Hair transplant practice guidelines
Venkatram Mysore1, Muthuvel Kumaresan2, Anil Garg3, Aman Dua4, Aniketh Venkatram2, Kapil Dua4, Mayank Singh5, Madura C6, Ram Chandran7, Rajendra Singh Rajput8, Sandeep Sattur9, Sukhbir Singh10
1 The Venkat Center for Skin and Plastic Surgery, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India
2 Cutis Skin Clinic & Hair Transplant Center, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India
3 Rejuvenate Hair Transplant Center, Indore, Madhya Pradesh, India
4 AK Clinics & Hair Transplant Center, Delhi, India
5 Radiance Cosmetic Center, Delhi, India
6 Cutis Academy of Cutaneous Sciences, Bangalore, India
7 Apollo Speciality Center, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
8 Rajesh Rajput Clinic, Mumbai, India
9 Hair Revive Center, Mumbai, India
10 Resplendent Cosmetic Studio, Delhi, India
Dr. Muthuvel Kumaresan
Cutis Skin Clinic & Hair Transplant Center, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu.
Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None
The field of hair transplant (HT) has grown exponentially in the past decade, especially after the introduction of follicular unit excision (FUE). There is much variation in criteria for case selection, the technique, pre- and post-procedure protocols, by different surgeons. Techniques continue to evolve and evidence in the form of controlled data is not available for all techniques and protocols being used; there is also a debate as to who can do what, what should be the training for staff, role of technicians. This has led to a situation wherein medico legal issues have cropped up as to what is minimum acceptable. An attempt is made to summarize standard protocols with the available evidence. It is emphasized that the objective of these guidelines is to recommend minimum standards for practice of hair transplantation. The principles outlined in these guidelines are of a general nature only, minimal in their level and are not meant to cover all situations. It should be understood that these recommendations are by no means binding and universal, represent minimum standards only and as in all surgical techniques, variations in techniques are possible. It is also further clarified that these are based on current literature, and as science evolves, these guidelines could also change in future. Where published evidence is not available, consensus expert opinion is presented. The task force emphasizes that each patient has to be treated on his/her own merit and that these guidelines do not limit the physician from making an appropriate choice or the necessary innovation for a given patient. The task force recognizes that the treating surgeon is best suited to decide what is needed for a given patient in a given situation. Innovations in medicine need flexibility in approach and these guidelines do not limit the surgeon from undertaking innovative research.