Hair transplantation with the use of the ARTAS hair transplant robot? Or a manual FUE hair follicle transplantation procedure performed by a top-class surgeon?
People struggling with hair loss and interested in hair transplantation are increasingly confronted with information appearing in the media about the automation of the transplant process using a device called ARTAS.
- Is the robotization of this process really a positive situation for the patient?
- Should a patient be happy that a procedure on their head may be performed by an automated, algorithmic machine?
- Are hair transplants procedures of the highest aesthetic value? Or are they becoming a kind of “production line” – thickening impersonal surfaces?
Current robotic systems (including the ARTAS robot) impose many limitations on patients. It is worth noting that the ARTAS robot is licensed only to harvest follicular units from the scalps of men who are dark brunettes or brown-haired, and only from those who have straight hair.
As a consequence, men with blonde, red, or gray hair are forced to dye their hair first in order for the system to work properly.
However, we know that even among patients with dark hair, many grafts differ in shade and structure. In such cases, the risk of errors and the destruction of healthy grafts during an automated procedure is high.
Moreover, hair transplantation with the ARTAS robot is highly problematic in the case of curly hair. Patients are usually advised to undergo the manual FUE hair transplant method instead.
Another common misconception is that the ARTAS robot performs the entire hair transplant, eliminating the presence of the doctor and medical staff. In reality, ARTAS is only a tool supporting the surgeon’s work. The machine performs only the follicle extraction process and prepares the recipient sites for future grafts. The rest of the procedure is carried out just like in other transplants – using the FUE method.
ARTAS hair transplant method or FUE?
As Dr. Piotr Turkowski, MD, PhD, emphasizes – the key to the highest quality transplant are above all the following tasks:
- designing the natural hairline,
- professional and medically sound selection of grafts for different areas of the recipient site,
- precise preparation of the recipient channels, which must be created at the correct angle and with proper placement in the recipient area.
All of these tasks – as of today – are extremely demanding and delicate. They should not be performed by automated systems, as this carries a high risk of shortcomings that can negatively affect both the aesthetic and medical outcomes of the procedure.
Marketing slogans claiming that a robot can perform better than highly specialized surgeons are misleading and inappropriate. The robot does not operate independently. For people who like technological novelties, it may seem like an attractive option, but when choosing a method and a surgeon, we do not recommend experimenting on your own body or looking only at the cost.
“What matters most is professionalism and experience. The marketing of transplant automation, with many superficial claims, is meant to attract patients while concealing many disadvantages of the method. This is exactly the case with the use of ARTAS robots. We do not follow trends – we rely on medical expertise, manual precision, and the natural final effect of the transplant.” – emphasizes Dr. Piotr Turkowski, MD, PhD.
Automation or talent?
The skilled and experienced hand of a surgeon does not lose to the ARTAS robot in terms of graft harvesting speed. Experienced surgeons are often faster than the robot, but speed is not the only important factor. A surgeon has a clear advantage in accuracy and ensures the procedure meets the highest medical standards throughout the entire process – unlike the robotic method.
Dr. Piotr Turkowski points out that it is no coincidence that the world’s leading specialists in hair restoration surgery focus exclusively on improving FUE transplantation tools, not on automating the process.
Robot or human?
The human factor in the FUE method is irreplaceable. Transplants performed with the ARTAS robot do not look as elegant and natural as those done with the manual FUE technique. Hair transplantation can be compared to permanent makeup or other aesthetic procedures – what matters is talent and an artistic sense, qualities that cannot be automated. Patients expect individual and refined treatment when it comes to something as unique as their body and health. In aesthetic procedures, such subtle nuances are crucial.
How to choose a clinic?
When choosing a clinic, one should not be guided solely by the brand, name, or advertising. The main focus should be on the surgeon performing the procedure and their experience.
The mere fact that a clinic owns a robot does not guarantee better transplant quality. It can only support the process. The true determinant of an effective hair transplant is the surgeon’s knowledge, experience, and professional skill level – along with their team.
In most of the world’s most renowned clinics, medical teams perform transplants manually, using only micromotors. This fact should be a serious consideration for patients interested in undergoing a hair transplant.
ARTAS vs FUE – comparison
Below we present images from the journal ISHRS (International Society of Hair Restoration Surgery). Differences between incisions made with the ARTAS tool (left photo) and those created manually during a procedure (right photo).
The contrast between the effects of these methods is undeniably clear.
The art of hair transplantation
The manual FUE hair transplant technique can be compared to the unique painting style of great masters – a technique where you can admire the texture of the work or individual brushstrokes. They are not perfectly symmetrical and carry an element of artistic invention, yet they result in outstanding works of art.
“Art is meant to disturb, knowledge reassures.” – Georges Braque
The same is true for hair transplants, where human refinement and a sense of aesthetics are indispensable. Too symmetrical and “robotic” graft placement using automation will not look good. Robotic transplants can be compared to a standardized reproduction of a painting – “almost the same,” but how very different.
Another opinion on ARTAS hair transplant: Can I trust a Robot to do my Hair Transplant?
Sir
The article published on my website about the ARTAS robot is the quintessence of experience from recent years regarding repair procedures in patients after ARTAS hair transplantation. This is not only my opinion, but the opinion of many hair transplant specialists and pioneers in this field. At present, hair transplant robots are simply inaccurate. I do not deny that in the future they will be so improved and will do most of the work that the doctor should do. However, currently the robot is highly inaccurate and underdeveloped. Beginning with the size of the punch, the limited donor area for transplantation, ending with incisions making in an unnatural way. The robot has no intelligence in the choice of hair follicles, it will not adapt different sizes of the punch to the size of the transplants, it does not decide about the depth of the graft collection, or the angle at which the punch should collect the hair follicles. It will also not decide how extensive the donor area for hair follicle grafting can be. ARTAS cannot make decisions other than those that have been programmed for it. https://hairdoctorflorida.com/neograft-cons-artas-cons-what-they-arent-telling-you/
Hi Everyone,
The above article by Dr. P Turkowski is a real eye opener and good guide before making decision what method of hair transplant to choose. I wish I came across this piece earlier so my personal story would have had a different outcome.
Two years ago I have underwent a hair transplant with a use of Artas
FUE in one of the recognisable clinics in Poland. Unfortunately the whole process of the treatment turned out to be an extremely disappointing experience. My initial research in the subject of hair transplant procedures convinced me that Artas FUE would be the right choice however now I understand it was the worst decision I have ever made! And I truly regret it!
From start to end all went just wrong and my dream of having my good look and confidence back was just completely shuttered in 1 day! With final outcome of only 25 max 30% harvested transplants re-growth on my head I was devastated! Also the post-harvesting donor areas after the procedure did not look as good as I expected! With visible scarring and incisions marks after robot’s imprecise or I would rather say random punches. Which as stated by Dr. Turkowski in his article as well as my deeper research into this field proves to be less visible with manual FUE transplant method.
However so far no clinics mention these kind of risks and only focus on positives of robotic procedure what blindfolds potential patients.
Summarising on my Artas FUE disaster procedure I ended up with barely any hair growing back, lack of hair density in the donor areas and scarring! Not to mentioning the financial pressure and complete loss of self-confidence!
Now I am trying to pick up the pieces with real hair transplant specialists and hopefully with time things will look better. But from perspective of time, better research, specialists consultations and liaison with similar
patients cases I understand that manually driven FUE procedure gives you more guarantee for accuracy and precision of harvested hair follicles which leads to a successful hair re-growth and quality of final effect.
I have learned that it is important that your procedure is performed by a qualified doctors who specialise in hair transplantation field and not
“cow-boys” operating a robot!
I wish I could take back time as now I am more than sure I would have gone for human driven FUE procedure! Good luck and DON’T fall into the trap!
Dr. Turkowski, in your article, you make a number of bold and unsubstantiated claims, such as “Robotic hair transplant system does not provide natural looking results as compared to manual FUE hair transplant technique.”
Can you provide the data to back this up? I’m willing to bet that in a blinded study you could not tell the difference between a patient with an ARTAS procedure or handheld FUE. Until you have that data, it’s not appropriate to make claims like that, just as you say it’s not appropriate for other doctors or manufacturers to make unsubstantiated or misleading statements.
Some of the world’s most experienced and respected hair transplantation doctors in the world (who are also ISHRS members) use the ARTAS system. They would disagree with many of your assertions.