Cargando…

Pretrimmed versus Direct Nonshaven Follicular Unit Extraction

BACKGROUND: Shaving the donor area is one of the major deterrents preventing hair transplant patients from selecting follicular unit extraction (FUE). A minimal shaved donor area is possible in strip surgery, but the strip method is not applicable if the patient wishes to avoid a linear donor scar,...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Park, Jae Hyun, You, Seung Hyun
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Wolters Kluwer Health 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5404446/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28458975
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000001261
_version_ 1783231598041235456
author Park, Jae Hyun
You, Seung Hyun
author_facet Park, Jae Hyun
You, Seung Hyun
author_sort Park, Jae Hyun
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Shaving the donor area is one of the major deterrents preventing hair transplant patients from selecting follicular unit extraction (FUE). A minimal shaved donor area is possible in strip surgery, but the strip method is not applicable if the patient wishes to avoid a linear donor scar, wishes to minimize postoperative pain, or has insufficient scalp laxity. In these cases, nonshaven FUE (NS-FUE) is potentially a very good choice. METHODS: A total of 42 patients were enrolled. Both pretrimmed and direct NS-FUE were performed during a single session in each patient. The 2 methods were compared regarding the time taken to punch 50 grafts, transection rate, and calculated density (number of hairs per graft). RESULTS: The mean time taken to punch 50 grafts was significantly longer in the pretrimmed method than the direct method (3.4 minutes versus 2.6 minutes; P < 0.001). The mean transection rate was similar in both methods (8.8% for the pretrimmed method and 7.5% for the direct method; P > 0.05). The mean calculated density was significantly higher in the pretrimmed method than the direct method (2.23 hairs per graft versus 2.15 hairs per graft; P < 0.05). The length of the harvested hair was 1–4 mm in the pretrimmed method, compared with 0.4–0.8 mm in the direct method. CONCLUSION: Depending on the proficiency and preference of doctors and the case indications, pretrimmed and direct NS-FUE are both useful techniques for hair transplantation.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5404446
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Wolters Kluwer Health
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-54044462017-04-28 Pretrimmed versus Direct Nonshaven Follicular Unit Extraction Park, Jae Hyun You, Seung Hyun Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open Original Article BACKGROUND: Shaving the donor area is one of the major deterrents preventing hair transplant patients from selecting follicular unit extraction (FUE). A minimal shaved donor area is possible in strip surgery, but the strip method is not applicable if the patient wishes to avoid a linear donor scar, wishes to minimize postoperative pain, or has insufficient scalp laxity. In these cases, nonshaven FUE (NS-FUE) is potentially a very good choice. METHODS: A total of 42 patients were enrolled. Both pretrimmed and direct NS-FUE were performed during a single session in each patient. The 2 methods were compared regarding the time taken to punch 50 grafts, transection rate, and calculated density (number of hairs per graft). RESULTS: The mean time taken to punch 50 grafts was significantly longer in the pretrimmed method than the direct method (3.4 minutes versus 2.6 minutes; P < 0.001). The mean transection rate was similar in both methods (8.8% for the pretrimmed method and 7.5% for the direct method; P > 0.05). The mean calculated density was significantly higher in the pretrimmed method than the direct method (2.23 hairs per graft versus 2.15 hairs per graft; P < 0.05). The length of the harvested hair was 1–4 mm in the pretrimmed method, compared with 0.4–0.8 mm in the direct method. CONCLUSION: Depending on the proficiency and preference of doctors and the case indications, pretrimmed and direct NS-FUE are both useful techniques for hair transplantation. Wolters Kluwer Health 2017-03-16 /pmc/articles/PMC5404446/ /pubmed/28458975 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000001261 Text en Copyright © 2017 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of The American Society of Plastic Surgeons. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND) (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) , where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal.
spellingShingle Original Article
Park, Jae Hyun
You, Seung Hyun
Pretrimmed versus Direct Nonshaven Follicular Unit Extraction
title Pretrimmed versus Direct Nonshaven Follicular Unit Extraction
title_full Pretrimmed versus Direct Nonshaven Follicular Unit Extraction
title_fullStr Pretrimmed versus Direct Nonshaven Follicular Unit Extraction
title_full_unstemmed Pretrimmed versus Direct Nonshaven Follicular Unit Extraction
title_short Pretrimmed versus Direct Nonshaven Follicular Unit Extraction
title_sort pretrimmed versus direct nonshaven follicular unit extraction
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5404446/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28458975
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000001261
work_keys_str_mv AT parkjaehyun pretrimmedversusdirectnonshavenfollicularunitextraction
AT youseunghyun pretrimmedversusdirectnonshavenfollicularunitextraction