Choosing Fat Instead Of Fillers

[randomvanish]

Doctor below says he stopped using fillers tear throughs and there is no good alternative for under eye area. (except implants but it useful for for severe lackness)
So, why doctors just use fat? Is it only because of money/marketing related problems or is fat somehow not effective for having youthfully look for places like under eye area etc.?

 

[chawaje]

fat lasts longer

 

[randomvanish]

fat lasts longer

according to findings of some doctors, it's not. fat get absorbed by the body eventually but fillers stay and migrated around the area injected.

 

[Deleted member 16380]

Doctor below says he stopped using fillers tear throughs and there is no good alternative for under eye area. (except implants but it useful for for severe lackness)
So, why doctors just use fat? Is it only because of money/marketing related problems or is fat somehow not effective for having youthfully look for places like under eye area etc.?

As chawaje said, it lasts longer, or, in fact, it lasts forever, if implanted properly. So, you can think of it as a permanent filler.

Why it is done though, instead of fillers? Most doctors EARN A LOT doing fat transfers!

Example: 1 ml filler costs 350 Euro at a clinic. Now, the filler itself costs 220-270, let it be 220. Then, 130 euro is the work price. NOW, filling cheeks, most common area, is from 2 to 4 ml in 99% cases. So, the whole work pays 520 Euro at most.

And now, fat transfer into cheeks costs... 2000 Euro, 4X the price! Moreover, if some of the fat dies, you have to do it AGAIN! 2000 ABOVE!

I personally think that fillers is the GREATEST invention in plastic surgery, ever since the word "plastic surgery" appeared. Fat is dangerous, in that if something goes wrong, which does not even depend on the surgeon skill, like transplanted fat dying, you have to CUT YOURSELF OPEN to take it out! This leaves scars.

Nothing like that happens with fillers. Unless you are an idiot and do permanent fillers, or Radiesse... The second one at least dissolves in a year.

And SCARS are the BIGGEST LOOKSMIN there is! I am not talking about those gay scars like Jason Momoa's. Im talking about visible surgical scars. They are noticeable, and they look terrible.

 

[randomvanish]

As chawaje said, it lasts longer, or, in fact, it lasts forever, if implanted properly. So, you can think of it as a permanent filler.

Why it is done though, instead of fillers? Most doctors EARN A LOT doing fat transfers!

Example: 1 ml filler costs 350 Euro at a clinic. Now, the filler itself costs 220-270, let it be 220. Then, 130 euro is the work price. NOW, filling cheeks, most common area, is from 2 to 4 ml in 99% cases. So, the whole work pays 520 Euro at most.

And now, fat transfer into cheeks costs... 2000 Euro, 4X the price! Moreover, if some of the fat dies, you have to do it AGAIN! 2000 ABOVE!

I personally think that fillers is the GREATEST invention in plastic surgery, ever since the word "plastic surgery" appeared. Fat is dangerous, in that if something goes wrong, which does not even depend on the surgeon skill, like transplanted fat dying, you have to CUT YOURSELF OPEN to take it out! This leaves scars.

Nothing like that happens with fillers. Unless you are an idiot and do permanent fillers, or Radiesse... The second one at least dissolves in a year.

And SCARS are the BIGGEST LOOKSMIN there is! I am not talking about those gay scars like Jason Momoa's. Im talking about visible surgical scars. They are noticeable, and they look terrible.

you give extremely rare bad examples about fat graft to prove "fillers > fat" but not give any bad examples of fillers like causing blindness, unwanted lumps etc.

how many case reports there are about bad fat grafts leading to having incisions that lead to create scars?

although I agree fillers are milestone in plastic surgery, I think fat is superior when it comes to achieve youthful look like undereye area.

 

[Deleted member 16380]

you give extremely rare bad examples about fat graft to prove "fillers > fat" but not give any bad examples of fillers like causing blindness, unwanted lumps etc.

It is because fat can cause blindness too. In fact, the proportionate MAJORITY of cases of blindness are caused BY FAT TRANSFERS.

Fat can cause unwanted lumps, AND YOU WOULD HAVE TO CUT IT OUT. Unlike dissolving HA filler.

Fillers are just superior. Only you have to redo them more often.

how many case reports there are about bad fat grafts leading to having incisions that lead to create scars?

Not many, because i do not see people share these, they are busy running to the plastic surgeons to remove/fix this shit.

although I agree fillers are milestone in plastic surgery, I think fat is superior when it comes to achieve youthful look like undereye area.

Absolutely no difference TBH, IF both succeed. But fat transfer can die. This create necrotic lumps under thin skin near eyes, which looks terrible and you cannot dissolve it. This is a risk that fillers simply do not have.

ADDITIONALLY fat transfers can create exactly the same lumps as fillers: it happens due to uneven injection and migration within the first weeks. Fillers can be dissolved, and for fat, you either have to cut it out, or to add even more fat, to smooth the uneven contours.

 

[Deleted member 18840]

It is because fat can cause blindness too. In fact, the proportionate MAJORITY of cases of blindness are caused BY FAT TRANSFERS.

Fat can cause unwanted lumps, AND YOU WOULD HAVE TO CUT IT OUT. Unlike dissolving HA filler.

Fillers are just superior. Only you have to redo them more often.

Not many, because i do not see people share these, they are busy running to the plastic surgeons to remove/fix this shit.

Absolutely no difference TBH, IF both succeed. But fat transfer can die. This create necrotic lumps under thin skin near eyes, which looks terrible and you cannot dissolve it. This is a risk that fillers simply do not have.

ADDITIONALLY fat transfers can create exactly the same lumps as fillers: it happens due to uneven injection and migration within the first weeks. Fillers can be dissolved, and for fat, you either have to cut it out, or to add even more fat, to smooth the uneven contours.

Botox mogs fillers for upper eyelid tho and fillers without prp in the lower eyelid area is pretty useless.
Fillers are a life changer for lower third tho especially if you have everything beside frontal angularity…

 

[russwestbrook]

It is because fat can cause blindness too. In fact, the proportionate MAJORITY of cases of blindness are caused BY FAT TRANSFERS.

Fat can cause unwanted lumps, AND YOU WOULD HAVE TO CUT IT OUT. Unlike dissolving HA filler.

Fillers are just superior. Only you have to redo them more often.

Not many, because i do not see people share these, they are busy running to the plastic surgeons to remove/fix this shit.

Absolutely no difference TBH, IF both succeed. But fat transfer can die. This create necrotic lumps under thin skin near eyes, which looks terrible and you cannot dissolve it. This is a risk that fillers simply do not have.

ADDITIONALLY fat transfers can create exactly the same lumps as fillers: it happens due to uneven injection and migration within the first weeks. Fillers can be dissolved, and for fat, you either have to cut it out, or to add even more fat, to smooth the uneven contours.

@randomvanish asking you both

I got good underye support bone wise but literally 0 soft tissue in the area causing scleral show and saggy lower eyelids and negative orbital vector. will fat/filler in the under eye tighten my lower eyelid at all/reduce scleral show?

 

[looksseg]

The problem of implants is that in long term erode your own bone

 

[randomvanish]

It is because fat can cause blindness too. In fact, the proportionate MAJORITY of cases of blindness are caused BY FAT TRANSFERS.

then prove with numbers and studies. I only found bad reports with fat transfer with an insane amount of fat grafting for cancer-related diseases. e.g. mandibular cancer.
of course, if you inject that amount of fat, that can lead to huge problems.

there are no peer-reviewed studies to compare fat and filler injection results under eye area (or minimal amounts to get youthful look) to say fillers are superior.


you are one of the biased ignorant users on this forum.

 

[randomvanish]

@randomvanish asking you both

I got good underye support bone wise but literally 0 soft tissue in the area causing scleral show and saggy lower eyelids and negative orbital vector. will fat/filler in the under eye tighten my lower eyelid at all/reduce scleral show?

both will work like a charm but I doubt if you have good bone support but have only problems with soft tissues.

 

[Alexanderr]

Doctor below says he stopped using fillers tear throughs and there is no good alternative for under eye area. (except implants but it useful for for severe lackness)
So, why doctors just use fat? Is it only because of money/marketing related problems or is fat somehow not effective for having youthfully look for places like under eye area etc.?

I'd stray away from fat grafts simply due to how often a signficant portion of injected fat gets reabsored by the body and it's more expensive.

 

[EverythingMaxxer]

It is because fat can cause blindness too. In fact, the proportionate MAJORITY of cases of blindness are caused BY FAT TRANSFERS.

Fat can cause unwanted lumps, AND YOU WOULD HAVE TO CUT IT OUT. Unlike dissolving HA filler.

Fillers are just superior. Only you have to redo them more often.

Not many, because i do not see people share these, they are busy running to the plastic surgeons to remove/fix this shit.

Absolutely no difference TBH, IF both succeed. But fat transfer can die. This create necrotic lumps under thin skin near eyes, which looks terrible and you cannot dissolve it. This is a risk that fillers simply do not have.

ADDITIONALLY fat transfers can create exactly the same lumps as fillers: it happens due to uneven injection and migration within the first weeks. Fillers can be dissolved, and for fat, you either have to cut it out, or to add even more fat, to smooth the uneven contours.

What is the best type of filler for eye area? Either tear trough or upper eyelid?

 

[thereallegend]

It is because fat can cause blindness too. In fact, the proportionate MAJORITY of cases of blindness are caused BY FAT TRANSFERS.

Fat can cause unwanted lumps, AND YOU WOULD HAVE TO CUT IT OUT. Unlike dissolving HA filler.

Fillers are just superior. Only you have to redo them more often.

Not many, because i do not see people share these, they are busy running to the plastic surgeons to remove/fix this shit.

Absolutely no difference TBH, IF both succeed. But fat transfer can die. This create necrotic lumps under thin skin near eyes, which looks terrible and you cannot dissolve it. This is a risk that fillers simply do not have.

ADDITIONALLY fat transfers can create exactly the same lumps as fillers: it happens due to uneven injection and migration within the first weeks. Fillers can be dissolved, and for fat, you either have to cut it out, or to add even more fat, to smooth the uneven contours.

HA and Calcium fillers mog