“Multi unit hair grafting” is a method trademarked by PAI Medical group, what are your thoughts about this process?

If you put multiple units of hair follicles in one incision site, it is similar to the old style hair plugs. 

This is actually an old technique that has been discarded by most clinics. The problem is these large incisions lead to more scarring in the recipient area, and put the patient at greater risk of shock loss of the native hair and the potential of scalp necrosis.

The bottom line in any hair restoration procedure is what do the before and after photos show.The proof is in the puddingnot the method. Look at our gallery to see what you think.

The terminology is not new, Dr. Okuda invented the multiunit graft technique using 1 mm-4 mm punch technique in Japan in 1939. I personally like and I still use the MUG (multiunit graft) technique as much as I can in selected hair restoration cases. The main purpose is to move more hair per graft to increase density, If Patient selection and surgical technique (hairline design, graft harvesting and preparation, graft preservation, recipient site creation and placing grafts) are done properly we can get great results with the MUG technique. Also in my opinion the MUG has better survival rate than single grafts. The MUG can be obtained from the donor strip or punch (FUE) motorized techniques. In the past we use the round punch 1 mm-2 mm or the slot punch 1.2 mm-2.5 mm for removing bold tissue from the recipient area then we place the grafts. But with the evolution of the hair transplantation techniques we have been using microblades or small needles for creating the recipient sites for the past 20-25  years or more. I said before and I will say again about the hair grafts: Quality is always better than quantity. Good luck. 

It is a current trend to 'invent' names for surgical instruments and surgical methods. The goal is to,
1. Make the impression that this company has a new invention.
2. Encourage the patient to search for this name, which eliminates other competitors who obviously have not even heard about this. 
3. Patients instinctively assume that the 'invention' is valid and don't suspect it could be just a made up name that introduces nothing new.
On the other hand, if you want to look into this a bit, the advancement in hair surgery has gone the opposite way. In ancient times, very large grafts containing multiple units were used, usually referred to as 'plug grafts'. These caused a plugy, unnatural appearance. So first FUT and later FUE was used to produce single follicular unit grafts so it allowed for a more natural appearance. In conclusion, not only that the claimed name is nothing new, but also the current trend is to do the opposite.

I stand by the FUE method using SmartGraft because I believe it gives superior results.  I hope you can find a SmartGraft provider in your area.

This is a marketing term. I am not sure how they are using it but some groups like to 'invent' teerms that make them seem like pioneers. Find out where it is published in a good medical journal if it is credible