Can the NeoGraft Hair Transplant Machine Revolutionize Follicular Unit Extraction?
The NeoGraft hair transplant machine, touting itself as “state-of-the-art” and “game-changing” has received a lot of press lately with promises to make follicular unit extraction (FUE), a complex and labor intensive procedure requiring a highly skilled surgeon and staff, simpler, faster and more effective. However, NeoGraft has failed to garner the support of many of the world’s expert FUE practitioners (of which there exists only a handful) due to several key concerns.
Consisting of an adjustable, slowly rotating, motorized punch and a pneumatic pressure suction device that allegedly allows each follicular unit to slide in and out smoothly and uniformly, the NeoGraft method of extraction theoretically exerts less force on the grafts than manual extraction. This spinning punch however, while facilitating graft removal, may subject the follicular unit grafts to unnecessary and detrimental torsional forces. In addition, due to the potential for grafts to be wider at one end, there is also a possibility for transection as they are forced through the rotating punch.
Once extracted, the grafts are then sucked through a series of tubes into a collection canister where they are misted to keep them moist while they await implantation. Leading FUE physicians have expressed concerns that the route that the grafts take as they are sucked through the punch and into the collection canister may expose them to further damage. Furthermore, there are concerns that the resulting air flow from the pneumatic pressure may result in rapid desiccation (dehydration) of the extracted follicles. Dehydration of the follicles during surgical hair restoration is one of the primary causes of poor hair growth.
The NeoGraft hair transplant machine offers physicians two options for implanting the follicular unit grafts. They can be auto-loaded into an implantation cannula and then inserted into the recipient site pneumatically using reverse air pressure or, the physician has the option of manually implanting the grafts if he or she so desires. Manual implantation may prevent the delicate follicular unit grafts from exposure to yet another blast of potentially desiccating air pressure.
In addition to the above mentioned mechanical concerns, the NeoGraft machine has been mass marketed to the neophyte hair restoration surgeon as an easy to learn all-purpose device that replaces the need for highly skilled and experienced surgeons and their staff. Since no automated device or machine can adapt or make critical decisions during the procedure like a skilled and experienced physician, there is a major concern that many patients who undergo this FUE procedure with the NeoGraft will be left with poor results. Additionally, since the NeoGraft machine costs in excess of $70,000, the cost of FUE with the NeoGraft machine for each patient has actually increased over standard FUE rather than decreased. While typical FUE procedures range between $6 and $10 per graft, some using the NeoGraft charge as much as $20 per graft.
Only time will tell what effect, if any, NeoGraft will have on the future of surgical hair restoration but, one thing is for certain. Regardless of the tools or device used to perform hair transplant surgery, there is no substitute for a skilled and experienced physician with a proven track record of producing excellent results.
—-
David – aka TakingThePlunge
Assistant Publisher and Forum Co-Moderator for the Hair Transplant Network, the Hair Loss Learning Center, the Hair Loss Q&A Blog, and the Hair Restoration Forum
Follow our community on Twitter
Watch hair transplant videos on YouTube
Technorati Tags: hair transplant, follicular unit extraction, FUE, follicular unit grafts, hair restoration, hair growth
March 30, 2013 @ 5:29 am
Dear sir/Madam,
Please Let Us Know The Details Of Direct Supplier Of Kuwait or The Quotation Price To Buy “Neograft fue Hair transplant Machine”
Thank You.
October 10, 2012 @ 2:08 am
CORRECTING FALSE MISLEADING INFORMATION ABOUT NEOGRAFT
Time has a wonderful way of dealing with those who dispense false information to the public by proving them wrong. NeoGraft has been in North America for five years now, and is owned by countless well respected surgeons, who have performed numerous hair transplant procedures. According to the doctor’s who work with the NeoGraft, they will tell you that NeoGraft is truly a “state-of-the-Art and “game-changing” technology.
In your article false information was dispensed under the disguise of words such as NeoGraft…….”may” do this or that, implying that NeoGraft may be harmful to the grafts. I will show further on, this to be false. Furthermore, NeoGraft is not a “spinning punch,” more false information about the NeoGraft device. NeoGraft rotates about two times before it is under the skin. Therefore, NeoGraft has the least “detrimental torsional forces,” which your article alludes to, compared to any other tool. As for the grafts being wider at one end (splaying), NeoGraft is especially well engineered to deal with this issue in such a way that there is less than usual “possibility for transection.” It would take me too long to explain how the NeoGraft machine deals with the “splayed” grafts, but it is one of the wonderful engineering feats of the NeoGraft device. Consequently the transection rate with the NeoGraft device is extremely low, contrary to what you speculate.
When the NeoGraft company saw the absolutely false and misleading information that was being dispensed by blogs such as yours, when they first brought out the machine, they decided to do live live demonstrations all over the country with the NeoGraft machine. This decision turned out to be very beneficial for NeoGraft, and continued to spur Neograft sales. Many doctors came to see the live NeoGraft demonstrations and once the doctors saw the NeoGraft perform, they were very impressed, resulting in many doctors acquiring the NeoGraft machine. During these live demonstrations, Neograft has proven over and over again that it has an extremely low transection rate. Doctors are able to view the excellent grafts that are harvested at every live show NeoGraft does.
In 2010 the NeoGraft machine under a skilled doctor, performed a live hair transplant at the ISHRS Live Surgery Show. Many well know hair physicians attended this show. Another well known device was demonstrated also. The results: NeoGraft had nine times less transection rate than the other well known instrument. That is a very significant number, but you should also know that NeoGraft harvested twice as many grafts as the other device, because the doctor’s watching NeoGraft asked that NeoGraft keep harvesting out of interest to continue observing the machine. Had NeoGraft only harvested 200 grafts like the other device, the transection rate would have even been lower!!! These are all facts, not speculations like your article.
This article continues with further speculation, conjecture and many false claims about the NeoGraft device under the continued disguise of words like “their is concern… the resulting air flow from the pneumatic pressure may result in rapid desiccation (dehydration) of the extracted follicles”. Do you think that countless doctor’s would continue to purchase the Neograft machine, if the machine dessicated grafts? Doctors purchase the NeoGraft machine because they observe in our live demonstrations that the grafts harvested by NeoGraft are moist, plump, and robust. So many successful hairtransplants have been performed in the last five years that I think it is time to put all this false information to rest. It is not fair to the reader to mislead them with such false claims. They have a right to know that the NeoGraft machine is indeed a “state of the art” machine, that does excellent work and helps bring about results that make patients very happy.
Another false claim is that the NeoGraft device, during implanting, “blasts air pressure” at the grafts, dessicating them. On the contrary, the implanting device used by the NeoGraft machine is the most gentle and reliable way to insure that the grafts will not be damaged. The usual non NeoGraft way of implanting grafts is by pushing and shoving them into the recipient sites with tweezers that squeeze the delicate grafts. This method often causes injury to the grafts and also causes placed grafts to “pop” out. NeoGraft” s implant device is a “no hands” touch implanter which is the most gentle to the grafts. The results of NeoGraft hair transplants show how successful the implanter is. With all the NeoGraft hair transplants that have been successfully performed, the evidence is overwhelming that your notions are best put to rest. Your site loses credibility by continuing to dispense such false information.
Finally, mention needs to made about the “neophyte hair restoration surgeons” that purchase the NeoGraft machine. There are two ways I can address this comment. First of all every doctor who purchases a NeoGraft machine is a “neophyte.” The NeoGraft machine is different than other devices and doctors regardless of the number of years experience, require training on the machine. Before NeoGraft came on the scene there were no doctors experienced in using the NeoGraft device. Even if a doctor did manual FUE, and was highly skilled, he still needed training on the NeoGraft device, to be able to use it. So I cannot understand your reference to the “neophyte.” A Strip doctor needed even more training on the machine, as Strip bears no resemblance to a NeoGraft FUE method.
Secondly, having explained about the training needed, most doctors who buy the NeoGraft machine are highly trained surgeons, who do procedures that are much more serious and complicated than a FUE hair transplant. I would hardly call them Neophytes. I have heard from several of them, who have read this kind of comment elsewhere, that they are insulted by such comments. Hair Transplant surgery in general, but especially with the NeoGraft is not exactly very complicated, or as difficult to learn as some hair transplant doctors want to make the public believe.
Let’s face it, every hair transplant doctor, mostly doing Strip hair transplant surgery, was at one time a neophyte. The only difference between the training the Strip doctor needed to have and the training with a NeoGraft machine, is that the NeoGraft machine is truly as you say “an easy to learn” device. This may be difficult to accept, especially if your only specialty is Strip Surgery, but the NeoGraft machine simplifies hair transplants to a great degree. The machine reduces the skill level required by the doctor doing a STRIP method. This fact is actually beneficial for the patient who does not have to rely so much on the skill of the doctor. We all know hair transplant doctors who market themselves well but who do poor quality hair transplants. At least the patient is not at the mercy of such a situation to as great a degree!! As I said it might be hard to accept that technology takes over for some of the skills required before technology, but that is a fact. I do not want to give the impression that the doctor is dispensable. On the contrary, even with the NeoGraft, the best surgeries, occur in combination with a skilled doctor.
You state “Only time will tell what effect, if any, NeoGraft will have on the future of surgical hair restoration.” I think we can agree that time has validated the many excellent procedures done with the NeoGraft machine, and yes, it is important to have a skilled doctor. However, as I pointed out, NeoGraft has simplified the procedure, and lessened the skill necessary, to the benefit of the patient. A NeoGraft procedure is less invasive that a STRIP method, there are not stitches, no staples, no linear scars, reduced down time, no elongated scars (some small round or microscopic scars, not easily seen), fewer complications, and a very low transection rate. All in all a NeoGraft FUE procedure is very beneficial to the patient for all the above reasons.
November 8, 2011 @ 3:14 am
David,
Your misunderstanding of the statement regarding grafts being wider at one end only underscores the potential risks. This statement is in reference to the fact that the roots of naturally-occurring, follicular unit grafts often splay out below the surface of the scalp. In other words, the apparent width of the cluster at the surface does not always match its width below. Thus, the act of forcing the graft through the “perfectly rounded, precision .8mm punch” has the potential to damage the follicle roots in the process.
Do you like the way I strategically avoided the word “may” in the preceding paragraph?
NeoGraft most definitely intended to market this device to inexperienced physicians. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the following, highly publicized quote by David Walden of Omni Medical, a company involved in marketing the NeoGraft machine:
“Now more than ever, both veteran and entry level aesthetic physicians are in search of new treatments they can offer to their patients. The ‘No Scar’ Automated NeoGraft system will allow physicians to offer the more ‘in demand’ FUE method of hair transplantation which will cut their procedure time in half, significantly reduce or eliminate the need for costly technicians and nearly double their net revenue potential.”
Dare I also point out the false claim of a “no scar” procedure in the above statement? There is simply no surgical procedure today that is completely scar free.
Furthermore, I am not aware of any success stories shared online by unbiased, third parties. If you would care to point me in the direction of patient-driven blogs or discussions with such results I would be very interested to see them. At this point I have seen accolades from only a very select few physicians.
As stated in the article above, time will be the ultimate test for NeoGraft. If it is truly superior, then the work will speak for itself and I would expect to see many more of the world’s leading FUE practitioners to get on board.
David (TakingThePlunge)
November 5, 2011 @ 12:26 am
Once again, someone decides to write a blog about NeoGraft based on pure speculation and zero fact. I counted the “may” at least five times, as in: NeoGraft “may” (fill in the blank adverse result.) Another statement that caught my eye is: “In addition, due to the potential for grafts to be wider at one end, there is also a possibility for transection as they are forced through the rotating punch.” NeoGraft uses a perfectly rounded, precision .8mm punch so how exactly can they be wider at one end? Additionally, NeoGraft has been out for nearly two years now and has been “successfully” used by many, well known “experts” in the hair restoration community on hundreds of patients. None of them have had any issue with transection and if anything, the chance for transection has been reduced.
This entire blog is completely speculative and misleading and I challenge anyone to produce actual, verified cases (plural) of: transection, desiccation, trauma, etc that is the result of the actual NeoGraft technology.
Finally, it goes without saying that anytime any physician makes the decision to expand their scope of practice (including hair restoration) that they do so in a responsible manner. This was absolutely the case for any physician considering getting into hair restoration BEFORE NeoGraft and nothing has changed AFTER NeoGraft. “NeoGraft has been mass marketed as easy to learn all-purpose device that replaces the need for highly skilled and experienced surgeons and their staff.” This statement is by far the most outrageous fabrication I have ever read.
NeoGraft has an abundance of REAL success stories all over the internet and all one has to do is to spend 30 seconds to look. Factless, baseless blogs like this only serve to hurt the hair restoration industry.