Why FUT Is Preferred Over FUE For A Mega Session?
Hair loss is one of the most common problems in the world today, with millions of affected individuals looking for a permanent solution to ensure the restoration of their hairline and confidence. Amongst the top inventions, hair transplantation takes the lead, with two methods dominating the market: Follicular Unit Transplantation and Follicular Unit Extraction. While both are commendable in their own right, FUT outperforms FUE in mega-sessions because it provides a method of transplanting grafts on masse, in a single session. This paper looked into several of the many reasons FUT would be chosen over FUE in mega-sessions.
Understanding Hair Transplant Techniques
Understanding what is involved with both FUT and FUE will provide a better comparison of the two methods regarding mega-sessions.
Follicular Unit Transplantation (FUT) is a surgical technique generally referred to as the strip method whereby a thin strip of scalp from the back or side of the head is removed, where hair is resistant to balding. Under the microscope, this strip is then further dissected into individual follicular units, containing one to four hairs, which are then carefully implanted into the balding or thinning areas of the scalp.
Follicular Unit Extraction (FUE) is newer and involves the direct extraction of individual follicular units, using a punch tool, from the donor site. Harvesting is done on an individual basis for each follicle and then implanted into the recipient site.
Defining a Mega-Session
A mega-session in hair transplantation is defined as the placing of an large number of grafts, up to 3,000-5,000 or more, in one session. The mega-session holds its advantages in providing marked coverage for the patient with one procedure and lesser likelihood of returning for multiple touch-up surgeries.
Advantages of FUT in Mega-Sessions
Mega-session using FUT has many advantages compared to FUE and hence is preferred by many surgeons and patients.
Higher Graft Yield
Efficient Harvesting – In FUT, a strip of scalp is removed, and with this technique, physicians can get a tremendous amount of grafts in a very short time. In mega-sessions when the number of grafts is high, it becomes critical to get more grafts from the single session.
Minimum Transection Rate – The transection rate or injury rate of follicles during extraction is generally lower in FUT. With microscope dissection, technicians can carefully dissect follicular units and maintain the integrity of follicular units, resulting in healthier grafts and better survival rates after transplantation.
Conservation of the Donor Site:
Maximizing Donor Resources
FUT allows for maximum utilization of the donor supply area. Since there is only one strip of extraction, the surrounding scalp is kept intact and thus preserved for any subsequent procedures one may undergo.
Avoiding Overharvesting
Large sessions in FUE have the potential for the overharvesting of individual follicles, which may thin out the donor area and result in visible scarring or patchiness.
Time Efficiency
Faster Process – Generally, FUT is faster in terms of the rate of harvesting grafts, especially in large numbers, than FUE. It takes less time to remove the strip, and several technicians can be assigned to dissect the grafts.
Reduced Fatigue – A shorter procedure reduces not only the patient’s fatigue but also that of the surgical team, hence reducing the possibilities of developing complications that are common during long procedures.
Enhanced graft quality
Resistance follicles – In FUT, the grafts are usually much stronger because their extraction is surrounded with a layer of tissues that protect them, making them more resilient after transplantation.
Ideal Hair Quality – FUT allows the selection of grafts with optimum hair characteristics, such as thickness and texture, which might be helpful during mega-sessions in the creation of a natural look.
Economical
Low Cost Per Graft – Overall, FUT has been less expensive than FUE per graft. When used for mega-sessions, that is several thousand grafts at one time, it is significantly less expensive.
Economic Efficiency – Because of this, FUT is less time-consuming and resource-intensive and, therefore, more affordable for both the clinic and the patient.
Overcoming Common Fears About FUT
While FUT enjoys several advantages, there are lots of concerns too, especially in comparison with FUE.
Linear Scar – FUT results in a linear scar at the donor site. However, advanced surgical techniques like Trichophytic Closure can minimize this scar to an extent that it becomes hardly detectable under the existing hair.
Hiding Scars – This scar is easily hidden in individuals who maintain longer hair. Further, all modern FUT is performed with cosmetic considerations in an attempt to maximize patient satisfaction.
Rehabilitation Stage – FUT requires a longer recovery time due to the utilization of the strip method during follicle harvesting.
Surgical Follow-Up
Proper post-operative care and following the surgeon’s instructions can mitigate discomfort and expedite healing.
Understanding the limitations of FUE in Mega-session
Prolonged Procedure Time
Labor-Intensive Process – Since FUE involves extracting the grafts individually-a very time-consuming process-mega-sessions often go for many hours, sometimes extending into several sessions.
Increased Fatigue – The longer the procedure, the greater the risk of fatigue for the surgical team, which may affect the quality of the transplant.
Higher Transection Rates
Risk of Follicle Damage – There is an increased risk for the damage of follicles with individual follicle extraction. It generally yields less survival in grafts and is unsatisfactory for mega-sessions.
Donor Area Depletion
Over-Exploitation Risks – Because it needs to extract thousands of grafts, FUE will have to cover a much broader area, resulting in more obvious thinning or scarring in the donor area.
Limited Donor Supply – Over-harvesting may limit the availability of the donor site during subsequent procedures and may be an important consideration in those patients with progressive hair loss.
Higher Expenses
Higher price by – Overall, FUE is a more involved extraction process; hence, it tends to be more expensive per graft. This price difference between FUT and FUE is huge for one mega-session.
Clinical Trial and Expert Opinion
Several clinical studies and expert testimonials support this preference in FUT mega-session applications.
- Survival Rates: Studies indicate that grafts obtained through FUT have higher survival rates as compared to those obtained by FUE, especially in large quantities.
- Patient Satisfaction: Patients undergoing FUT mega-sessions are much more pleased because most of the patients achieve highly adequate coverage in just one session.
- Doctors’ Recommendations: Many experienced hair restoration physicians favor FUT for mega-sessions, citing efficiency and the effectiveness of the method for the desired outcomes.
Case Studies
Case Study 1: Maximum Coverage Advanced hair loss corrected in a 35-year-old male with a FUT mega-session of 4,000 grafts: Great coverage, as the linear scar is camouflaged under his existing hair-this very happy patient has natural-appearing results and is very pleased to have finished the transplant in one session.
Case Study 2: Donor Area Preservation, This patient wanted to save his donor area for a future procedure; hence, FUT was chosen. As it involves the extraction of only one thin strip of tissue, the donor area remains intact, and transplantation can be continued if the patient develops further balding.
During mega-session hair transplantation, FUT has been considered better than FUE on various grounds. Having the features of yielding a larger quantity of high-quality grafts efficiently, saving the donor site, reducing the overall time of the procedure, and economic viability, FUT is considered the ideal modality of treatment for patients requiring extensive hair restoration.
Ultimately, the decision between FUT and FUE should be made on the basis of consultation with a qualified hair transplant surgeon, considering individual needs, hair characteristics, and long-term desires. However, when the coverage in one session is major factor, FUT has proven to be the best, time-tested option that offers not only clinical effectiveness but also cosmetic distinction.
