There is not a single top-quality follicular unit extraction (FUE) hair transplant surgeon in the world that offers robotic hair transplant surgery. The reason these physicians do not offer robotic surgery is simple. Robotic surgery does not offer the same high quality the skilled surgeon can achieve without the robot. Only physicians with poor hand-eye coordination offer robotic surgery. These less talented physicians offer robotic surgery only because this is the only way they can attract FUE patients. Once they attract you, they will attempt to sell you a strip procedure (FUT) because they know how poor the graft quality is with the robot.
Robotic surgery over harvests the donor area, misses one out of four grafts, produces poor yields, can’t harvest white hair, can’t do a no-shave FUE procedure, produces unnecessary large wounding, and results in tremendous donor scarring. Robotic hair transplant machines have a difficult time harvesting from the sides of the scalp donor area and the inferior portion of the donor area. When the angles are acute, the robot produces much larger wounds and tends to slide across the scalp often times making holes that are large enough for 8 or 9 extractions using a 0.85 mm punch. Such wounds are massive in size. Physicians who own robots to perform FUE are not skilled FUE hair transplant surgeons. In fact, these physicians lack skills the skills required to perform excellent FUE.
In 2010 a company received FDA approval for a robotic FUE machine. This machine was released on the unknown public prior to insuring patient safety and excellent results. Only over time have they improved this device, but patients were never warned about the potential problems associated with the ARTAS robot. These patients were not advised that better options exist with other physicians, who have superior skills.
Robotic hair transplantation is the perfect class-action lawsuit waiting to happen. Both the company and the physicians who offer robotic surgery knew the problems associated with robotic surgery, but neither group warned the public of the limitations of the robot. Patients were not told that one out of four insertions of the punch did not produce a graft. Patients were not told that their donor area might be over-harvested in isolated areas by the robot. Patients were not advised that yields would be so low in some cases. This was the perfect example of a technology company partnering with less skilled FUE surgeons to develop, produce, and unleash a medical device that did not meet the standard of care in FUE.