Is it true that FUT is better than FUE?

FUE is just a harvesting method.  It does not relate to results.  If you want to keep your hair very short you may want the FUE.  In general, FUE inherently has transection issues.

Someone below mentioned they were the inventor of FUE and this is simply not true. FUE was first invented or revamped from an old technology where upon the punch size was 3-4mm if not larger in the 1980-/90's. Unfortunately the these left much scarring and unnatural looks. Dr. Woods from Australia revamped the old technology but kept to to himself. Dr. John Cole in Atlanta with key staff members reinvented the FUE technique in the USA. Dr. Jim Harris also created a new FUE technique as well close to Dr. Cole's time. Then Robert Jones, MD. These were the first inventors of FUE. If you were to ask any of these people is the yield less that FUT when performing FUE? They would say absolutely not. With experience does the yield of FUE match or surpass FUT. There are many variables that will decrease the yield of FUT as well and most of these variables are solely based on the experience of the clinic.

Thanks for your question, msh66. I know there are so many other patients out there who are thinking the same thing. There is no black and white response. Both techniques are good. The best technique for each individual case depends on many factors including desired length you style your hair, tightness of the scalp and lifestyle, such as heavy weight lifting (leaves you at risk for widening scars if done between 6-12 months, which is the time it takes for the wound to mature). We do recommend you visit a hair transplant surgeon in person so he/she can evaluate your case and make the most appropriate recommendation for you. Dr. Arocha

There is no evidence that properly performed FUT grafts have an increased survival compared to properly performed FUE grafts. This is a debate that appears on online forums, with little or no real evidence based on photos or hair counts.  The time from surgery to hair growth also is not changed by the method of extraction.  

FUT or the strip technique is an older method that requires cutting a piece of flesh out of the back of your scalp. This obviously requires stitching the scalp back together which leaves a permanent scare that can stretch out overtime. This technique works for people who have low density in the donor area as it enables us to extract more grafts than with a FUE. It is also very suited for women or men who do not desire to shave their donor area. However the recovery is painful and if you ever want to wear you hair very short you will have a visible scar.FUE is a newer method that leaves virtually no scar. The recovery is quicker since it requires no cutting. It is suited for individuals who have good density in the donor area. While we prefer the FUE technique it is not always the best option for all our patients.Both methods provide the same end results.

This is a very interesting question and topic.  For many years the thought was that FUT grafts grew better than those of FUE.  The techniques, intruments and experience of the operators was not what is today.  Today the quality of grafts in the right hands can be as good in both groups.  Our office is actually conducting a study on the quality of growth between FUE and FUT.  The results are pending but at this time they show excellent growth for both FUE and FUT. 
The actual question now should not be what technique is better, but rather, what technique is better for you.  I feel that many patients are candidates for both procedures.  Still, there are those patients who would be better served by one over the other.  Most importantly, we still don't know the long term effects of maximum FUE graft extraction.  We have a good idea of the maximum number of grafts available with FUT, but less so with FUE.  Currently, I believe with FUT first, one may be able to obtain a greater number of total grafts.  This might be important for a patient with alot of hair loss.
So the short answer is there is no best technique.  The best option should be determined by you and your hair transplant surgeon.

Both techniques are equally good if performed by a well trained doctor.......outcome mostly depends upon nomber of grafts and in case if you need more grafts and want to save your donor from thining than FUT is the best....but it comes with a  linear scar...

Thanks for your question. Every surgery method has advantages and disadvantages. With FUT method a strip will be taken off and it will be prepared in to grafts.This means that the grafts can not be damaged during the extraction.But there will be a permanent scar after the surgery. If you keep your hair on 0,5-0,7 blade nobody can notice the scar.During FUE procedure the grafts will be taken out with punches in different sizes. There is no permanent scar but if you shave your hair of course little small pointy scars can be seen.Important is to have the procedure done by an experienced doctor who has also a good team as hair transplantations are a team work.

This is the exact quote from the FORUM which is the official publication of International Society of Hair Restoration Surgery(ISHRS). “The gold standard remains that microscopically slivered and created grafts obtained by strip surgery(FUT) are ideal. The challenge for FUE harvesting methods is to produce grafts that are similar to or exactly the same as strip method.” Therefore You would get much better quality of grafts with the strip method and so better result. 

As the inventor of FUE and s standard barer for FUT, I can tell you that if 100 patients where to have FUT and 100 patients were to have FUE, some of the FUE grafts will not be as good as the FUT grafts which therefore will give better growth and better grafts gives better growth