-
Francesco,,,.
User deleted
si cripto, sarebbe ottimo se chiedessi a mwamba che ne pensa e se lo adotterà . -
.
A vederlo così sembra uno strumento a motore, che fino ad adesso si sono sempre dimostrati inferiori ai punch manuali. Ho segnalato il link alla clinica, ci vorrebbero pero' più informazioni 
. -
.
grande FELLER
a differenza di Dottori Europei INCAPACI di fare la fue !!!. -
.
Il dr.Feller mi ha fornito altre spiegazioni ma mi occorre del tempo per tradurle in italiano. Abbiate un po di pazienza. . -
.
Thank you all for asking some very thoughtful questions. I should make it clear that this tool is only useful as PART of a particular method. I guess we’ll call it the “Feller FUE Method” for descriptive purposes even though I’ve never officially named my particular style of FUE.
This tool is NOT a magic wand that will simply allow the novice to extract like a pro in one day… but this tool, combined with my methods of FUE, is the CLOSEST the FUE industry has come to it yet. It will NOT extract EVERY graft on EVERY person 100% of the time, but it WILL maximize the success/failure ratio as well as final growth yield compared to ANY other method-disclosed or non-disclosed. No question about it.
I will address all your concerns as best I can.
To begin, I’d like to set the record straight about my disclosures over the years.
I solved the problems of Torsion, Traction, and Compression years ago and disclosed it right on this site back in 2003, demonstrated it an Arkansas ISHRS meeting in a live surgery demonstration AND Video in 2003, described it in the leading Text on Hair transplantation published in 2004, and informed dozens of doctors over the years as to my methods.
I have never held that information to myself and never denied the information or the custom tools themselves to any doctor who wanted them. Furthermore, I NEVER sold any of my Feller punches for profit and NEVER billed any doctor to teach them my FUE method.
Because I was positive that my Manual method of performing FUE was solid, I disclosed it openly and transparently-consciously avoiding the “hype” and the “wishful thinking” of those who would frame it as something it wasn’t.
My motorized method was a different animal altogether. I designed, tested and used many different devices, but none of them were reliable enough to offer to other practitioners. I had reached the limit of my personal ability and realized I had to recruit professionals to bring this tool to fruition WITHOUT jumping the gun. Working with a team takes TIME, and I wanted to make sure this device had a real world track record before I offered it publicly. Now, it does.
I instantly understood the problem of using spinning punches on delicate tissue like FUE grafts back in 2003, but it took me time to be able to describe them and then come up with an appropriate solution. What AMAZED me is that no one else in the FUE field was seeking to do the same BEFORE offering their “technology” to the public. Rather than diving in like so many other clinics did, I held back and engaged in methodical experimentation and observation until I was as sure as I could be that I had the most practical and useful solution.
Why are “spinners” bad? Because they whip around at approx 7,000 rounds per minute. That creates A LOT of torsion and A LOT of friction. Friction creates heat- and heat causes injury and desiccation. Think of an “Indian rub burn” and you’ll get the idea.
This tool Oscillates through a very small arc. This means very little torsion force and 75% less friction. Combine this with a Feller punch which was designed to reduce friction in and of itself and you are left with an FUE instrument that produces the least of the two detrimental forces motorized tools inflict on FUE grafts: Merciless Torsion and Searing Heat. Then apply the Perforation technique during delivery of the grafts and you have a method that address all the Manual FUE problems AND the Motorized FUE problems.
Does it work?
Look at all my FUE presentations online from 2004 to the present. All of them have been performed using my particular FUE method with either some aspects or all aspects of the tool. The FUE surgery I did on Spex is only one example that most people online are familiar with. I will be supplying video that demonstrates me and other doctors performing FUE using my method and device.
More to come.
Dr. Feller
Ed ancora:
In short, this tool makes it FAR easier for the novice doctor to enter the FUE field, AND for the veteran FUE doctor to improve his yields and speed while reducing fatigue.
How does it do it?
The tool is a part of an overall FUE method that also includes something pioneered at Feller Medical known as "perforation" technique.
Combined, the tool and Perforation work by decreasing the three most detrimental forces associated with MANUAL FUE procedures (Torsion, Traction, Compression); as well as decreasing the two most detrimental forces associated with POWERED FUE (Torsion and Heat).
Yes, it will even improve the procedures of the more trustworthy and experienced FUE doctors. Untrustworthy ones too.
The tool is not a magic wand. It will not allow for a 100% success rate with respect to attempted extractions-that's just not a realistic expectation for any instrument, but I'm positive that it will ALWAYS perform better than manual FUE methods.
I, for one, will NEVER go back to manual FUE again.
Let's keep this tool in perspective and not allow it to be hyped into something it's not. But it is safe to say that no matter who performs FUE, if they incorporate this device into their practice they will perform BETTER and FASTER FUE with less fatigue than if they didn't have it.
My position has not changed in 7 years. To me, FUE should be viewed as either an ADJUNCT to good strip surgery, OR a viable alternative to those patients who are absolutely dead-set AGAINST strip procedures.
I highly doubt anyone will shift toward FUE out of convenience as strip surgeries are just so easy to perform by comparison, but I should hope with all my heart and soul that many doctors become motivated to include FUE in their practice for the sake of profitability. How else could they sustain their business and earn a living? Not everyone can expect a multi-trillion dollar bailout-that seems to be reserved for the cheaters and losers.
There are definitely clinics that have tried FUE and failed-but still perform it anyway. Thankfully, it doesn't take long to find out who they are IF the public does some research on forums.
Tehcnically speaking, yes, 3000 grafts could be obtained in one day. There are even clinics doing that now, but as you may know, final results have been sketchy and inconsistent at best. Why?
The first reason is probably that the grafts are being damaged by the instruments being used.
The second is that as a 12 hour day wears on, fatigue sets in on the part of the doctor and team and quality naturally drops.
The third, but not least important, is that the grafts should go back into the head as soon as possible. In my clinic I rarely allow the grafts to sit out of the body more than 5 hours MAXIMUM. Keeping them out for twice as long could be detrimental to final yield.
So I would discourage 3,000 graft per day FUE procedures. If a patient is dead-set against Strip surgery AND is informed and accepts that FUE surgery has a higher chance of producing lower yields, then I would do that patient over two days instead of one.
There is one important correction that needs to be made here with respect to the amount of time the doctor is involved in the FUE process.
When performing manual FUE I found that it would take me one hour of exhausting effort to score around 350 graft with anywhere from a 70% to 90% success ratio.
With the new tool, however, I can do the same 350 scorings in about 25 minutes (sometimes less)with no appreciable fatigue.
Thereafter it's up to the team of technicians to "deliver" the grafts.
During the 1,000 graft FUE procedure I perfomed most recently I only worked a grand total of an hour during extractions and perhaps another 25 minutes making the recipient holes.
It's not really the amount of TIME that affects the doctors decision to perform FUE. MOST doctors are work-horses by nature, but rather the EFFORT required to obtain a cosmetically signficant number of grafts in a "realistic" time frame.
A big factor influencing a doctor's decision to perform FUE is the confidence he has in himself that he will actually be able to perform a quality and worthwhile surgery. With standard manual FUE tools this is not an easy thing to do, but with this motorized tool, and the proper method, success and confidence are much easier to attain- even for a novice. There is no question about this.
. -
.
si puo avere un riassunto dei passaggi salienti in italiano? . -
titty.
User deleted
da quel che ho capito è motorizzato ed è stato progettato per far diminuire l'attrito e il calore durante la torsione..
Mi sembra di capire che cmq è uno strumento che già usava da anni... o sbaglio ?. -
.CITAZIONE (jack21 @ 3/4/2009, 22:21)si puo avere un riassunto dei passaggi salienti in italiano?
Non preoccuparti Jack quando ho un attimo di tempo, traduco integralmente il testo.. -
.
grazie mille bola . -
avevo un cespuglio.
User deleted
Si si tratta di un punch motorizzato - io ho sempre letto che gli strumenti robotizzati si sono rivelai inferiori a quelli manuali
sarebbe cmq interessante vederlo all'opera in un video
certo un'ora per estrarre 1000 graft è un tempo da formula uno.... -
MARK1981.
User deleted
io credo che questo punch lo usa pure armani senno sarebbe impossibile riuscire a prelevare 4000 uf fue in una giornata.. . -
titty.
User deleted
CITAZIONE (MARK1981 @ 4/4/2009, 21:37)io credo che questo punch lo usa pure armani senno sarebbe impossibile riuscire a prelevare 4000 uf fue in una giornata..
ho proprio paura di si....................
. -
scorpion555.
User deleted
nooooooooooo armani noooo!!vabbhè ma feller è feller quindi la sua mano sarà diversa da quella di armadio!!(ammesso che lo usi anche armani) . -
MARK1981.
User deleted
feller x me non e' migliore di armani,semplicemente usa densita piu basse minimizzando eventual rischi.a mio avviso armani deve per forza usare tale punch perche col classico punch sarebbe impossibile riuscire a prelevare 4000 uf fue in un giorno,visto che gli altri chirurghi oltre le 1500 uf giornaliere non arrivano. . -
scorpion555.
User deleted
mark rispetto il tuo parere ma non capisco perchè continui a difendere armani anche con la fue!!non diciamo fesserie che feller non è migliore di armani!!per quanto concerne la fue...armani sta proprio a livelli bassissimi ....deve dimostrare tanto!!deve partire da zero!!
non vale a niente il suo ottimo passato strip!!armani fue è dietro a bisanga.feller,koray,michael,forse è alla pari del dott umar(e ti ho
detto tt)!!deve partire da zero!!.
NUOVO STRUMENTO FUE- BY DR.FELLER |
