ArticlePDF Available

Various Types of Minor Trauma to Hair Follicles During Follicular Unit Extraction for Hair Transplantation

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

Background When performing follicular unit extraction (FUE), various types of minor hair follicle trauma unapparent during follicular unit strip surgery are likely to occur. However, no studies have examined such damage. Methods In total, 100 grafts were randomly selected from each of 42 patients who underwent FUE with a 1-mm-diameter sharp punch. A ×5.5 magnifying loupe and a ×60 magnifying binocular microscope were used. The transection rate (TR), paring, fractures of and damage to the dermal papilla (DP) areas, and hair bulb partial injury were assessed. Results Observation with the magnifying loupe revealed an average TR of 7.40%, and 4.31, 1.90, 1.52, and 0.43 hair follicles per 100 grafts exhibited paring, fracture, DP partial injury, and hair bulb partial injury, respectively. An average of 9.21 telogen hairs were observed. Microscopic examination revealed a TR of 6.34%, and 9.07, 1.95, 0.79, and 1.24 hair follicles per 100 grafts exhibited paring, fracture, DP injury, and hair bulb partial injury, respectively. An average of 16.62 telogen hairs were observed. Conclusions Various types of minor hair follicle damage occur during FUE as shown by loupe and microscopic examination of the grafts. Especially paring and hair bulb injury were more apparent under microscopic examination. These minor hair follicle injuries should be considered when choosing operative method or surgical techniques.
Content may be subject to copyright.
www.PRSGlobalOpen.com 1
INTRODUCTION
Since its first introduction in 2002, follicular unit ex-
traction (FUE) has become an increasingly more popular
method of obtaining donor hair.1
Despite the various advantages and disadvantages of FUE,
it is likely that more patients choose to undergo hair trans-
plantation by FUE than follicular unit strip surgery (FUSS)
because less pain and scarring is associated with FUE. Never-
theless, the efficacy of FUE has been questioned with respect
to whether its outcomes are equivalent to those of FUSS, the
most commonly employed procedure by many hair surgeons.
Some expert hair surgeons have simultaneously per-
formed FUSS and FUE in the same patient. Long-term
comparisons of the 2 methods have revealed much lower
follicle survival rates in FUE than FUSS (53.9% versus
85.2%, respectively).2 FUE-harvested grafts contain less
perifollicular tissue than do FUSS-harvested grafts, and
many physicians evidently believe this to be the main
cause of the lower survival rate of harvested follicles in
FUE than FUSS. Nonetheless, the same expert surgeons
have found that there is a tendency toward a larger de-
viation of surgical outcomes of FUE than FUSS. In cases
in which the same surgeon consistently harvested the fol-
licles by the same method, both excellent and poor results
were observed. This raises 2 important clinical questions:
What characteristics of FUE-obtained grafts, other than
the smaller amount of perifollicular tissue compared
with FUSS-obtained grafts, contribute to this variation in
outcomes? How does the appearance of FUE- and FUSS-
obtained grafts differ under a microscopic and high-mag-
nification loupe?
Microscopic dissection is generally chosen for FUSS.
However, although an approximately ×5 magnifying loupe
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), 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.
DOI: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000001260
From the Dana Plastic Surgery Clinic, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, Korea.
Received for publication October 14, 2016; accepted January 20,
2017.
Background: When performing follicular unit extraction (FUE), various types of
minor hair follicle trauma unapparent during follicular unit strip surgery are likely
to occur. However, no studies have examined such damage.
Methods: In total, 100 grafts were randomly selected from each of 42 patients who
underwent FUE with a 1-mm-diameter sharp punch. A ×5.5 magnifying loupe and
a ×60 magnifying binocular microscope were used. The transection rate (TR), par-
ing, fractures of and damage to the dermal papilla (DP) areas, and hair bulb par-
tial injury were assessed.
Results: Observation with the magnifying loupe revealed an average TR of 7.40%,
and 4.31, 1.90, 1.52, and 0.43 hair follicles per 100 grafts exhibited paring, fracture,
DP partial injury, and hair bulb partial injury, respectively. An average of 9.21 telo-
gen hairs were observed. Microscopic examination revealed a TR of 6.34%, and
9.07, 1.95, 0.79, and 1.24 hair follicles per 100 grafts exhibited paring, fracture, DP
injury, and hair bulb partial injury, respectively. An average of 16.62 telogen hairs
were observed.
Conclusions: Various types of minor hair follicle damage occur during FUE as
shown by loupe and microscopic examination of the grafts. Especially paring and
hair bulb injury were more apparent under microscopic examination. These mi-
nor hair follicle injuries should be considered when choosing operative method
or surgical techniques. (Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2017;5:e1260; doi: 10.1097/
GOX.0000000000001260; Published online 16 March 2017.)
Jae Hyun Park, MD, PhD
Seung Hyun You, MD
Various Types of Minor Trauma to Hair Follicles
During Follicular Unit Extraction for Hair
Transplantation
Disclosure: The authors have no financial interest to
declare in relation to the content of this article. The Article
Processing Charge was paid for by the authors.
Cosmetic
2017
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
PRS Global Open 2017
2
is recommended for FUE, some surgeons perform this
procedure with the naked eye or by wearing a simple ×1.5
or ×2.0 magnifying glass. The grafts harvested in this way
might then be inspected by the naked eye, a ×1.5 to ×2.0
magnifying glass, and a ×5 magnifying loupe to confirm
whether they are intact or properly transected.
Until now, we have only considered either the occur-
rence of transection or the presence of intact grafts to
assess the quality of follicles harvested by either FUE or
FUSS. We believe that the transection rate (TR) provides
valuable information about the quality of FUE surgery.
However, in addition to simple transection, the occur-
rence of other types of minor trauma to the follicles har-
vested by FUE is probable, and these types of trauma are
rarely seen in FUSS.
FUSS lacks various potentially traumatic processes
such as dissection using a rotating or oscillating punch
and extraction using aid-to-extraction forceps or jeweler’s
forceps. Hence, in the present study, we aimed to identify
other types of hair follicle injuries that can occur in addi-
tion to transection.
To the best of our knowledge, no reports have ad-
dressed the nature and extent of these types of minor
hair follicle trauma. Therefore, we conducted the present
study to determine the frequency and nature of minor
trauma that occurs during FUE surgery.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This study included 42 patients (38 males and 4 fe-
males) at the authors’ clinic. Using a 1-mm-diameter
sharp punch, 100 follicles were randomly selected from
each patient. In total, 4200 grafts were analyzed.
Patients with a history of hair transplant surgery, infec-
tious disease, or trauma in the donor area were excluded
from the study. The patients’ age distribution ranged from
28 to 52 years, and the mean age was 32.6 years. All male pa-
tients exhibited Norwood stage 3 to 5 male pattern baldness.
All female patients were undergoing female hairline correc-
tion without female pattern hair loss. The donor area of all
patients was shaved in the form of a total or partial patch for
FUE. This study was approved by the internal institutional re-
view board of the Korea National Institute of Bioethics Policy.
FUE Procedure
All punching was performed by 1 expert hair surgeon
(Dr. Park). A 1-mm sharp punch of the Folligraft system
(LeadM Corp., Seoul, Korea) was used. The surgical pro-
cedure was implemented in the same manner as routinely
performed during a normal FUE operation. A FOX test was
conducted at the beginning and in the middle of the sur-
gery, while the punching depth was modified. The punching
depth achieved was within 2.5 to 3.5 mm (mean, 2.9 mm).
All injuries were divided into 5 types: transection, par-
ing, fracture, dermal papilla (DP) injury, and hair bulb
partial injury. The presence or absence of such injuries
was confirmed in all patients. A ×5.5 magnifying loupe and
×60 magnifying binocular microscope were employed for
analysis. If none of the above-described 5 types of injury
was present, the hair follicle was considered intact.
Statistical Analysis
An independent-samples t test was conducted to deter-
mine the differences in the types of partial injuries in all
patients.
RESULTS
The TR was 7.40% based on microscopic observation
and 6.34% based on loupe observation. The difference
in these rates was not significantly different (P > 0.05).
However, the 2 observation methods showed significantly
different numbers of telogen hairs: an average of 9.21 fol-
licles based on loupe observation and an average of 16.62
follicles based on microscopic observation (P < 0.001;
Table 1).
Paring was present in approximately 4.31 follicles
based on loupe observation and 9.07 follicles based on mi-
croscopic observation; microscopic observation showed a
2-fold higher number of affected follicles, and the differ-
ence was statistically significant (P < 0.000).
DP partial injury affected an average of 0.52 follicles based
on loupe observation and 0.79 follicles based on microscopic
observation with no significant difference (P > 0.243).
Bulb injury affected an average of 0.43 and 1.24 fol-
licles based on loupe and microscopic observation, respec-
tively, with a significant difference (P < 0.003).
Finally, an average of 1.90 follicles were fractured based
on loupe observation and an average of 1.95 follicles were
fractured based on microscopic observation, with no sig-
nificant difference between the 2 methods (P > 0.858).
Trauma was more frequently found in association with
all types of damage under microscopic examination. How-
ever, a statistically significant difference appeared only for
paring and bulb injury (Fig. 1).
DISCUSSION
Generally, patients prefer FUE to FUSS for obtaining
donor hair, although the follicle survival rate remains con-
troversial because of less postoperative pain and to avoid
linear donor scar.3
Table 1. Comparative Analysis of FUE-extracted Grafts
Using a Loupe and Microscope
Minimum Maximum Average
Magnifying
loupe
TR (%) 1.3 17.3 7.40
Paring 0 17 4.31
Fracture 0 4 1.90
DP injury 0 3 0.52
Hair bulb partial
injury
0 3 0.43
Telogen 0 22 9.21
Microscope TR (%) 1.3 15.89 6.34
Paring 2 20 9.07
Fracture 0 4 1.95
DP injury 0 4 0.79
Hair bulb partial
injury
0 7 1.24
Telogen 3 37 16.62
TR = transected hair follicle/total number of hair follicles harvested. Paring,
fracture, DP injury, and hair bulb injury: number of hair follicles found with
each injury per 100 follicles. Telogen: number of telogen hair follicles found
per 100 grafts.
Park and You Types of Minor Trauma to Hair Follicles During FUE
3
Despite the fact that FUSS can have phenomenal re-
sults with respect to minimal scarring when the tricho-
phytic closure strategy is used, this is a benefit generally
seen from the doctor’s point of view and may differ from
the patient’s perspective. From the patient’s point of view,
FUE is a more minimally invasive and patient-friendly
method.4,5
Regardless, successful and consistent results of FUE
are still being demanded. The type of surgery that would
be considered a successful FUE surgery remains unclear.
When comparing FUE with FUSS, the TR and calculated
density are often compared, and the TR is often examined
by itself.5–7 The TR is undoubtedly a very important fac-
tor that must be considered during surgery, but a lower
TR in association with a high follicle survival rate is also
an imperative factor to be considered. Fewer studies have
evaluated the follicle survival rate in FUE. Beehner8 per-
formed FUE and FUSS simultaneously in the same patient
and reported an 85.2% follicle survival rate in FUSS and a
53.9% follicle survival rate in FUE.
Many researchers and hair surgeons believe that the
reason for the difference in the survival rate between FUE
and FUSS is the difference in the amount of perifollicu-
lar tissue between the 2 types of grafts. A thicker graft is
associated with a higher follicle survival rate; this fact is
recognized as the most basic concept of hair transplanta-
tion. Many other factors may also affect the follicle sur-
vival rate, such as the out-of-body time, dryness, physical
trauma, and surgeon’s implantation skills.9
In the present study, no paring, fracture, DP injury, or
bulb damage was observed while affirming the randomly
selected follicles under a microscope; all of these follicles
were arbitrarily acquired by FUSS and analyzed as a fol-
licular unit by a highly experienced surgical assistant.
How specifically and practically hair follicle trauma af-
fects the survival rate remains unknown. However, based
on our literature review, it is possible to infer that the mi-
nor trauma described in this report has more negative
effects on hair follicles than intact and perfectly condi-
tioned grafts with no minor trauma.
Fig. 1. Various types of follicle injury that are likely to occur during FUE (×60 magnication). A, Total transection. B, Partial transection. C,
Paring. D, DP injury. E, Bulb injury. F, Fracture. G, Telogen.
PRS Global Open 2017
4
Hair follicle stem cells are not a single multipotent
entity given that a pilosebaceous unit contains numerous
stem cell populations and subpopulations ranging from
epithelial to mesenchymal and melanocyte stem cells. The
epithelium comprises the hair shaft, inner root sheath,
and outer root sheath (ORS). The isthmus is the region
between the entry of the sebaceous duct and the inser-
tion of the arrector pili muscle. The isthmus includes the
“bulge” region (otherwise known as the basal, outermost
ORS layer of the distal hair follicle epithelium at the prox-
imal end of the isthmus), which contains the epithelial
hair follicle stem cells. The DP and dermal sheath of the
follicle are mesenchymal in origin and have been shown
to harbor multipotent stem cell subpopulations distinct
from epithelial hair follicle stem cells, such as skin-derived
precursors, NESTIN+ cells, or SOX2+ cells.10–12
Hair follicle morphogenesis and regeneration depend
on intensive but well-orchestrated interactions between
epithelial (bulge stem cells, their descendent secondary
hair germ cells, and hair matrix cells) and mesenchymal
(DP and dermal sheath) components.10–13 Thus, both DP
stem cells and epithelial stem cells are important, and hair
growth is reportedly degraded if either is missing.
Each type of trauma described in this study is shown in
detail in Figure 1. First and foremost is transection, which
can occur not only during the strip incision process of
FUSS but also during dissection in FUE. The transected
donor hair follicle obtained by FUE remains in the donor
scalp tissue; in FUSS, however, it completely dissipates.
The second type of injury is paring. Paring refers to lac-
eration or avulsion of the ORS by the punch tip (Fig. 2).14
The third injury is fracture. A fracture is defined as
separation of either end of the hair follicle into 2 or more
pieces due to stress at some point along the length of the
follicle.14 The cause of a fracture is rotation of the punch
tip, which partially traumatizes the hair follicle like a lac-
eration, resulting in injury to the ORS and the hair shaft
on one side; the ORS and partial hair shaft on the other
side remain intact, maintaining the overall continuity of
the follicle (Fig. 2). Theoretically, fractures occur more
frequently under circumstances of increased axial force
such as rubbery skin; long, thick hair follicles; hyperelastic
skin; and use of a blunt punch tip.15
The fourth type of trauma is DP injury. This occurs
due to an insufficient punching depth when considering
the adhesion between the perifollicular tissue and the
hair follicle. When the depth is too superficial for extrac-
tion, the tissues of the ORS encompassing the hair bulb
and DP can likewise be detached or torn out. Therefore,
from a clinical perspective, when conducting the extrac-
tion, the surrounding scalp tissues can be elevated by tag-
ging along the graft, which can suddenly break off later,
resulting in frequent DP injuries. If the punch tip enters
even deeper than the minimal punching depth, it can
reach a segment where extraction of the hair follicles can
be conducted in a smoother, easier manner without hav-
ing to increase the TR. The authors refer to this as the
safe punching depth.
The fifth type of trauma is bulb partial damage. This
is another very important factor that may be overlooked.
A partially damaged hair follicle will be considered intact
if it does not contribute to the TR, which we have recog-
nized. However, it is highly likely to affect the survival rate.
An important fact that matters in the present study is that
such types of damage to the hair bulb frequently occur
in many cases and that they can usually be visualized only
under a ×60 magnifying microscope and not through a
×5 to ×6 magnifying loupe, which is routinely used during
FUE. Trauma to the hair bulb such as damage, crushing,
or partial avulsion are thought to profoundly affect the
survival of hair follicles. From a comprehensive viewpoint,
not only are a too superficial punching depth and inad-
equate extraction undesirable, but a too deep punching
depth should be avoided as well.
Fig. 2. Concept schema for easy understanding of paring, fracture, and transection.
Park and You Types of Minor Trauma to Hair Follicles During FUE
5
The main limitation of this study is that transection
and other types of minor trauma were dependent upon
the operators’ skill levels and variations in techniques.
We consider that a further study is required to gain a
better understanding of the effects of various types of
trauma on the survival rate of damaged follicles. We also
believe that an additional study should be conducted to
determine how these types of trauma vary depending
on various FUE techniques and skin and hair charac-
teristics.
This study confirms the existence of diverse types of
damage to hair follicles obtained through FUE. Such graft
damage was less often detected by a ×5 to ×6 magnifying
loupe, which is routinely used during FUE, than with a
×60 microscope. The present study will serve as a baseline
for additional studies on this topic, enabling researchers
to discover better surgical techniques that ensure satisfac-
tory results for both the doctor and the patient.
Jae Hyun Park, MD, PhD
Dana Plastic Surgery Clinic
Samju Building 10F
Gangnamdaero 606, Gangnam-gu
Seoul, Korea
E-mail: Jay8384@naver.com
REFERENCES
1. Rassman WR, Bernstein RM, McClellan R, et al. Follicular unit
extraction: minimally invasive surgery for hair transplantation.
Dermatol Surg. 2002;28:720–728.
2. Beehner M. A comparative study of FUE and FUT survival in four
patients. 23rd Annual Scientific Meeting, ISHRS, Chicago, 2015.
3. Harris JA. Follicular unit extraction. Facial Plast Surg Clin North
Am. 2013;21:375–384.
4. Dua A, Dua K. Follicular unit extraction hair transplant. J Cutan
Aesthet Surg. 2010;3:76–81.
5. Ors S, Ozkose M, Ors S. Follicular unit extraction hair transplan-
tation with micromotor: eight years experience. Aesthetic Plast
Surg. 2015;39:589–596.
6. Shin JW, Kwon SH, Kim SA, et al. Characteristics of roboti-
cally harvested hair follicles in Koreans. J Am Acad Dermatol.
2015;72:146–150.
7. Cole J. Status of individual follicular group harvesting. Hair
Tranplant Forum Int’l. 2009;19:20–24.
8. Beehner M. MFU grafts and strip harvesting – we hardly know
yet. Hair Transplant Forum Int’l. 2014;24:125–126.
9. Parsley WM, Perez-Meza D. Review of factors affecting the growth
and survival of follicular grafts. J Cutan Aesthet Surg. 2010;3:69–75.
10. Ohyama M, Veraitch O. Strategies to enhance epithelial-mes-
enchymal interactions for human hair follicle bioengineering.
J Dermatol Sci. 2013;70:78–87.
11. Ohyama M, Zheng Y, Paus R, et al. The mesenchymal component
of hair follicle neogenesis: background, methods and molecular
characterization. Exp Dermatol. 2010;19:89–99.
12. Commo S, Gaillard O, Bernard BA. The human hair follicle
contains two distinct K19 positive compartments in the out-
er root sheath: a unifying hypothesis for stem cell reservoir?
Differentiation. 2000;66:157–164.
13. Yang CC, Cotsarelis G. Review of hair follicle dermal cells.
J Dermatol Sci. 2010;57:2–11.
14. Lorenzo J, Devorye JM, True RH, et al. Standardization of the
terminology used in FUE: part I. Hair Transplant Forum Int’l.
2013;23:165–168.
15. Cole JP. An analysis of follicular punches, mechanics, and dy-
namics in follicular unit extraction. Facial Plast Surg Clin North
Am. 2013;21:437–447.
... The ultimate goal is to obtain hair follicles that are as healthy and intact as possible without transecting the graft or causing other minor injuries. [2,3] The scalp is composed of the epidermis, dermis, subcutaneous fat layer, galea aponeurosis, and pericranium. [4] When advancing currently available hair transplant punches into the scalp for FUE, they enter the epidermis, dermis, and subcutaneous layers. ...
... [6,7] Another goal of FUE is extracting "chubby" grafts similar to those obtained with FUSS, as "chubby" grafts are associated with better survival. In 2017, Park and You [2] argued that minor follicular injuries such as paring, fracture, dermal papilla injury, and hair bulb injury exert a negative influence on graft survival and are less frequent with FUE than FUSS. A follow-up study 3 years later showed that grafts with minor follicular injuries had a lower survival rate than intact hair follicles [3] [ Figure 1]. ...
Article
Full-text available
Follicular unit excision is widely used for hair transplantation because it lacks a donor scar and is associated with less postoperative pain. Obtaining high-quality grafts and minimizing hair follicle damage during graft harvesting are key. This review elaborates on the types and dynamics of punches used in follicular unit extraction. We also describe the utility and advantages of a new “Multi-Wave Punch,” a new type of punch designed to optimize graft extraction and reduce follicular injury. This multi-wave punch is composed of three different parts. The cutting edge at the end is blunt-angled. Adjacent is the leading edge, which is characterized by several horizontally oriented multi-wave shapes. Most proximal is the main body, which is decagonal in shape. Because of the multi-wave and decagonal structure, the punch easily enters the outer layers of the scalp. The wave energy is transmitted to the surrounding tissue, separating hair follicles from adjacent tissue, facilitating extraction, reducing follicular damage, and ensuring higher quality grafts.
... However, follicular injuries of FUE grafts are not simply classified into intact and transected follicles; hair follicles harvested by the FUE method can cause minor injuries such as paring, fracture, and dermal papilla injury. 4 Furthermore, a study in which transplanted hair follicles collected by the FUE method were transplanted into nude mice proved that hair follicles with minor injuries have a lower survival rate than intact hair follicles. 5 Therefore, it is very important to minimize hair follicle damage such as paring, fracture, and transection to successfully perform FUE surgery. ...
Article
Full-text available
Purpose Follicular unit excision (FUE) surgery is becoming increasingly popular and the number of grafts transplanted in a single session is increasing. Furthermore, complicated surgeries and those requiring a longer surgical time such as non-shaven FUE and long hair FUE are more actively being performed worldwide. The main aim in FUE surgery is to obtain the best quality grafts while minimizing follicular damage during donor harvest. This article describes a novel FUE device that achieves these goals. Patients and Methods We describe a novel FUE device with Bluetooth function, fingertip touch sensor, multiphasic movement, automated operation by setting the interval time between punching motions, ergonomic design, various innovative functions, and an easily upgradable application used to operate the handpiece. We also report the concept of design, mechanism of action, methods of use, and effect of each innovative function. Results The various state-of-the-art features of the device minimize the risk of follicular injury when working with a wide variety of scalp and hair follicle types and conditions. In addition, it enables successful donor harvesting by reducing the surgeon’s workload and improving ergonomics. Conclusion We introduce an innovative and new device for use in FUE surgery. This novel device has the potential to increase the convenience, scalability, and safety of FUE surgery.
Chapter
Follicular Unit Excision (FUE) has emerged as a highly effective method for harvesting donor hair follicles in Hair Restoration Surgery (HRS). It utilizes manual, motorized, or robotic devices to extract individual follicular units in situ without leaving a linear donor scar, unlike the classic Linear Strip Excision (LSE) technique. The FUE technique is particularly advantageous for patients desiring short hairstyles and hiding signs of surgery. Over the last two decades, the global demand for FUE has propelled the market size of HRS market to unprecedented levels. While “lege artis” FUE has revolutionized HRS industry by offering excellent cosmesis, minimum downtime, and high patient satisfaction, its popularity is partly fueled by misconceptions, such as claims of being “minimally invasive,” “scarless,” or “not even surgery.” Unfortunately, these notions are often perpetuated by illicit clinics that offer low-cost FUE procedures performed by inexperienced technicians on unsuspected patients. The FUE technique appears deceptively uncomplicated, and has attracted myriads of neophyte surgeons who falsely believe that the learning curve of FUE is short just because the barrier of entry is low and no previous surgical skill is required. The appeal of FUE comes with inherent challenges, including the extremely high potential for graft injuries (since it is a blind technique) and long-term irreversible side effects if not performed properly. Surgeons undertaking FUE must possess a comprehensive understanding of the nuances of the technique to ensure consistent graft quality and favorable cosmesis in both donor and recipient areas. Achieving proficiency in FUE necessitates scientific knowledge, lengthy training, dexterity, enthusiasm, cognitive clarity, experience, and dedication to the required prolonged learning curve. While FUE stands as a valuable addition to the armamentarium of an HRS surgeon, its judicious application is paramount. This paper delves into the evolution, challenges, and critical aspects of skillful FUE implementation in the field of HRS.
Article
To integrate and summarize the best evidence on perioperative management practices for hair transplantation patients, providing an evidence-based reference for clinical. An exhaustive literature search was conducted to identify the best evidence for managing patients undergoing hair transplantation during the perioperative period. The databases searched included Up To Date, BMJ Best Practice, UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, National Guideline Clearing House, Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network, Guidelines International Network, Cochrane Library, JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports, PubMed, Web of Science, European Dermatology Forum, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Data, Medlive Guideline Network, and Sinomed. The search spanned publications from February 2013 to February 2024, focusing on clinical decisions, evidence summaries, guidelines, and expert consensus. We finally identified 22 articles with high-quality results (consisting of 9 clinical decisions, 6 guidelines, 7 expert consensuses), providing 41 pieces of evidence across seven categories: assessment of transplantation conditions, transplant planning and preoperative preparation, anesthetic preparations, surgical methods and operation skills, postoperative wound management, medication-related guidance, optimization of nursing and treatment strategies. Special emphasis has been placed on the sections covering anesthesia preparation, surgical methods, and operational techniques, with detailed explanations provided. The summarized best evidence on perioperative management practices for hair transplantation patients can serve as evidence-based guidelines for clinical. It is recommended that clinical staff adopt evidence-based recommendations to improve and optimize patient outcomes and promote postoperative recovery. As these evidences came from different countries, factors such as the clinical environment should be evaluated before application. This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.
Chapter
Hair transplant surgery has undergone remarkable developments during the past 20–30 years. Since establishment of the concept of modern hair transplantation in the mid to late 1990s, novel surgical methods have been introduced in the order of follicular unit excision (FUE), follicular unit transplantation megasessions, FUE megasessions, non-shaven FUE, and long-hair FUE. Instruments and devices for FUE procedures have also made tremendous progress, potentiating the harvest of high-quality grafts with minimal follicular injury. The field of female hairline correction surgery has progressed beyond the concept of simple reconstruction in alopecic areas and now proudly takes its place as facial aesthetic surgery that changes the facial contour and completes the harmony of the entire face. The present chapter introduces and reviews five landmark papers in the field of hair transplant surgery from the 1990s to the present with the aim of discussing the developments in this field.
Article
Follicular unit excision (FUE) is a very effective and valuable modality for obtaining donor hair follicles using manual, motorized, or robotic devices to harvest individual donor follicular units in situ without a linear donor scar or visible scarring making it ideal for patients who wish to wear their hair short and hide signs of surgery. Over the past two decades, FUE has become increasingly popular, and the rising demand for FUE has driven the worldwide market size of hair restoration surgery (HRS) to an unprecedented height. FUE has revolutionized the HRS industry and offers excellent cosmesis and high patient satisfaction. Unfortunately, a large part of the favorable appeal of FUE is due to false claims that it is “minimally invasive,” “scarless,” or “not even surgery.” Most patients opt-in for FUE due to these misconceptions, which are advertised by “black-market” clinics offering low-cost FUE surgery performed by amateur, nonprofessional technicians on unsuspected patients. The technique appears deceptively simple, and many neophyte surgeons falsely believe that the learning curve of FUE is short because the barrier of entry is low and no previous surgical skill is required. Nevertheless, injuries on grafts are extremely easy to occur since FUE is a blind technique and can be minimized only with excellent technique, which takes years to master. FUE actually presents unique challenges for the surgeon and carries potential long-term permanent side effects if not performed properly. The surgeon must have a thorough understanding of the nuances of the FUE surgical technique to ensure consistent graft quality and favorable cosmesis of both donor and recipient areas. Efficient FUE requires dexterity, training, dedication, devotion, enthusiasm, cognitive clarity, scientific knowledge, experience, and an extended learning curve. FUE is an invaluable addition to the armamentarium of a hair restoration surgeon but has to be judiciously performed.
Article
Full-text available
Background Recently, an automated robotic hair restoration device was developed and is increasingly being used for hair restoration. Objective We sought to analyze the hair follicles of Korean patients that were harvested by a hair restoration robotic device. Methods Data were reviewed from a total of 22 patients who underwent robotic follicular unit (FU) extraction hair restoration surgery at Seoul National University Bundang Hospital. Hair follicles collected from 3 grids in the central parts of the safe donor zone of each patient were analyzed. Results The total number of harvested FUs was 5213, and the total number of collected FUs was 4955. The average yield was 95.1% ± 3.5%. Among the 12,017 harvested hairs, 590 hairs were transected and the average transection rate was 4.91% ± 2.9%. FUs of double hairs made up the majority of harvested FUs (44.1%), followed by triple hairs (31.9%). The transection rate increases in FUs that contain multiple hairs. Limitations A relatively small sample size and lack of comparative study with conventional FU extraction modalities are limitations. Conclusions The robotic system qualifies for use in hair restoration surgery. It efficiently harvests not only single hairs but multiple hairs as well.
Article
Full-text available
Success in follicular unit extraction requires an understanding of forces, fluid dynamics, instrumentation, and individual patient variation. Sharp punches require a lower axial and tangential force to dissect follicular groups. The angle of hair emergence and the size of a punch influence the wound size and the depth of an incision. A procedure must be individualized based on surface follicular group characteristics; hair splay; and strength of attachment between the outer root sheath, inner root sheath, and adipose with regard to hair follicles.
Article
Follicular unit extraction (FUE) has been performed for over a decade. Our experience in the patients who underwent hair transplantation using only the FUE method was included in this study. A total of 1000 patients had hair transplantation using the FUE method between 2005 and 2014 in our clinic. Manual punch was used in 32 and micromotor was used in 968 patients for graft harvesting. During the time that manual punch was used for graft harvesting, 1000-2000 grafts were transplanted in one session in 6-8 h. Following micromotor use, the average graft count was increased to 2500 and the operation time remained unchanged. Graft take was difficult in 11.1 %, easy in 52.2 %, and very easy in 36.7 % of our patients. The main purpose of hair transplantation is to restore the hair loss. During the process, obtaining a natural appearance and adequate hair intensity is important. In the FUE method, grafts can be taken without changing their natural structure, there is no need for magnification, and the grafts can be transplanted directly without using any other processes. Because there is no suture in the FUE method, patients do not experience these incision site problems and scar formation. The FUE method enables us to achieve a natural appearance with less morbidity. This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
Article
Follicular Unit Transplantation (FUT) is performed using large numbers of naturally occuring individual follicular units obtained by single-strip harvesting and stereo-microscopic dissection. Donor wound scarring from strip excision, although an infrequent complication, still concerns enough patients that an alternative solution is warranted. The purpose of this paper is to introduce Follicular Unit Extraction (The FOX Procedure), in which individual follicular units are removed directly from the donor region through very small punch excisions, and to describe a test (The FOX Test) that determines which patients are candidates for this procedure. This paper explores the nuances, limitations, and practical aspects of Follicular Unit Extraction (FUE). FUE was performed using 1-mm punches to separate follicular units from the surrounding tissue down to the level of the mid dermis. This was followed by extraction of the follicular units with forceps. The FOX test was developed to determine which patients would be good candidates for the procedure. The test was performed on 200 patients. Representative patients who were FOX-positive and FOX-negative were studied histologically. The FOX Test can determine which patients are suitable candidates for FUE. Approximately 25% of the patients biopsied were ideal candidates for FUE and 35% of the patients biopsied were good candidates for extraction. FUE is a minimally invasive approach to hair transplantation that obviates the need for a linear donor incision. This technique can serve as an important alternative to traditional hair transplantation in certain patients.
Article
The purpose of this article is to introduce the reader to the topic of follicular unit extraction (FUE) and to present an overview of the value of FUE to patients and physicians. In addition to this, the various methods and instrumentation for performing this method of graft harvest are discussed as well as some of the technique's inherent advantages and disadvantages. Topics unique to FUE, including body hair grafting, plug/minigrafts repair, and donor area management are addressed as well.
Article
Hair follicle morphogenesis and regeneration depend on intensive but well-orchestrated interactions between epithelial and mesenchymal components. Accordingly, the enhancement of this crosstalk represents a promising approach to achieve successful bioengineering of human hair follicles. The present article summarizes the techniques, both currently available and potentially feasible, to promote epithelial-mesenchymal interactions (EMIs) necessary for human hair follicle regeneration. The strategies include the preparation of epithelial components with high receptivity to trichogenic dermal signals and/or mesenchymal cell populations with potent hair inductive capacity. In this regard, bulge epithelial stem cells, keratinocytes predisposed to hair follicle fate or keratinocyte precursor cells with plasticity may provide favorable epithelial cell populations. Dermal papilla cells sustaining intrinsic hair inductive capacity, putative dermal papilla precursor cells in the dermal sheath/neonatal dermis or trichogenic dermal cells derived from undifferentiated stem/progenitor cells are promising candidates as hair inductive dermal cells. The most established protocol for in vivo hair follicle reconstitution is co-grafting of epithelial and mesenchymal components into immunodeficient mice. In theory, combination of individually optimized cellular components of respective lineages should elicit most intensive EMIs to form hair follicles. Still, EMIs can be further ameliorated by the modulation of non-cell autonomous conditions, including cell compartmentalization to replicate the positional relationship in vivo and humanization of host environment by preparing human stromal bed. These approaches may not always synergistically intensify EMIs, however, step-by-step investigation probing optimal combinations should maximally enhance EMIs to achieve successful human hair follicle bioengineering.
Article
Hair transplantation has come a long way from the days of Punch Hair Transplant by Dr. Orentreich in 1950s to Follicular Unit Hair Transplant (FUT) of 1990s and the very recent Follicular Unit Extraction (FUE) technique. With the advent of FUE, the dream of 'no visible scarring' in the donor area is now looking like a possibility. In FUE, the grafts are extracted as individual follicular units in a two-step or three-step technique whereas the method of implantation remains the same as in the traditional FUT. The addition of latest automated FUE technique seeks to overcome some of the limitations in this relatively new technique and it is now possible to achieve more than a thousand grafts in one day in trained hands. This article reviews the methodology, limitations and advantages of FUE hair transplant.