Talk:Follicular unit transplantation

This page is an advert

This page is relentlessly "on message" that FUT is amazing, especially some variant called "Ultra Refined Follicular Unit Hair Transplantation". Because the tone is the problem rather than the actual content, it would take more or less a total rewrite for it to become a good article.

Since no one seems willing to rewrite the article i suggest we delete it and replace with a redirect to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Follicular_Unit_Extraction. FUE looks like the same surgical proceedure to me.

ive set this to speedy delete on the basis of the above, with a specific example of blatent advertising being: "In the last few years, an elite group of hair restoration physicians have and continue to revolutionize standard follicular unit transplantation, called "Ultra Refined follicular unit hair transplantation"."

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.75.187 (talk) 15:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Spam?

I've noticed a trend in wikipedia's coverage of hair transplantation. They all seem overly eager to advocate Follicular Unit Transplantation, and read far too much like advertisements for those providing this service. It looks like many of them may have been written by a single individual promoting the procedure. While this one of the standard methods of transplantation, wikipedia's coverage should not be so narrow or biased as to direct individuals with glowing reviews rather than organized, cited information. Cleanup requested. --70.227.157.118 04:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• I noticed this as well; not sure what can be done about it, though. Rwald (talk) 15:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Automated translation

Are some of the sentences in this article from some sort of automated translation system? This bit is certainly not written in correct English: "In 1939 a Japanese dermatologist, Dr. Okuda, described the use of cars - grafting. Meaning the operation for the correction of skin on his head, eyebrows, eyelashes and whiskers, suffers from alopecia, the hair grafts using. In addition to Okuda, while in Japan, similar experiments were carried out more physicians, but their publication (Sasagva 1929, Tamura - 1943) in the Japanese magazines have remained unknown.". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.111.100.79 (talk) 03:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

FUT vs. FUE section

Since by definition FUE is an FUT method, FUT is inclusive of FUE, thus the whole section does not make sense. What is contrasted in that section are actually the two harvesting methods of hair transplantation: Strip harvesting vs. Follicular unit extraction. That argument is detailed in the Hair transplantation article and is not relevant to this article. DanteLectro (talk) 15:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Yep I agree. So this article says that - taking follicles one by one or in strips, are each ways to get "units" for subsequent transplant. Later is says that "FUT" is explicitly done with strips. This is a mess. Will do some reading over the weekend and fix this. Jytdog (talk) 19:59, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Merge "Multiple follicular unit grafts"?

Hello. I just added Multiple follicular unit grafts in See also, but shouldn't that page be merged into this one? Someone with more knowledge than me should make that determination. Robincantin (talk) 15:29, 9 October 2020 (UTC)