Which one do I select for a FUE hair transplant: Artas Robot vs. Neograft FUE vs Manual?

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.  ARTAS etc are just tools or instruments doctors use.  Just as you would choose the best chef for a delicious meal, choose the best doctor not the instrument used.

I would add to this that we have found the suction that is used with the NeoGraft machine can cause a flash desiccation of the grafts that leads to unpredictable growth.  FUE properly performed should yield around 95% graft survival, but the suction can lower this number.

I agree with a poster below. All of these names and terms is just plain old FUE. FIT, CIT, ICEHOUSE graft, ARTAS or neograft does not mean anything more than we are marketing to you to get you to come to us and we think we are the best. FUE is a skill that takes years to become an expert. There is a handful of clinics with this experience including ours. Do your research and look for the best quality for the price.

Every year Dr. Baubac has to repair several hair transplants that were not done by surgeons, but done by robots such as Artas and Neo Graft, procedures performed by inexperienced and unqualified people. 

Neograft, DHI are all  just a marketing gimmick.When you look at the web site of  ISHRS (international society of hair restoration surgery ) you will see just 2 tech for HT: FUT and FUE..So , DHI , percutaneus tecnique, golden punch tecnique, ıce graft FUE tecnique etc are all FUE and there is no difference or superiority between each other.What makes difference on result of hair restoration is surgeon's experience level and accuracy of used FUE technique.I can harvest  2-3 times faster than robot (artas machine ) . so  you have to find out the experienced doctor , not machine or technique.

FUE is often chosen by patients who wish to wear their hair very short. This is understandable since FUE does not cause a linear scar. However, FUE does not cause the donor area (from which the grafts are harvested) to be thinned out - especially if a large number of grafts are needed. It also causes some of the grafts to be harvested outside of the "safe area". Grafts harvested outside of the sage are may no live as long as those from the safe area. In addition, Neograft has the downside of possible dessication of grafts which could cause unpredictable growth of the grafts.

I agree with previous comments, however there is a bit more to the story.  Certainly, we all have our biases.  First, you may not even be a candidate for FUE!  You need to have straight hair and be willing to shave your head.  Assuming you are a candidate, I am not a fan of NeoGraft.  It is mainly their business model.  They have physicians buy a machine, put it in their office, and then hire out hair technicians to do the procedure. I'm sure that many of them have a lot of experience, but it's illegal in most states.  The device needs to be handled by a physician (preferably), a PA or a nurse.  Any manual FUE device can have very bad results.  The benefit of the ARTAS (again, assuming that you are a candidate) is that the robot selects the hairs and it does so randomly so you won't have a bald spot on the back of your head! In my office, I run the robot, lay out the areas to be grafted and make the sites.  You have to know who is doing the procedure.  Good luck!

Outsourced surgery by someone who dabbles in hair transplantation is a recipe for disaster. What your dermatologist was telling you was that you need to seek an expert in hair transplantation and do your due diligence via in person consultation. At that time you can learn about the surgical and non surgical options that best fit your situation. Best of luck to you. 

You should never select a technology.  A technology is only as good as the doctor who uses it. I have seen disasters with good technology. What you must do is find an outstanding surgeon who has performed many FUEs and see his patients bu meeting them one-on-one as I offer in my clinic.