ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2017
Pretrimmed versus Direct Nonshaven Follicular Unit Extraction.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Follicular Unit Excision Hair Removal of Unwanted Facial Terminal Hair in Five Facial Areas: A Retrospective Multicenter Cohort Study.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2025Article
- Long hair follicular unit excision: personal experience.International journal of dermatology · 2021Article
- Eyebrow Transplantation Using Long Hair Follicular Unit Excision Technique.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundShaving the donor area is one of the major deterrents preventing hair transplant patients from selecting follicular unit extraction (FUE). A minimal shaved donor area is possible in strip surgery, but the strip method is not applicable if the patient wishes to avoid a linear donor scar, wishes to minimize postoperative pain, or has insufficient scalp laxity. In these cases, nonshaven FUE (NS-FUE) is potentially a very good choice.
methodsA total of 42 patients were enrolled. Both pretrimmed and direct NS-FUE were performed during a single session in each patient. The 2 methods were compared regarding the time taken to punch 50 grafts, transection rate, and calculated density (number of hairs per graft).
resultsThe mean time taken to punch 50 grafts was significantly longer in the pretrimmed method than the direct method (3.4 minutes versus 2.6 minutes;
conclusionDepending on the proficiency and preference of doctors and the case indications, pretrimmed and direct NS-FUE are both useful techniques for hair transplantation.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.