Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
Authors’ Reply
BRIDGING THE GAP
BRIEF COMMUNICATION
BRIEF REPORT
Case Report
Case Reports
Case Series
CME
CME ARTICLE
CME articles - Practice points
COMMENTARY
CONFERENCE REPORT
CONTROVERSY
Correspondence
Correspondences
CUTANEOUS PATHOLOGY
DRUG REVIEW
E-CHAT
Editorial
EDITORIAL COMMENTARY
ERRATUM
ETHICAL HOTLINE
ETHICS
Field: Evolution of dermatologic surgergy
FOCUS
FROM THE ARCHIVES OF INDIAN JOURNAL OF DERMATO SURGERY
From the Editor's Desk
FROM THE LITERATURE
GUEST EDITORIAL
Guidelines
Images in Clinical Practice
Images in Dermatosurgery
INNOVATION
Innovations
INVITED COMMENTARY
JCAS Symposium
LETTER
Letter to Editor
Letter to the Editor
LETTERS
Message from the President
NEW HORIZON
Original Article
Practice Point
Practice Points
PRESIDENTIAL SPEECH
QUIZ
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Resident’s Page
Review
Review Article
Review Articles
SHORT COMMUNICATION
Spot the Diagnosis [Quiz]
STUDY
SURGICAL PEARL
SYMPOSIUM
Symposium—Lasers
Symposium: Hair in Dermatology
Symposium: Lasers Review Article
View Point
VIEWPOINT
VIEWPOINTS
Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
Authors’ Reply
BRIDGING THE GAP
BRIEF COMMUNICATION
BRIEF REPORT
Case Report
Case Reports
Case Series
CME
CME ARTICLE
CME articles - Practice points
COMMENTARY
CONFERENCE REPORT
CONTROVERSY
Correspondence
Correspondences
CUTANEOUS PATHOLOGY
DRUG REVIEW
E-CHAT
Editorial
EDITORIAL COMMENTARY
ERRATUM
ETHICAL HOTLINE
ETHICS
Field: Evolution of dermatologic surgergy
FOCUS
FROM THE ARCHIVES OF INDIAN JOURNAL OF DERMATO SURGERY
From the Editor's Desk
FROM THE LITERATURE
GUEST EDITORIAL
Guidelines
Images in Clinical Practice
Images in Dermatosurgery
INNOVATION
Innovations
INVITED COMMENTARY
JCAS Symposium
LETTER
Letter to Editor
Letter to the Editor
LETTERS
Message from the President
NEW HORIZON
Original Article
Practice Point
Practice Points
PRESIDENTIAL SPEECH
QUIZ
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Resident’s Page
Review
Review Article
Review Articles
SHORT COMMUNICATION
Spot the Diagnosis [Quiz]
STUDY
SURGICAL PEARL
SYMPOSIUM
Symposium—Lasers
Symposium: Hair in Dermatology
Symposium: Lasers Review Article
View Point
VIEWPOINT
VIEWPOINTS
View/Download PDF

Translate this page into:

CORRESPONDENCE
7 (
3
); 177-179
doi:
10.4103/0974-2077.146681

Side-effects from follicular unit extraction in hair transplantation

Department of Dermatology, Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York, USA. E-mail:
Old Metairie Dermatology, Hair Restoration of the South, LA, USA
Licence

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Disclaimer:
This article was originally published by Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd and was migrated to Scientific Scholar after the change of Publisher.

Dear Editor,

Since the mid 1990s, elliptical donor harvesting has been the preferred method for obtaining follicular groupings for hair transplantation.[1] Over the past decade, follicular unit extraction (FUE) has become an increasingly popular method for obtaining donor hair.[23] FUE uses manual, motorized or robotic devices to remove individual follicular groupings from the donor region.[456] The primary advantage of FUE over elliptical donor harvesting is the lack of a linear scar where the donor hair is harvested and then sutured or stapled closed [Figures 1 and 2]. This can be a major advantage in patients who wear their hair short, as in a military cut. While FUE has the advantage of no linear scar, it presents other challenges and potential long-term side-effects.

A single linear scar from donor strip harvesting
Figure 1
A single linear scar from donor strip harvesting
Staples or sutures are used to close the donor area following the strip method
Figure 2
Staples or sutures are used to close the donor area following the strip method

Some patients and physicians have the misconception that there are no scars associated with FUE. This is however not the case. As with a full-thickness cutaneous incision, a scar is created with the 1 mm punch utilized to harvest each follicular grouping. The majority of scars are not visible to the human eye, but some scars are visible as pinpoint white atrophic macules [Figure 3]. They are of no practical concern and are aesthetically far less noticeable than a linear scar for most patients, but patients should be made aware that these pinpoint white scars may be visible on close inspection with short hair.

White atrophic macules can be seen in the donor area following follicular unit extraction
Figure 3
White atrophic macules can be seen in the donor area following follicular unit extraction

In an attempt to harvest the maximum amount of donor hair, some physicians harvest follicular units from areas of the scalp that are vulnerable to future hair loss, such as the upper and lower posterior occiput [Figure 4]. If physicians harvest follicular groupings from these high-risk areas and transplant these follicles together in a given location, there is a chance that these recipient areas will thin out or bald completely in the future. To minimize the cosmetic impact of this, all harvested grafts, from both high- and low-risk regions, should be mixed together. This way, there will not be an unnatural distribution of transplanted hair as the hair is lost.

Safe donor area remains just above and below the nuchal ridge in the occipital scalp
Figure 4
Safe donor area remains just above and below the nuchal ridge in the occipital scalp

Furthermore, irrespective of whether FUE is performed by manual, motorized or robotic punches, there is the risk of a clinically apparent depletion of hair from the donor region as with donor elliptical harvesting. This may create an iatrogenic “moth-eaten” or “pseudo-syphilitic” appearance. In addition, proper spacing and removal of harvested follicular groupings is vital to reduce the risk of necrosis and cyst formation.[78] No one knows how many follicular groupings can be safely harvested from the donor region with FUE. The incisions with FUE are more widespread than those with an ellipse. It is unknown how this will affect the clinical appearance of a patient's hair in the donor region over time as hair loss progresses. As a result, physicians should be cautious about the total number of follicular groupings harvested from the donor region. By trying to create maximum density in the frontal scalp, physicians can paradoxically create thinning, see-through hair in donor area.

FUE is an effective and useful modality for obtaining donor hair. It creates less-visible scarring than elliptical donor harvesting. As with any surgical technique, there are limitations and side-effects from the procedure, but it is the preferred method for patients who wear their hair short or simply do not want a linear scar on their scalp. Patients and physicians who are aware of the short- and long-term risks of FUE are less likely to be disappointed when they occur. See Table 1 for a summary of the potential side-effects of FUE.

Table 1 Potential side-effects of FUE

REFERENCES

  1. , . Elliptical donor stereoscopically assisted micrografting as an approach to further refinement in hair transplantation. J Dermatol Surg Oncol. 1994;20:789-93.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. , . Follicular unit extraction. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am. 2013;21:375-84.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. , , , , , , . Follicular unit extraction: minimally invasive surgery for hair transplantation. Dermatol Surg. 2002;28:720-8.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. , . An analysis of follicular punches, mechanics, and dynamics in follicular unit extraction. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am. 2013;21:437-47.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. , . New methodology and instrumentation for follicular unit extraction: Lower follicle transection rates and expanded patient candidacy. Dermatol Surg. 2006;32:56.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. , , . Robotic hair restoration. Dermatol Clin. 2014;32:97-107.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. , , , , . Necrosis of the donor site after hair restoration with follicular unit extraction (FUE): A case report. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2012;65:e87-9.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. , , , . When FUE goes wrong! Indian J Dermatol. 2011;56:517-9.
    [Google Scholar]

    Fulltext Views
    171

    PDF downloads
    16
    View/Download PDF
    Download Citations
    BibTeX
    RIS
    Show Sections