2 seperate patients where treated this week, excluding some other smaller sessions.

Each mega session was carried out over 2 consecutive days, Dr. de Reys and his team, using 0,7 mm punches.

Top : patient was treated with 3060 grafts, density around 55 graft cm2 frontal and 45 more towards the middle of the head. HT completed, no second treatment necessary.

Bottom : patients was treated with 3044 grafts. Density about 45 grafts cm2 frontal and 35 more towards the middle. A second follow up treatment of another 2000 grafts is planned for 2008.

Here are the pics again

I like the pics. The first patient will be a very interesting result as it appears he is more of a stand alone one ht procedure type candidate...

great operative details and good pics. thanks. can't wait to see later results. looks good so far.

Bart,

I'm confused by the subject.

Did 2 patients receive approximately 3000 grafts each over 4 total days? Or did each patient receive 3000 grafts over 4 consecutive days totalling 8 total days?

I am honestly not a fan of referring to a "session" as more than one day since it requires the patient to come into the office more than once.

In my opinion, it is misleading and a way to promote a higher number of grafts in a subject line to draw greater intrigue.

One 3000 graft session over 2 days = Two 1500 graft sessions in 2 consecutive days. The only difference is, the first sounds more impressive.

2X 1500 just doesn't sound as impressive as 3000 but it's the same.

Other than that, the immediately postoperative pictures look nice and densely packed. I trust you will come back to display the final product. Immediately postoperative photos without results mean nothing.

Falc

quote:

Originally posted by Falceros - Moderator:

I'm confused by the subject.

Well based on what you know from experience, what is most likely to be the correct interpretation? My educated guess is there were two patients who each had 2-day sessions. I interpreted that before I read the explicit clarification in the text of the post.

As far as misleading hype goes, I think you are quite guilty of turning a blind eye to hyped up strip session sizes with no supporting hair count information this could be considered a case of pot-kettle-black ... however I would not call it that because I don't think Bart did anything misleading at all.

It certainly appears to be the case that you have a vendetta against this particular poster resulting in a complete lack of objectivity.

I think it is a common to reference any fue session over 1000 grafts in one day as a "mega-session"

In time that number may move upwards, but 1500 grafts would certainly qualify as a mega-session.

I am not a fan of two-day strip sessions, but because of the nature of fue sessions-- consecutive day sessions seem much more agreeable and even more responsible when attempting to minimize transection and combat human error.

It will be interesting to see the results of this approach.

Thanks Bart!

Jason

B spot, I agree that consecutive day sessions makes sense...are there drawbacks to this approach of having b2b(2b..) sessions of FUE? Is this the primary difference between say this and what Armani is doing....these span days and don't rely on the "brute force" method...?

The coming months will be interesting times as the results of FUE, mega-session patients should slowly start coming to crystal clear daylight.

spoon,

quote:

Well based on what you know from experience...

This is irrelevant. I can read between the lines, but what about newcomers to the site? I am trying to encouarge posters (especially clinics) to be less ambiguous.

quote:

...I don't think Bart did anything misleading at all.

This is not about Bart personally, it's how FUE megasessions are promoted overall that bothers me. In my opinion, referring to more than one surgery (consecutive days or not) as one session is misleading.

It's about portraying accurate information without ambiguity. Newcomers to the site will be drawn in by "3000" and that's about it.

quote:

It certainly appears to be the case that you have a vendetta against this particular poster resulting in a complete lack of objectivity.

Far from the truth! Why don't you comment on other posts where I've complimented Bart on a job well done? You appear like a smart guy so pleading ignorance is not acceptable.

quote:

As far as misleading hype goes, I think you are quite guilty of turning a blind eye to hyped up strip session sizes with no supporting hair count information this could be considered a case of pot-kettle-black ...

We've debated this before and it is all over the forum in other places. But you will NOT turn this thread into a "hair count" thread or I will delete your posts on this thread since it is irrelevant to the discussion. If you want to debate hair counts, start a new thread.

Falc

quote:

Originally posted by Falceros -

quote:

Well based on what you know from experience...

This is irrelevant. I can read between the lines, but what about newcomers to the site?

Actually it's quite relevant and I have reason to doubt you read between the lines. If you were asking on behalf of anonymous newcomers then why did you say YOU were confused? Furthermore I am of the opinion that the subject header was pretty clear, certainly clear enough so that your nitpicking isn't justified. So I am curious, how many other readers think there is ambiguity? And how many people do you think there are that would be satisfied with reading the TITLE and concluding anything about FUE megasessions without bothering to read the content of the post? I stand by my assertion that you go out of your way when it comes to Bart posting FUE results and I am not the first poster on this board to call you on it.

quote:

We've debated this before and it is all over the forum in other places. But you will NOT turn this thread into a "hair count" thread or I will delete your posts on this thread since it is irrelevant to the discussion.

Of course you will. I expected no more and no less. I did not start any arguments about hair counts, per se. I was simply highlighting what I perceive to be inconsistency at best and hypocrisy at worst.

there is such animosity, complete utter disregard for one another's feelings, bitterness, even total hatred...this is great stuff guys, keep it coming.

quote:

I was simply highlighting what I perceive to be inconsistency at best and hypocrisy at worst.

The very fact that you are even arguing with me about this shows that you are inconsistent (or hypocritical). You stand on the premise of the necessity of hair counts (which I never argued wouldn't be beneficial) but fail to see how defining two days of procedures as one session can be misleading.

quote:

Furthermore I am of the opinion that the subject header was pretty clear, certainly clear enough so that your nitpicking isn't justified.

You are under the false assumption that the assertion of your opinion justifies your opinion as the only right one. I am entitled to my opinion and therefore my pointing out of the ambiguity that I see IS justified.

quote:

I stand by my assertion that you go out of your way when it comes to Bart posting FUE results...

I go out of my way to call it like I see it. I have clearly stated my opinion in this and a previous post long ago about the ambiguity of 2 day procedures being called one session.

And since you have a talent for pointing out the negative...here are a few recent thread examples of where I complimented Bart's posts and followed up with questions:

http://hair-restoration-info.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/7466060861/m/4951076153

http://hair-restoration-info.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/7466060861/m/1541011153

quote:

And how many people do you think there are that would be satisfied with reading the TITLE and concluding anything about FUE megasessions without bothering to read the content of the post?

Your question is irrelevant because the content of this post is just as ambiguous as the title. Nowhere in the post does it say how many grafts were received by each patient in a single day. Therefore the content is potentially misleading regardless of intent.

Regardless of what you think about me, my heart and intent are genuine in promoting the integrity of this community.

Falc

IMO, I think that Falc is generally very critical of Bart; but I don't think this is to say that it is unjustifiably so, or that he has a personal vendetta against him. At the end of the day we all want the best out of the HT industry, and if FUE is truly the real deal like some are now saying it to be, I think we would all welcome it with hugely open arms.

But, especially with a subject as heavily debated and volitile (and hyped) as FUE megasessions I think it's natural -- if not sound -- to take things with an extra great assault and demand a high level of disclosure and transparency.

Thanatopsis,

You obviously get it! Thank you!

My criticisim so to speak is to draw out the truth of whether or not the hype of FUE megasessions for everybody has merit. And the only way to discern this is to look at the proof reality sets before us.

I, just like everyone else want to believe that FUE is as much of a surefire thing as strip.

Hype demands proof and I have a hard time with the concept that uneducated hair loss sufferers will simply buy into the hype without evidence.

I think Pat said it best on the following ISHRS Conference thread:

"When one is aware of the many risks and disadvantages associated with the FUE procedure one will not be surprised at the notable lack impressive final result photos available online. Those who have followed FUE over the years will notice the many immediate post op FUE photos are often provided by the promoters of the high priced FUE procedure, while follow up photos and final results have been notoriously absent."

This is a valid warning and should be carefully considered. BUT he did not stop with this leaving us all with a taste that FUE is an ineffective treatment.

"However, in recent years ethical and skilled physicians and clinics, who do not oversell the benefits of FUE, have begun to advance this procedure. It is possible that many of the pitfalls of FUE will be overcome and that these physicians and their patients will present impressive results both on and offline."

I believe FUE CAN be an effective treatment. But clinics who discuss all the benefits and never the limitations, pitfalls, or risks associated with this procedure are misleading the masses.

For an indepth discussion of the benefits, limitations, and risks of FUE, see my discussion with Dr. Alan Feller of Great Neck, by viewing the following hair loss Q&A blog: What are the benefits, limitations, and potential problems with FUE/FIT.

Read also what Dr. James Harris had to say about the problems with FUE and overcoming them on Pat's visit to the ISHRS conference in 2007.

Best wishes,

Falc

Bart,

Any updates on this patient?

Falc

Great density in the pics...hope this works well for you.

(promotional link removed)