museum long time back…after you invented fue for the world…
And ,believe me… dr woods…with ecm,prp,dpcell…there will not be any white dot post fue…may be you are already using it…
[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by Dr. Woods[/postedby]
In 1989, all I had was a pair of tweezers and a range of hypodermic needles.
I dissected out follicles much the same way as Arvinds technician shows here, but I found it too slow, erratic, and prone to dissection. To get results, I would have to offer strip surgery, and that , unlike Arvind, I refused to do.
fsue, or fue , had to stand alone. And it does.
And it just keeps getting better with age…and that’s priceless
Dr Ray Woods.[/quote]
[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by Dr. Nigam[/postedby]Dr Woods,
I love reading your thoughts,want more of you posting on the forum and sharing your thoughts.
Am i correct when i say…
FUE TRANSECTION IS A MYTH…
When a follilce is transected in FUE, from upper,middle or lower half…the follilce is not wasted …as it’s bottom root with it’s blood supply is intact,it grows back…
This should clear doubts and claims of fut surgeons and patients that fue transection means loss of follicle,just that recipient implantation is lesser…which can be taken care of…
Another advantage with fue ,which is more significant is …one can immediately implant the graft after extraction in minutes…instead of keeping the graft outside scalp for hours as in fut…
You can elaborate to the patients…why FUT still exists…when this technique of FUT should be in history museum long time back…after you invented fue for the world…
And ,believe me… dr woods…with ecm,prp,dpcell…there will not be any white dot post fue…may be you are already using it…[/quote]
No. I fundamentally disagree with everything you say …no offence…I still wish your patients all the best,as I do for Cole Arvind Umar Rassman Bernstein etc etc, because I am actually wishing their patients good and positive results.
I appreciate the kind words you have written, and I look forward to being proved wrong, not just by you, but by anyone, as that is the only way to be continually enlightened and evolve.
Dr Ray Woods
Dear readers,
Some physicians have the habit of claiming everything in hindsight. There is nothing anyone can do for such covetous and arrogant nature.
Anyway, as for the Expanding Needle Concept (ENC)/ FUSE technique, as the video shows
-
a major part of the extraction is done while dissecting under direct magnified vision (not blind dissection).
-
One would have to be exquisitely clumsy to make a transection using this method…what more is there to say.
Regards,
Dr. A
Dr. Arvind, since you do both strip and fue, is it true what Dr. Woods said that the transection rate with strip is massive? Which generates more transection, strip or fue?
[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by DHI[/postedby]
The hairs inside the dermis are not so impressively curly, only once they are extracted they present their full curvature!
[postedby]Originally Posted by V[/postedby]
I disagree with that observation. Its not even logical.[/quote]
Do you mean to say that the like circle follicles in the photos were exactly in this shape inside the dermis and right from the moment of their extraction?
If yes, then please share with us your experience, by telling us what size of punch did you use, how deep in the skin did you inserted it and what was your total and partial transection rate.
It seems the circular follicle photos have been removed. Why.
Those photos are of historic importance. It was without doubt the greatest challenge in 2004 and to this day.
And to Arvind , it is true. I have been doing fine needle biopsy since 1984. It seemed logical at the time to use the same approach to extract follicles.
I found it slow and tedious and there was absolutely no way I could compete with the fabulous new strip method.
I could not come close to the strip results so I gave up in 1991’,and then by pure chance I met a guy whose job it was to manipulate and fake the before and after photos.
It was all BS
So I started again
Extracting by needles works. But I chose not to pursue that path and that was correct in my opinion, and I can provide results over many years to rival any other method with a fraction of the follicles. And that is on the historical record
And the claim by arvind that there is no transection unless you are ‘clumsy’ is noted
Dr Woods
[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by Dr. Woods[/postedby]
It seems the circular follicle photos have been removed. Why.
Those photos are of historic importance. It was without doubt the greatest challenge in 2004 and to this day.
Dr Woods[/quote]
That is just a glitch in the system. Nobody requested or even suggested that those photos be removed. The photos should be restored momentarily.
My apologies to HAIRSITE.
Dr Ray Woods
[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by Dr. Woods[/postedby]
My apologies to HAIRSITE.
Dr Ray Woods[/quote]
No apologies necessary Dr. Woods. It’s all good, and thanks for bringing this to my attention. Photos now restored.
BTW, excellent work on recent patient results involving a minimal number of grafts with BIG results!!! I am in full support of that. Very few doctors are capable of delivering this kind of yield on a consistent basis.
I agree!
[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by Dr. Woods[/postedby]
And to Arvind , it is true. I have been doing fine needle biopsy since 1984. It seemed logical at the time to use the same approach to extract follicles.
I found it slow and tedious and there was absolutely no way I could compete with the fabulous new strip method.
I could not come close to the strip results so I gave up in 1991’
Extracting by needles works. But I chose not to pursue that path and that was correct in my opinion, and I can provide results over many years to rival any other method with a fraction of the follicles. And that is on the historical record
And the claim by arvind that there is no transection unless you are ‘clumsy’ is noted
Dr Woods[/quote]
Who knows how many grafts you take out per day?
You charge by the day - 300, 400, 500 grafts… I may be wrong. Your statements are fraught.
Is it not true that you blindfold your patients when taking out their for e.g. chest hair.
As for the expanding needle concept, I showed it in front of the entire medical fraternity , unlike you.
My best wishes Ray , I did not mislead people like you
No one is blind folded, that is wholly false. About 12 or 14 years ago a few guys with jet lag wanted an eye mask because of bright lights but it was so long ago. It has never been required or requested since then
If Dr A believes I mislead, then that is a very serious allegation
I ask for clarification and a clear indication of what he is inferring.
I am wholly offended as I am the only one at absolute and full disclosure, no legal protection, no “hidden” gag clause in the disclaimer etc.
And talk in this industry is cheap. I offer Monitoring of donor extraction and have every follicle magnified and monitored during every insertion.
As I said. Full disclosure. The only thing patients don’t see is the instrument and technique. But they see the follicle being extracted and implanted , which is the ONLY relevant part to a patient.
And NO ONE else offers that disclosure and reassurance.
So I am intriqued at what Dr A’s whole agenda is here.
Dr Ray Woods
[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by Dr. Woods[/postedby]
No one is blind folded, that is wholly false. About 12 or 14 years ago a few guys with jet lag wanted an eye mask because of bright lights but it was so long ago. It has never been required or requested since then
If Dr A believes I mislead, then that is a very serious allegation
I ask for clarification and a clear indication of what he is inferring.
I am wholly offended as I am the only one at absolute and full disclosure, no legal protection, no “hidden” gag clause in the disclaimer etc.
And talk in this industry is cheap. I offer Monitoring of donor extraction and have every follicle magnified and monitored during every insertion.
As I said. Full disclosure. The only thing patients don’t see is the instrument and technique. But they see the follicle being extracted and implanted , which is the ONLY relevant part to a patient.
And NO ONE else offers that disclosure and reassurance.
So I am intriqued at what Dr A’s whole agenda is here.
Dr Ray Woods[/quote]
Dr A must explain, or retract .
If one lives in a glass house, it is unwise to throw stones.
Dr Woods
Ray,
The words you speak would suit a soap opera better. Anyway, you have proved my points in your own reply.
But if you wish me to elucidate (that means dumb it down), I will do so when I have the time.
Yours,
Dr. A
No.
I was accused of misleading""
I again ask for clarification .
The remark must be proven and substantiated. Otherwise a retraction
I , sir, demand satisfaction in this regard…(I am quoting foghorn leghorn from bugs bunny classics)
HOWEVER…pay attention when I am talking to ya son…DEMAND…I say Demand an explanation son…stop scratching while i’m talking son…(.boys as sharp as a bowling ball…)
Now where was I. Ah yes. Dr A wholly must retract or explain his accusation
Its not that he is that busy…Techs are doing the work
Dr Woods
Ray,
First you sidetrack a useful thread for patient education and then you want to hog it (for whatever).
Leave it man.
I told you, your own reply to me contains all the proof of the things I said. Do you really want me to spell it out?
Soap operas are one thing… hair transplant is not the same. It changes a man’s life.
Do Not Treat It So Lightly Ray.
Yours,
Dr. A