In major metropolitan areas like Atlanta and New York, where professional appearance and limited downtime are priorities, many individuals are seeking hair restoration options that don’t require a full buzz cut.
The No-Shave FUE (C2G) technique is designed to meet this demand by allowing follicular unit extraction without shaving the donor area, maintaining discretion while achieving natural results.
This article explores how C2G compares to traditional FUE in terms of technique, recovery, and clinical performance.
✅ Key Takeaways
- C2G is a proprietary variation of the CIT® method, developed to allow no-shave follicular unit extraction.
- A no-shave procedure does not accelerate hair growth; it mainly reduces the visibility of early recovery.
- Depending on individual healing and hair length, many patients can resume normal routines within a few days.
- The no-shave approach is best suited for small to mid-sized sessions (typically 1,500–3,000 grafts).
- Recovery timelines are similar to those of traditional FUE, but early signs are often easier to conceal.
What “No-Shave” Really Means (C2G/CIT® Explained)
No-shave FUE (often called long-hair FUE) is a technique where the donor area isn’t buzzed down to the skin. Instead, the surgeon extracts grafts by carefully trimming small zones or individual follicles within longer hair, allowing the surrounding hair to conceal the donor sites immediately after surgery.
C2G is ForHair’s proprietary, no-shave execution of CIT®, a refined version of Follicular Unit Extraction. It uses a specialized punch and manual control to reduce trauma, increase graft survival, and preserve donor density.
Because it avoids shaving and allows for surgical concealment, C2G takes longer per graft than standard FUE and requires highly trained technicians.
| But remember: No-shave ≠ faster growth; Choosing a no-shave approach doesn’t change the biology of hair regrowth. What it does is reduce the visual signs during early recovery. The healing process and growth timeline are the same as traditional FUE, but with less social downtime, better concealment, and often a smoother return to daily life. |
About Dr. John P. Cole, ABHRS
Pioneer of FUE, CIT® and No-Shave FUE (C2G)
Dr. John P. Cole is a Diplomate of the American Board of Hair Restoration Surgery with more than three decades of experience in hair transplant surgery. He is widely recognized as an early adopter and pioneer of modern FUE and the originator of the Cole Isolation Technique (CIT®) as well as ForHair’s proprietary No-Shave FUE (C2G) approach.
Highlights of expertise
- Board-certified hair restoration surgeon (ABHRS Diplomate) with 30+ years in practice
- Developer of CIT® and creator of C2G, focusing on reduced tissue trauma, graft viability, and donor preservation
- Leader & educator: served as Chairman of ISHRS; among the first surgeons named a Diplomate of ABHRS; currently serves on the ABHRS Board of Directors and Examination Committee
Professional memberships
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- American Board of Hair Restoration Surgery (ABHRS)
- American Academy of Cosmetic Surgery (AACS)
- European Society of Hair Restoration Surgery (ESHRS)
- International Society of Hair Restoration Surgery (ISHRS)
Clinic locations
ForHair operates in Atlanta, GA, and New York, NY, providing consultation and treatment for patients seeking discreet, evidence-led FUE solutions.
Why this matters for C2G
Dr. Cole’s development of the C2G method reflects decades of refinement in the FUE technique. The approach emphasizes follicular preservation, minimal tissue trauma, and donor area concealment: principles that continue to influence best practices in hair restoration worldwide.
Clinical Evidence: How No-Shave FUE Stacks Up Against Traditional FUE
Two key studies shed light on how modern long-hair (no-shave) FUE compares to the conventional shaved approach, both in surgical performance and patient experience.
A 2020 study by Dr. Marie Schambach directly compared long-hair and shaved FUE on the same patients, analyzing graft quality during excision, extraction, and placement.
The findings were mixed but revealing.
- Long-hair FUE produced 20% more usable grafts from the donor zone, suggesting better utilization of available follicles.1
- However, it also showed an 8% increase in partial transections, likely because aligning and isolating longer shafts is technically more complex.1
- The process itself was slower, taking nearly twice as long as shaved FUE.1
That said, the cosmetic advantage was clear:
- 24% fewer grafts were needed to achieve ideal coverage, since long hairs provide immediate visual density.1
In short, it’s a more meticulous but aesthetically rewarding technique.
Fast-forward to Umar et al. (2023), who evaluated over 150 patients across five international clinics using a newer skin-responsive device (UGraft Zeus) that eliminates the need for recess-tipped punches.
- This system achieved low transection rates (2.2–4.3%), a modest shaft break rate (12%), and an average speed of 440 grafts per hour—remarkably efficient for a no-shave procedure.2
- Every patient reported satisfaction, and surgeons’ willingness to perform long-hair FUE rose from 1.25 to 4.2 on a five-point scale after using the device.2
Taken together, these studies highlight the evolution of no-shave FUE.
Early techniques like Schambach’s showed that long-hair extraction could enhance donor yield and visual coverage but required far more time and technical skill.
Newer systems, such as those studied by Umar and colleagues, are bridging that gap further, offering the same aesthetic benefits with faster, more consistent performance.
Key Findings: Shaved FUE vs Long-Hair FUE
| Parameter | Shaved FUE | No-Shave FUE | Interpretation |
| Graft yield | Baseline | ≈ 20% higher donor yield than predicted by Hair Density Index | Long-Hair FUE allows surgeons to extract more usable grafts, improving donor utilization. |
| Total Transection Rate (TTR) | – | No significant difference | Both methods preserve graft integrity equally well. |
| Partial Transection Rate (PTR) | Lower | ≈ 8% higher in long-hair cases | Slightly higher risk of partial graft trauma due to the longer hair shafts, but follicles remain viable. |
| Procedure time | Faster | Nearly twice as long | Long-Hair FUE is more technically demanding and time-consuming. |
| Recipient coverage | Standard density requires 100% of planned grafts | ≈ 24% fewer grafts needed for the same visual coverage | Longer hairs give instant density, enhancing cosmetic appearance with fewer grafts. |
Findings summarized from Schambach M.A. (2020), “Shaved FUE vs Long Hair FUE: A Comparative Study During Excision, Extraction, and Placement,” International Society of Hair Restoration Surgery.
Recovery & Downtime: Day-by-Day Timeline
There is insufficient detailed data to definitively state the average recovery time for FUE hair transplant across different age groups.
However, R. Ghimire et al., 2018 provide some insights into patient experiences. Their study of 152 patients found that the age range was 21-70 years, with most patients (48.6%) between 21-30 years old.
- Short-term complications included forehead swelling in 69.74% of patients and temporary hair fall in 42.76% of patients.
- The long-term outcomes were promising, with 86.18% of patients reporting excellent results after one year.3
One potential advantage of the C2G (No-Shave FUE) technique is reduced visible recovery time. Because the donor area is not shaved, residual redness or scabbing can often be concealed by surrounding hair. The degree of concealment varies by hair length, density, and individual healing characteristics.
Below is a breakdown of what you can expect:
| Milestone | C2G (No-Shave) | Traditional Shave FUE |
| Return to office | 1 day (hair covers signs) | 5–7 days (visible donor shave) |
| Signs mostly concealed | ~Day 4 | ~Day 10–14 |
| Scabs typically off | Day 7–10 | Day 10–14 |
| Grafts considered secure | Day 7–10 | Day 7–10 |
| Light/moderate exercise | After Day 5 | After Day 5 |
| Contact sports | After Day 14 | After Day 14 |
| First visible regrowth | Month 3–4 | Month 3–4 |
| Maturation window | Months 9–12+ | Months 9–12+ |
Disclaimer: The recovery timeframes presented above are based on anecdotal observations and typical clinical experience. Actual healing and visibility of post-procedure signs can vary depending on individual factors such as skin type, hair characteristics, graft density, and adherence to aftercare instructions.
Failure Rates for No-Shave FUE vs Traditional FUE Procedures
Available evidence suggests that No-Shave FUE performs comparably to traditional FUE in graft survival and procedural outcomes. In the 2020 study by Schambach et al., long-hair FUE extracted approximately 20% more grafts compared to traditional methods, though with a modest increase in partial transection rate.1
- There was no significant difference in total transection rate (TTR) between shaved and long-hair areas (t(18)=2.277, p<0.017).
- However, the partial transection rate (PTR) was around 8% higher in the long-hair extractions (t(18)=−4.11, p<0.001), suggesting a slightly greater risk of partial graft damage when working with longer hair shafts.1
Critically, the studies indicate that technique refinement and surgeon skill matter more than the shaving approach. Factors like skin thickness, donor area characteristics, and surgical technique significantly influence procedural success rates.
Who Qualifies for No-Shave FUE (C2G) (and Who Doesn’t)
C2G isn’t for everyone… but it’s ideal for patients who value discretion and are open to a smaller, staged session.
| Scenario | Recommended? | Notes |
| Needs discretion | ✅ Yes | Ideal for professionals/public-facing patients |
| Long enough hair to cover the donor zone | ✅ Yes | Hair should be at least 1–1.5 inches in the donor zone |
| 2,500–3,000 graft plan | ✅ Yes | Typical size for a no-shave session at ForHair |
| Very large “mega” case | ⚠️ Possibly | May require multiple staged sessions or partial shaving |
| Curly/coily hair | ⚠️ Specialist only | Requires a specific punch size and advanced handling techniques |
| Beard/chest donor use | ⚠️ Case-by-case | Possible but technically more demanding in no-shave settings |
| Budget/time sensitivity | ❌ No | C2G often costs more per graft due to time and team labor |
So, who does qualify?
Candidates for C2G typically have at least one inch of hair length in the donor zone, a moderate graft goal (around 1,500–3,000 grafts), and a preference for discreet recovery. Suitability ultimately depends on donor characteristics and surgeon evaluation during a personalized consultation
| 🎥 Want to see how C2G actually works? Watch our video: C2G – No Shave Hair Transplant Explained Get a behind-the-scenes look at ForHair’s no-shave technique, how it preserves your look during recovery, and what to expect from start to finish. |
Real-Patient C2G Outcomes
The following clinical summaries illustrate outcomes achieved using the C2G method at ForHair. These examples highlight typical graft counts, adjunctive treatments, and recovery observations. Individual results vary depending on patient physiology and procedural scope.
Case 1: 1,879 Grafts – Norwood 3V
Procedure: CIT (No-Shave C2G)
Additional Treatments: Topical finasteride, ACell, PRF
Grafts were transplanted to the frontal zone and hairline using the CIT® (No-Shave C2G) method. Adjunctive therapies included topical finasteride, ACell, and PRF to support healing and growth. The patient demonstrated progressive improvement at follow-up, consistent with expected timelines for FUE recovery.
Case 2: 2,004 Grafts – Norwood 3
Procedure: CIT (No-Shave C2G)
Additional Treatments: None
This first-time patient received 2,004 grafts to rebuild volume in both the frontal hairline and crown. The procedure was performed by Dr. Cole using C2G. At the 8-month mark, results showed strong growth and coverage, especially at the hairline. Additional photos are planned for the 12-month review, but the patient has already reported a significant boost in confidence.
Case 3: 3,194 Grafts – Norwood 4V
Procedure: CIT (No-Shave C2G)
Additional Treatments: ACell + CRP (Cole’s advanced PRP variant)
This was a larger no-shave session to restore the mid-scalp and frontal region, with 3,194 grafts carefully placed for uniform coverage. The crown wasn’t directly transplanted, yet showed improvement thanks to the ACell and CRP combo, which supports follicular regeneration even in non-transplanted zones.
Each of these cases reflects the benefits of no-shave execution, especially for patients wanting to avoid visible downtime. Keep in mind, C2G session size is typically capped at around 3,000 grafts, and recovery varies by patient, but these examples show what’s possible with the right plan and tools.
👉 Want to see more results? Explore the full before & after gallery.
No-Shave (C2G) FUE vs Traditional Shaved FUE: Key Advantages and Disadvantages
Both No-Shave (C2G) and traditional shaved FUE are effective follicular unit excision techniques with proven long-term outcomes. The main differences come down to visibility, recovery, and workflow—not graft survival itself. Below is an overview of where each approach shines and where it presents challenges.
Advantages of C2G (No-Shave FUE)
- Discreet recovery: Since the donor area isn’t shaved, early redness or scabbing is easily concealed.
- Immediate visual density: Long hairs remain attached to transplanted grafts, giving the illusion of coverage right after the procedure. Schambach (2020) found that approximately 24% fewer grafts were needed to achieve the same aesthetic density.1
- Better donor preservation: The same study observed a 20% higher usable graft yield compared to expectations based on hair density indices.1
- Comfort for professionals and public figures: Well-suited for individuals in public-facing roles who prefer a less visible recovery period.
- Technological refinement: Newer systems like the UGraft Zeus (Umar et al., 2023) have reduced transection rates and improved speed, making No-Shave FUE more accessible to surgeons.
Disadvantages of C2G (No-Shave FUE)
- Longer procedure time: Schambach (2020) reported that long-hair extraction takes almost twice as long as shaved FUE, meaning longer sessions and higher procedural costs.1
- Slightly higher partial transection rate: Working with longer hair shafts increases the chance of minor graft trauma (around 8% higher PTR), though total transection rates remain comparable.
- Technically demanding: Precision alignment through existing hair requires significant surgical experience and specialized instruments.
- Limited session size: C2G is best suited for small to medium graft counts (typically up to 3,000 grafts). Larger “mega” sessions may need staging or partial shaving.
- Higher per-graft cost: Additional time and surgical support often increase procedure cost compared to a standard FUE session.
Advantages of Traditional Shaved FUE
- Faster and more efficient: With shorter hair, visibility and alignment are simpler, reducing operating time.
- Ideal for large-scale cases: Shaved FUE accommodates high graft counts in a single session.
- Lower technical complexity: Easier visual access to the donor and recipient zones simplifies the process for surgical teams.
- Slightly lower partial transection rate: The clean visual field supports optimal graft isolation and consistency.
Disadvantages of Traditional Shaved FUE
- Visible donor area: Patients must wait one to two weeks for the shaved donor region to blend back in, which can make recovery more noticeable.
- More social downtime: Returning to work or public settings may take longer compared to no-shave techniques.
- No immediate visual density: The aesthetic preview of final results is delayed until new growth appears months later.
Curious whether C2G or Traditional FUE is right for you?
Book a free consultation with the ForHair team to find out
FAQs
Can I really go to work the next day without shaving my head?
Depending on hair length and healing rate, some patients may return to work within 24 hours, though others may require several days.
When are grafts secure after no-shave FUE?
Typically, between day 7 and day 10, grafts are considered biologically anchored. Until then, avoid rubbing or excessive movement.
Will people notice? What about redness or scabs?
In the first few days, minor redness or pinpoint scabbing may be visible if examined closely, but it’s generally hidden under longer hair. By day 4, most signs are concealed.
How many grafts can I do with no-shave?
1,500–3,000 grafts is the typical range for a single C2G session. Larger needs may require multiple sessions or alternate planning.
When can I work out, swim, or wear a hat?
- Light workouts: Day 5
- Hats: After day 7 (loose-fitting only)
- Swimming/contact sports: After day 14
Patients should follow their surgeon’s postoperative instructions closely to ensure optimal healing and graft retention.
Is no-shave FUE more expensive, and why?
Yes. C2G often costs more per graft due to its time-intensive nature, need for specialized tools, and extra technician support. It’s a trade-off for privacy and reduced downtime.
Your Next Step: Book a Private Consultation
Determining whether C2G or traditional FUE is right for you depends on your goals, hair type, and surgical plan. A professional assessment can help clarify which method offers the best balance of coverage, recovery time, and donor management for your needs.
With clinics in Atlanta and NYC, ForHair’s team of CIT® specialists can help assess your candidacy and map out a custom plan.
🔗 Book a consultation
🔗 Learn more about the C2G no-shave FUE technique
🔗 Browse our before & after gallery
Disclosures
The information provided in this article is for educational and informational purposes only and should not be interpreted as medical advice. It does not substitute for consultation, diagnosis, or treatment from a qualified healthcare provider. Always seek professional medical advice before making decisions about surgical procedures, medications, or treatment plans.
Data cited from peer-reviewed sources, including Schambach M.A. (2020) and Umar et al. (2023), are presented for general comparison and educational context only. Findings should not be interpreted as definitive or universally applicable to all clinical settings.
References:
- Schambach, M.A. (2020). Shaved FUE vs Long Hair FUE: A Comparative Study During Excision, Extraction, and Placement. International Society of Hair Restoration Surgery, 30, 117 – 126.
- Umar, S., Khanna, R., Gonzalez, A., Chouhan, K., Maldonado, J., Oguzoglu, O., & Nusbaum, A. (2023). No-Shave Long Hair Follicular Unit Excision Using an All-Purpose Skin-Responsive Device. Clinical, Cosmetic and Investigational Dermatology, 16, 3681 – 3691.
- Ghimire, R.B. (2018). Clinical Outcome and Safety Profile of Patients Underwent Hair Transplantation Surgery by Follicular Unit Extraction. JNMA; journal of the Nepal Medical Association, 56 209, 540-543
- Mohammad J. AL Abdullah, and Murtadha Hashim Al-Janabi. Follicular Unit Extraction Hair Transplant (FUE) for Treatment of Androgenetic Alopecia in al Najaf City. KUFA JOURNAL FOR NURSING SCIENCES.VOL.9 No. 1.
- “No-Shave FUE Hair Transplant (C2G) | No-Shave CIT® | Forhair.” ForHair Hair Transplant Clinic, 2025, www.forhair.com/no-shave-fue/. Accessed 3 Nov. 2025.
- Bernstein, Robert M, and William R. Rassman. Graft Anchoring in Hair Transplantation. The American Society for Dermatologic Surgery , 2006, www.bernsteinmedical.com/downloads/GraftAnchoring.pdf. Accessed 4 Nov. 2025.
