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,...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
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 |