eye surgeries are the most risky and low roi

[shedontluv-U]

You've done a lot of research and I read it all + checked ur links, all of them claim that the results last 10-15 years.

Could you provide any proof or articles of your claims? Or any posts made by people that got the surgery and were very disappointed with their results lasting only 6-12 months? Not even going at you like aggressively, I just saw 0 proof.

YES YES YES

im so glad they ways you replying give me fews minute i wil lsend you all

 

[IDontBlameAnybody]

YES YES YES

im so glad they ways you replying give me fews minute i wil lsend you all

Sooo?

 

[shedontluv-U]

Sooo?

i really hope for you , you will really read all because i am putting a lot of effort

and i hope you didnt lie to and you really read higner

i will easily know if you readed atleast the normal acess study one

 

[IDontBlameAnybody]

i really hope for you , you will really read all because i am putting a lot of effort

and i hope you didnt lie to and you really read higner

i will easily know if you readed atleast the normal acess study one

I’ll read everything lol just post them

 

[shedontluv-U]

Sooo?

pexy last 10-15 years answear no
— Backed by autorithy source & testimonial —​

---

authoritative source

---

» Study #andrea

→ Why this proves my point: Kossler 2016, Locking Y lateral canthopexy : 53 canthopexies in 42 patients, a complex and very revision-heavy cohort mean follow-up 24 months, and only 3.7% required additional tightening. This is one of the best durability data beyond one year, but the technique is reinforced by bone fixation, so it is not the simplest cosmetic canthopexy procedure.

---

» Study #2 — long term follow up
Details: [MRD2, This is the measurement of the space between the center of your eye and the edge of your lower eyelid. The larger this space, the lower your eyelid sits and the more white of your eye is showing under the iris.]
Summary: Even in favorable sources, the promise is often modest. detail long term follow up
→ Why this proves my point: do not mean that canthopexy “always lasts 6 months.” There is also more structured data where lateral resuspension yields lasting but modest results: in a cohort of 25 adults, the average follow-up was 15.1 months, with an average decrease in inferior scleral show of only 0.27 mm and an improvement deemed lasting, while another source notes that the horizontal tension of a transcanthal canthopexy generally weakens after a certain postoperative period. Therefore, testimonials of “it didn’t hold” and the literature coexist the procedure may hold, but the cosmetic effect may be weak, or insufficient in some cases. Relate to what i said pexy far better for support combined with other than long lasting cosmetic and alone

---

» Study #3 — [america plastic surgeon]
→ Why this proves my point: The authorities do not describe canthopexy as the major tilt transformation surgery that many people imagine. The ASPS says it offers “subtle enhancement” and is ideal for people with little or no sagging, whose outer corner is already roughly in the correct position, and who mainly need a little extra support. The article adds that in practice, surgeons often perform it with a lower bleph to support the eyelid during healing. StatPearls says the same canthopexy is usually sufficient for mild degrees of laxity, while canthoplasty is more suitable for extensive cases. A review of lower eyelid malpositions also summarizes canthopexy as an effective lateral tendon plication in mild cases.

---

» Study #4 — l eyelid management
→ Why this proves my point: For isolated aesthetic canthopexy, the reliable literature consists mainly of series on functional/reconstructive cases, or of canthopexy performed with other procedures such as bleph repair, lower lid retraction, or entropion repair. some 2024 review on lower eyelid malpositions also notes a significant lack of reliable data on success rates, recurrence rates, and complications according to the techniques used, and a 2019 review reiterates that canthopexy alone is primarily indicated in mild cases. Even a large series of 316 patients undergoing "simple canthopexy" does not provide a long-term durability curve, only a very early evolution.

---

» Study #5 — transtale
Summary: transcantal for ectoprion
→ Why this proves my point: So, to put it simply yes, this one is solid, but it doesn't support the idea of a universal duration like "10 to 15 years " or "a constant multiple years." What it shows, rather, is that early loosening in the first few months is real, that some enhanced techniques often last 1 to 2 years or more, and that with simpler techniques, the final gain can be real but small. Patient testimonials clearly show that there are also cases where the result is considered lost or unsuccessful after only 2 to 6 months.

---

» Study #6 — plasty pexy again
→ Why this proves my point: if you want a simple and reliable critere the more significant, "cat-eye," restructuring, or permanently visible change the procedure is described, the more it resembles what the authorities define as canthoplasty rather than simple canthopexy. The ASPS explicitly states that canthoplasty results in more dramatic and lasting changes, while canthopexy is lighter and more subtle. This is an inference, but it's one very well supported by official definitions.

---

» Study #7 — bleph lower lid an CANTHAL SUPPORTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
Summary: more about bleph but still related
→ Why this proves my point: If someone says, “I had a canthopexy, it hardly changed anything” or “it loosened after a few months,” that aligns much better with what the literature says about canthopexy. A 2016 article in Eye explicitly states that horizontal tension after transcanthal canthopexy tends to loosen over time postoperatively because a suture cannot create a strong, lasting scar. A 2024 prospective study reiterates that horizontal tension weakens after a certain postoperative period. Again, these are functional rather than purely aesthetic contexts, so this isn't absolute proof for all cosmetic cases, but it clearly supports the idea that a weak or loosening effect is not at all incompatible with a true canthopexy.

---

» Study #8 — only clinic i trust
→ Why this proves my point: Cleveland Clinic says the same thing in a different way canthopexy tightens the outer corner of the lower eyelid but doesn't affect the existing tendons or muscles, whereas canthoplasty reconstructs and lifts the corners of the eyes by working on the supporting tissues. So if the problem is a distinctly low tilt requiring a true repositioning, the anatomical logic of authoritative sources favors canthoplasty, not a simple pexy. It's an inference, but it's directly supported by their definitions.

---

» Study #9 — bleph cantal and support AGAIN ( yes this one I put it again and I forgot the link but is higher)
Details: I know I've already posted this, but this time it's in relation to a negative tilt
→ Why this proves my point: The StatPearls text is even more useful because it discusses both negative canthal tilt and procedural choice. It states that a negative canthal tilt must be clearly identified preoperatively, that it is associated with a high risk of postoperative malposition, and then specifies that the choice between canthopexy and canthoplasty depends on the degree of laxity and the position of the globe. Most importantly, it explicitly states that canthopexy is usually sufficient for mild degrees of lateral laxity, while canthoplasty is more appropriate for extensive laxity, and that canthopexy is only suitable if the laxity can be corrected simply by tucking the eyelid margin against the globe. This doesn't fit the description of a severe tilt.

---

» Study #10 — ophtalmo opinion
→ Why this proves my point: Georgescu's PubMed review supports this view: for less severe cases, canthopexy may suffice for cases of profound eyelid laxity or ectropion, lateral tarsal strip canthoplasty is described as a powerful technique and remains the procedure of choice for severe cases. Again, the paper focuses primarily on laxity/ectropion rather than purely aesthetic tilt, so it's not a perfect description of "severe negative canthal tilt," but the underlying idea is the same: simple canthopexy = for milder cases.

---

TESTIMONIALS

---

» Testimonial #1 — bella eyes and shit

“literally 0 difference”

→ Why this proves my point: Three months post-op, she writes that nothing about her eyes has changed, that her eyes are exactly the same as before, and that there is “literally 0 difference” in the canthopexy procedure. it wasn't just canthopexy: it was a “Bella Eyes” type procedure combined with a brow lift.

---

» Testimonial #2 — nigga litteraly said black in white NO

"A lateral canthopexy is NOT enough to give a lasting result"

→ Why this proves my point: I found something even more explicit on another RealSelf question about downturned eyes, a surgeon replies that a lateral canthopexy is NOT enough to give a lasting result, and that a lower lid retraction repair is necessary to provide the desired support. And on another page, another surgeon states outright, “Canthopexy will NOT work for you” if the goal is to achieve more almond-shaped eyes without scleral show; he says that the lower eyelids need to be lifted in addition to canthoplasty. These two opinions are online clinical opinions, not clinical trials, but they are very directly aligned with your question. if its severr pexy will not work because sometime plasty alone its crappy... for that matter

---

» Testimonial #3 — swelling frw

"
I agree with the other surgeon. I would re-eval in 2-3 months post surgery. You seem to be healing well for 10 days post-op. The lower eyelid may need to be elevated via CANTHOPLASTY to raise corner.


"

→ Why this proves my point: a patient asks if her lower eyelid and outer corner will lift after the swelling subsides. A board-certified surgeon answers clearly he doesn't expect the lower eyelids to lift with canthopexy alone he says it generally requires a lower eyelid lift. Another responds on the same page that the lower eyelid may need to be lifted via canthoplasty to raise the corner.k "simple canthopexy not enough"

---

» Testimonial #4 — 6month

"nigga im tired i want a femboy so much"

→ Why this proves my point: said that 6 months after his canthopexy, her eyes had become round again and the corners had drooped again. This alone doesn't prove a "severe negative tilt," but it's a good public example of canthopexy that didn't last long enough to maintain the desired position.

---

---

In conclusion, canthopexy is an effective surgery for minor sagging or small structural improvements but it's not the procedure to correct a marked negative canthal tilt or a visible scleral show with a haut (i dont fucking care i said it in french im tired nigga ) MRD2 score. Its true strength in its mechanical and structural properties it's particularly useful in preventing ectropion, often caused by excessive lower blepharoplasty, and its benefits are most evident when combined with other surgeries.

The sources I cited are primarily related to scleral show because that's the focus of my research, but they remain entirely relevant. I also made sure to share only freely accessible documents nothing behind a paywall. Because that illegal

To answer @IDontBlameAnybody directly no, I haven't found any studies on PubMed claiming that canthopexy lasts an average of 10 to 15 years in terms of structure and visual results. And this point is important the follow-up periods in available studies are far too short to suggest a lasting structure over decades, some barely reaching an average of 4 years. But that hardly matters, because the subject here is cosmetic And everything I've been able to Glean from the literature points in the same direction a lasting 10-year visual change from a simple canthopexy is quite far-fetched. It all depends on the technique, of course but simply tightening the ligament will never be enough to correct a visible NCT. That's not what the procedure is designed to do.

My main point remains this: canthopexy has a fairly high rate of dissatisfaction. Complaints consistently fall into three categories: overly aggressive results (often because it was a canthoplasty, not a canthopexy), results that don't last the first six months (the crucial period for this type of surgery), or changes that are simply not visible.

And to go further in severe cases, even a canthoplasty alone isn't always sufficient. As we saw with decadouchéÉÉÉÉÉ the content creator, canthoplasty brought some improvement, but not enough. This type of case requires a combined approach. So, claiming that canthopexy alone can resolve severe NCT or significant scleral show is simply impossible not even a russian femboy will be able to pull this miracle.

If you want to contradict me, argue based on the points I've raised the duration of results, the rate of dissatisfaction, or the limitations of canthopexy in cases of significant NCT or scleral show( that was what had been discussed). Provide sources, not personal attack. I never claimed that canthopexy is useless tho I said it has a specific scope of application, and that outside of that scope is where the problems begin. Any attempt to make me say what I didn't say will be ignored.

your question about nct @Jgns

femboy russian part @puppyboy264

i am fucking tired i am not even finish i am sure i forgot some shit but im tired i will use my majestic vip to edit later i have to goon anyways if i forgot

and im not a certified board surgeon niggerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

---

— The facts speak for themselves —​

 

[IDontBlameAnybody]

pexy last 10-15 years answear no
— Backed by autorithy source & testimonial —​

---

authoritative source

---

» Study #andrea

→ Why this proves my point: Kossler 2016, Locking Y lateral canthopexy : 53 canthopexies in 42 patients, a complex and very revision-heavy cohort; mean follow-up 24 months, and only 3.7% required additional tightening. This is one of the best durability data beyond one year, but the technique is reinforced by bone fixation, so it is not the simplest cosmetic canthopexy procedure.

---

» Study #2 — long term follow up
Details: [MRD2, This is the measurement of the space between the center of your eye and the edge of your lower eyelid. The larger this space, the lower your eyelid sits and the more white of your eye is showing under the iris.]
Summary: Even in favorable sources, the promise is often modest. detail long term follow up
→ Why this proves my point: do not mean that canthopexy “always lasts 6 months.” There is also more structured data where lateral resuspension yields lasting but modest results: in a cohort of 25 adults, the average follow-up was 15.1 months, with an average decrease in inferior scleral show of only 0.27 mm and an improvement deemed lasting, while another source notes that the horizontal tension of a transcanthal canthopexy generally weakens after a certain postoperative period. Therefore, testimonials of “it didn’t hold” and the literature coexist the procedure may hold, but the cosmetic effect may be weak, or insufficient in some cases. Relate to what i said pexy far better for support combined with other than long lasting cosmetic and alone

---

» Study #3 — [america plastic surgeon]
→ Why this proves my point: The authorities do not describe canthopexy as the major tilt transformation surgery that many people imagine. The ASPS says it offers “subtle enhancement” and is ideal for people with little or no sagging, whose outer corner is already roughly in the correct position, and who mainly need a little extra support. The article adds that in practice, surgeons often perform it with a lower bleph to support the eyelid during healing. StatPearls says the same canthopexy is usually sufficient for mild degrees of laxity, while canthoplasty is more suitable for extensive cases. A review of lower eyelid malpositions also summarizes canthopexy as an effective lateral tendon plication in mild cases.

---

» Study #4 — l eyelid management
→ Why this proves my point: For isolated aesthetic canthopexy, the reliable literature consists mainly of series on functional/reconstructive cases, or of canthopexy performed with other procedures such as bleph repair, lower lid retraction, or entropion repair. some 2024 review on lower eyelid malpositions also notes a significant lack of reliable data on success rates, recurrence rates, and complications according to the techniques used, and a 2019 review reiterates that canthopexy alone is primarily indicated in mild cases. Even a large series of 316 patients undergoing "simple canthopexy" does not provide a long-term durability curve, only a very early evolution.

---

» Study #5 — transtale
Summary: transcantal for ectoprion
→ Why this proves my point: So, to put it simply yes, this one is solid, but it doesn't support the idea of a universal duration like "10 to 15 years " or "a constant multiple years." What it shows, rather, is that early loosening in the first few months is real, that some enhanced techniques often last 1 to 2 years or more, and that with simpler techniques, the final gain can be real but small. Patient testimonials clearly show that there are also cases where the result is considered lost or unsuccessful after only 2 to 6 months.

---

» Study #6 — plasty pexy again
→ Why this proves my point: if you want a simple and reliable critere the more significant, "cat-eye," restructuring, or permanently visible change the procedure is described, the more it resembles what the authorities define as canthoplasty rather than simple canthopexy. The ASPS explicitly states that canthoplasty results in more dramatic and lasting changes, while canthopexy is lighter and more subtle. This is an inference, but it's one very well supported by official definitions.

---

» Study #7 — bleph lower lid an CANTHAL SUPPORTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
Summary: more about bleph but still related
→ Why this proves my point: If someone says, “I had a canthopexy, it hardly changed anything” or “it loosened after a few months,” that aligns much better with what the literature says about canthopexy. A 2016 article in Eye explicitly states that horizontal tension after transcanthal canthopexy tends to loosen over time postoperatively because a suture cannot create a strong, lasting scar. A 2024 prospective study reiterates that horizontal tension weakens after a certain postoperative period. Again, these are functional rather than purely aesthetic contexts, so this isn't absolute proof for all cosmetic cases, but it clearly supports the idea that a weak or loosening effect is not at all incompatible with a true canthopexy.

---

» Study #8 — only clinic i trust
→ Why this proves my point: Cleveland Clinic says the same thing in a different way canthopexy tightens the outer corner of the lower eyelid but doesn't affect the existing tendons or muscles, whereas canthoplasty reconstructs and lifts the corners of the eyes by working on the supporting tissues. So if the problem is a distinctly low tilt requiring a true repositioning, the anatomical logic of authoritative sources favors canthoplasty, not a simple pexy. It's an inference, but it's directly supported by their definitions.

---

» Study #9 — bleph cantal and support AGAIN
Details: I know I've already posted this, but this time it's in relation to a negative tilt
→ Why this proves my point: The StatPearls text is even more useful because it discusses both negative canthal tilt and procedural choice. It states that a negative canthal tilt must be clearly identified preoperatively, that it is associated with a high risk of postoperative malposition, and then specifies that the choice between canthopexy and canthoplasty depends on the degree of laxity and the position of the globe. Most importantly, it explicitly states that canthopexy is usually sufficient for mild degrees of lateral laxity, while canthoplasty is more appropriate for extensive laxity, and that canthopexy is only suitable if the laxity can be corrected simply by tucking the eyelid margin against the globe. This doesn't fit the description of a severe tilt.

---

» Study #10 — ophtalmo opinion
→ Why this proves my point: Georgescu's PubMed review supports this view: for less severe cases, canthopexy may suffice for cases of profound eyelid laxity or ectropion, lateral tarsal strip canthoplasty is described as a powerful technique and remains the procedure of choice for severe cases. Again, the paper focuses primarily on laxity/ectropion rather than purely aesthetic tilt, so it's not a perfect description of "severe negative canthal tilt," but the underlying idea is the same: simple canthopexy = for milder cases.

---

TESTIMONIALS

---

» Testimonial #1 — bella eyes and shit

→ Why this proves my point: Three months post-op, she writes that nothing about her eyes has changed, that her eyes are exactly the same as before, and that there is “literally 0 difference” in the canthopexy procedure. it wasn't just canthopexy: it was a “Bella Eyes” type procedure combined with a brow lift.

---

» Testimonial #2 — nigga litteraly said black in white NO

→ Why this proves my point: I found something even more explicit on another RealSelf question about downturned eyes, a surgeon replies that a lateral canthopexy is NOT enough to give a lasting result, and that a lower lid retraction repair is necessary to provide the desired support. And on another page, another surgeon states outright, “Canthopexy will NOT work for you” if the goal is to achieve more almond-shaped eyes without scleral show; he says that the lower eyelids need to be lifted in addition to canthoplasty. These two opinions are online clinical opinions, not clinical trials, but they are very directly aligned with your question. if its severr pexy will not work because sometime plasty alone its crappy... for that matter

---

» Testimonial #3 — swelling frw

→ Why this proves my point: a patient asks if her lower eyelid and outer corner will lift after the swelling subsides. A board-certified surgeon answers clearly he doesn't expect the lower eyelids to lift with canthopexy alone he says it generally requires a lower eyelid lift. Another responds on the same page that the lower eyelid may need to be lifted via canthoplasty to raise the corner.k "simple canthopexy not enough"

---

» Testimonial #4 — 6month

→ Why this proves my point: said that 6 months after his canthopexy, her eyes had become round again and the corners had drooped again. This alone doesn't prove a "severe negative tilt," but it's a good public example of canthopexy that didn't last long enough to maintain the desired position.

---

---

In conclusion, canthopexy is an effective surgery for minor sagging or small structural improvements but it's not the procedure to correct a marked negative canthal tilt or a visible scleral show with a haut (i dont fucking care i said it in french im tired nigga ) MRD2 score. Its true strength in its mechanical and structural properties it's particularly useful in preventing ectropion, often caused by excessive lower blepharoplasty, and its benefits are most evident when combined with other surgeries.

The sources I cited are primarily related to scleral show because that's the focus of my research, but they remain entirely relevant. I also made sure to share only freely accessible documents nothing behind a paywall.

To answer @IDontBlameAnybody directly no, I haven't found any studies on PubMed claiming that canthopexy lasts an average of 10 to 15 years in terms of structure and visual results. And this point is important the follow-up periods in available studies are far too short to suggest a lasting structure over decades, some barely reaching an average of 4 years. But that hardly matters, because the subject here is cosmetic And everything I've been able to Glean from the literature points in the same direction a lasting 10-year visual change from a simple canthopexy is quite far-fetched. It all depends on the technique, of course but simply tightening the ligament will never be enough to correct a visible NCT. That's not what the procedure is designed to do.

My main point remains this: canthopexy has a fairly high rate of dissatisfaction. Complaints consistently fall into three categories: overly aggressive results (often because it was a canthoplasty, not a canthopexy), results that don't last the first six months (the crucial period for this type of surgery), or changes that are simply not visible.

And to go further in severe cases, even a canthoplasty alone isn't always sufficient. As we saw with decadouchéÉÉÉÉÉ the content creator, canthoplasty brought some improvement, but not enough. This type of case requires a combined approach. So, claiming that canthopexy alone can resolve severe NCT or significant scleral show is simply impossible not even a russian femboy will be able to pull this miracle.

If you want to contradict me, argue based on the points I've raised the duration of results, the rate of dissatisfaction, or the limitations of canthopexy in cases of significant NCT or scleral show( that was what had been discussed). Provide sources, not personal attack. I never claimed that canthopexy is useless tho I said it has a specific scope of application, and that outside of that scope is where the problems begin. Any attempt to make me say what I didn't say will be ignored.

your question about nct @Jgns

femboy russian part @puppyboy264

i am fucking tired i am not even finish i am sure i forgot some shit but im tired i will use my majestic vip to edit later i have to goon anyways if i forgot

and im not a certified board surgeon niggerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

---

— The facts speak for themselves —​

can you provide the links aswell? Reading everything rn

 

[IDontBlameAnybody]

can you provide the links aswell? Reading everything rn

nvm u did

 

[shedontluv-U]

nvm u did

Yes it's in the title mate

 

[shedontluv-U]

nvm u did

I did my best to provide all I can legally send you

And Keep in mind that my primary source is PubMed and I haven't had time to search in big detail.

And I didn't even finish

 

[shedontluv-U]

You've done a lot of research and I read it all + checked ur links, all of them claim that the results last 10-15 years.

Could you provide any proof or articles of your claims? Or any posts made by people that got the surgery and were very disappointed with their results lasting only 6-12 months? Not even going at you like aggressively, I just saw 0 proof.

I've looked several times and there's no link in what I posted that says canthopexy lasts 10-15 years? And I really don't think you've looked anywhere else either. Could you show me your sources, please?

 

[yussimania]

pexy last 10-15 years answear no
— Backed by autorithy source & testimonial —​

---

authoritative source

---

» Study #andrea

→ Why this proves my point: Kossler 2016, Locking Y lateral canthopexy : 53 canthopexies in 42 patients, a complex and very revision-heavy cohort mean follow-up 24 months, and only 3.7% required additional tightening. This is one of the best durability data beyond one year, but the technique is reinforced by bone fixation, so it is not the simplest cosmetic canthopexy procedure.

---

» Study #2 — long term follow up
Details: [MRD2, This is the measurement of the space between the center of your eye and the edge of your lower eyelid. The larger this space, the lower your eyelid sits and the more white of your eye is showing under the iris.]
Summary: Even in favorable sources, the promise is often modest. detail long term follow up
→ Why this proves my point: do not mean that canthopexy “always lasts 6 months.” There is also more structured data where lateral resuspension yields lasting but modest results: in a cohort of 25 adults, the average follow-up was 15.1 months, with an average decrease in inferior scleral show of only 0.27 mm and an improvement deemed lasting, while another source notes that the horizontal tension of a transcanthal canthopexy generally weakens after a certain postoperative period. Therefore, testimonials of “it didn’t hold” and the literature coexist the procedure may hold, but the cosmetic effect may be weak, or insufficient in some cases. Relate to what i said pexy far better for support combined with other than long lasting cosmetic and alone

---

» Study #3 — [america plastic surgeon]
→ Why this proves my point: The authorities do not describe canthopexy as the major tilt transformation surgery that many people imagine. The ASPS says it offers “subtle enhancement” and is ideal for people with little or no sagging, whose outer corner is already roughly in the correct position, and who mainly need a little extra support. The article adds that in practice, surgeons often perform it with a lower bleph to support the eyelid during healing. StatPearls says the same canthopexy is usually sufficient for mild degrees of laxity, while canthoplasty is more suitable for extensive cases. A review of lower eyelid malpositions also summarizes canthopexy as an effective lateral tendon plication in mild cases.

---

» Study #4 — l eyelid management
→ Why this proves my point: For isolated aesthetic canthopexy, the reliable literature consists mainly of series on functional/reconstructive cases, or of canthopexy performed with other procedures such as bleph repair, lower lid retraction, or entropion repair. some 2024 review on lower eyelid malpositions also notes a significant lack of reliable data on success rates, recurrence rates, and complications according to the techniques used, and a 2019 review reiterates that canthopexy alone is primarily indicated in mild cases. Even a large series of 316 patients undergoing "simple canthopexy" does not provide a long-term durability curve, only a very early evolution.

---

» Study #5 — transtale
Summary: transcantal for ectoprion
→ Why this proves my point: So, to put it simply yes, this one is solid, but it doesn't support the idea of a universal duration like "10 to 15 years " or "a constant multiple years." What it shows, rather, is that early loosening in the first few months is real, that some enhanced techniques often last 1 to 2 years or more, and that with simpler techniques, the final gain can be real but small. Patient testimonials clearly show that there are also cases where the result is considered lost or unsuccessful after only 2 to 6 months.

---

» Study #6 — plasty pexy again
→ Why this proves my point: if you want a simple and reliable critere the more significant, "cat-eye," restructuring, or permanently visible change the procedure is described, the more it resembles what the authorities define as canthoplasty rather than simple canthopexy. The ASPS explicitly states that canthoplasty results in more dramatic and lasting changes, while canthopexy is lighter and more subtle. This is an inference, but it's one very well supported by official definitions.

---

» Study #7 — bleph lower lid an CANTHAL SUPPORTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
Summary: more about bleph but still related
→ Why this proves my point: If someone says, “I had a canthopexy, it hardly changed anything” or “it loosened after a few months,” that aligns much better with what the literature says about canthopexy. A 2016 article in Eye explicitly states that horizontal tension after transcanthal canthopexy tends to loosen over time postoperatively because a suture cannot create a strong, lasting scar. A 2024 prospective study reiterates that horizontal tension weakens after a certain postoperative period. Again, these are functional rather than purely aesthetic contexts, so this isn't absolute proof for all cosmetic cases, but it clearly supports the idea that a weak or loosening effect is not at all incompatible with a true canthopexy.

---

» Study #8 — only clinic i trust
→ Why this proves my point: Cleveland Clinic says the same thing in a different way canthopexy tightens the outer corner of the lower eyelid but doesn't affect the existing tendons or muscles, whereas canthoplasty reconstructs and lifts the corners of the eyes by working on the supporting tissues. So if the problem is a distinctly low tilt requiring a true repositioning, the anatomical logic of authoritative sources favors canthoplasty, not a simple pexy. It's an inference, but it's directly supported by their definitions.

---

» Study #9 — bleph cantal and support AGAIN ( yes this one I put it again and I forgot the link but is higher)
Details: I know I've already posted this, but this time it's in relation to a negative tilt
→ Why this proves my point: The StatPearls text is even more useful because it discusses both negative canthal tilt and procedural choice. It states that a negative canthal tilt must be clearly identified preoperatively, that it is associated with a high risk of postoperative malposition, and then specifies that the choice between canthopexy and canthoplasty depends on the degree of laxity and the position of the globe. Most importantly, it explicitly states that canthopexy is usually sufficient for mild degrees of lateral laxity, while canthoplasty is more appropriate for extensive laxity, and that canthopexy is only suitable if the laxity can be corrected simply by tucking the eyelid margin against the globe. This doesn't fit the description of a severe tilt.

---

» Study #10 — ophtalmo opinion
→ Why this proves my point: Georgescu's PubMed review supports this view: for less severe cases, canthopexy may suffice for cases of profound eyelid laxity or ectropion, lateral tarsal strip canthoplasty is described as a powerful technique and remains the procedure of choice for severe cases. Again, the paper focuses primarily on laxity/ectropion rather than purely aesthetic tilt, so it's not a perfect description of "severe negative canthal tilt," but the underlying idea is the same: simple canthopexy = for milder cases.

---

TESTIMONIALS

---

» Testimonial #1 — bella eyes and shit

→ Why this proves my point: Three months post-op, she writes that nothing about her eyes has changed, that her eyes are exactly the same as before, and that there is “literally 0 difference” in the canthopexy procedure. it wasn't just canthopexy: it was a “Bella Eyes” type procedure combined with a brow lift.

---

» Testimonial #2 — nigga litteraly said black in white NO

→ Why this proves my point: I found something even more explicit on another RealSelf question about downturned eyes, a surgeon replies that a lateral canthopexy is NOT enough to give a lasting result, and that a lower lid retraction repair is necessary to provide the desired support. And on another page, another surgeon states outright, “Canthopexy will NOT work for you” if the goal is to achieve more almond-shaped eyes without scleral show; he says that the lower eyelids need to be lifted in addition to canthoplasty. These two opinions are online clinical opinions, not clinical trials, but they are very directly aligned with your question. if its severr pexy will not work because sometime plasty alone its crappy... for that matter

---

» Testimonial #3 — swelling frw

→ Why this proves my point: a patient asks if her lower eyelid and outer corner will lift after the swelling subsides. A board-certified surgeon answers clearly he doesn't expect the lower eyelids to lift with canthopexy alone he says it generally requires a lower eyelid lift. Another responds on the same page that the lower eyelid may need to be lifted via canthoplasty to raise the corner.k "simple canthopexy not enough"

---

» Testimonial #4 — 6month

→ Why this proves my point: said that 6 months after his canthopexy, her eyes had become round again and the corners had drooped again. This alone doesn't prove a "severe negative tilt," but it's a good public example of canthopexy that didn't last long enough to maintain the desired position.

---

---

In conclusion, canthopexy is an effective surgery for minor sagging or small structural improvements but it's not the procedure to correct a marked negative canthal tilt or a visible scleral show with a haut (i dont fucking care i said it in french im tired nigga ) MRD2 score. Its true strength in its mechanical and structural properties it's particularly useful in preventing ectropion, often caused by excessive lower blepharoplasty, and its benefits are most evident when combined with other surgeries.

The sources I cited are primarily related to scleral show because that's the focus of my research, but they remain entirely relevant. I also made sure to share only freely accessible documents nothing behind a paywall. Because that illegal

To answer @IDontBlameAnybody directly no, I haven't found any studies on PubMed claiming that canthopexy lasts an average of 10 to 15 years in terms of structure and visual results. And this point is important the follow-up periods in available studies are far too short to suggest a lasting structure over decades, some barely reaching an average of 4 years. But that hardly matters, because the subject here is cosmetic And everything I've been able to Glean from the literature points in the same direction a lasting 10-year visual change from a simple canthopexy is quite far-fetched. It all depends on the technique, of course but simply tightening the ligament will never be enough to correct a visible NCT. That's not what the procedure is designed to do.

My main point remains this: canthopexy has a fairly high rate of dissatisfaction. Complaints consistently fall into three categories: overly aggressive results (often because it was a canthoplasty, not a canthopexy), results that don't last the first six months (the crucial period for this type of surgery), or changes that are simply not visible.

And to go further in severe cases, even a canthoplasty alone isn't always sufficient. As we saw with decadouchéÉÉÉÉÉ the content creator, canthoplasty brought some improvement, but not enough. This type of case requires a combined approach. So, claiming that canthopexy alone can resolve severe NCT or significant scleral show is simply impossible not even a russian femboy will be able to pull this miracle.

If you want to contradict me, argue based on the points I've raised the duration of results, the rate of dissatisfaction, or the limitations of canthopexy in cases of significant NCT or scleral show( that was what had been discussed). Provide sources, not personal attack. I never claimed that canthopexy is useless tho I said it has a specific scope of application, and that outside of that scope is where the problems begin. Any attempt to make me say what I didn't say will be ignored.

your question about nct @Jgns

femboy russian part @puppyboy264

i am fucking tired i am not even finish i am sure i forgot some shit but im tired i will use my majestic vip to edit later i have to goon anyways if i forgot

and im not a certified board surgeon niggerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

---

— The facts speak for themselves —​

Summarise this better and make a thread about it

Good research

 

[IDontBlameAnybody]

I've looked several times and there's no link in what I posted that says canthopexy lasts 10-15 years? And I really don't think you've looked anywhere else either. Could you show me your sources, please?

Don’t have any, wasn’t making my claims
based of sources, just general beliefs, surgeon claims and from other people that have gotten this surgery.

 

[topgrey]

pexy last 10-15 years answear no
— Backed by autorithy source & testimonial —​

---

authoritative source

---

» Study #andrea

→ Why this proves my point: Kossler 2016, Locking Y lateral canthopexy : 53 canthopexies in 42 patients, a complex and very revision-heavy cohort mean follow-up 24 months, and only 3.7% required additional tightening. This is one of the best durability data beyond one year, but the technique is reinforced by bone fixation, so it is not the simplest cosmetic canthopexy procedure.

---

» Study #2 — long term follow up
Details: [MRD2, This is the measurement of the space between the center of your eye and the edge of your lower eyelid. The larger this space, the lower your eyelid sits and the more white of your eye is showing under the iris.]
Summary: Even in favorable sources, the promise is often modest. detail long term follow up
→ Why this proves my point: do not mean that canthopexy “always lasts 6 months.” There is also more structured data where lateral resuspension yields lasting but modest results: in a cohort of 25 adults, the average follow-up was 15.1 months, with an average decrease in inferior scleral show of only 0.27 mm and an improvement deemed lasting, while another source notes that the horizontal tension of a transcanthal canthopexy generally weakens after a certain postoperative period. Therefore, testimonials of “it didn’t hold” and the literature coexist the procedure may hold, but the cosmetic effect may be weak, or insufficient in some cases. Relate to what i said pexy far better for support combined with other than long lasting cosmetic and alone

---

» Study #3 — [america plastic surgeon]
→ Why this proves my point: The authorities do not describe canthopexy as the major tilt transformation surgery that many people imagine. The ASPS says it offers “subtle enhancement” and is ideal for people with little or no sagging, whose outer corner is already roughly in the correct position, and who mainly need a little extra support. The article adds that in practice, surgeons often perform it with a lower bleph to support the eyelid during healing. StatPearls says the same canthopexy is usually sufficient for mild degrees of laxity, while canthoplasty is more suitable for extensive cases. A review of lower eyelid malpositions also summarizes canthopexy as an effective lateral tendon plication in mild cases.

---

» Study #4 — l eyelid management
→ Why this proves my point: For isolated aesthetic canthopexy, the reliable literature consists mainly of series on functional/reconstructive cases, or of canthopexy performed with other procedures such as bleph repair, lower lid retraction, or entropion repair. some 2024 review on lower eyelid malpositions also notes a significant lack of reliable data on success rates, recurrence rates, and complications according to the techniques used, and a 2019 review reiterates that canthopexy alone is primarily indicated in mild cases. Even a large series of 316 patients undergoing "simple canthopexy" does not provide a long-term durability curve, only a very early evolution.

---

» Study #5 — transtale
Summary: transcantal for ectoprion
→ Why this proves my point: So, to put it simply yes, this one is solid, but it doesn't support the idea of a universal duration like "10 to 15 years " or "a constant multiple years." What it shows, rather, is that early loosening in the first few months is real, that some enhanced techniques often last 1 to 2 years or more, and that with simpler techniques, the final gain can be real but small. Patient testimonials clearly show that there are also cases where the result is considered lost or unsuccessful after only 2 to 6 months.

---

» Study #6 — plasty pexy again
→ Why this proves my point: if you want a simple and reliable critere the more significant, "cat-eye," restructuring, or permanently visible change the procedure is described, the more it resembles what the authorities define as canthoplasty rather than simple canthopexy. The ASPS explicitly states that canthoplasty results in more dramatic and lasting changes, while canthopexy is lighter and more subtle. This is an inference, but it's one very well supported by official definitions.

---

» Study #7 — bleph lower lid an CANTHAL SUPPORTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
Summary: more about bleph but still related
→ Why this proves my point: If someone says, “I had a canthopexy, it hardly changed anything” or “it loosened after a few months,” that aligns much better with what the literature says about canthopexy. A 2016 article in Eye explicitly states that horizontal tension after transcanthal canthopexy tends to loosen over time postoperatively because a suture cannot create a strong, lasting scar. A 2024 prospective study reiterates that horizontal tension weakens after a certain postoperative period. Again, these are functional rather than purely aesthetic contexts, so this isn't absolute proof for all cosmetic cases, but it clearly supports the idea that a weak or loosening effect is not at all incompatible with a true canthopexy.

---

» Study #8 — only clinic i trust
→ Why this proves my point: Cleveland Clinic says the same thing in a different way canthopexy tightens the outer corner of the lower eyelid but doesn't affect the existing tendons or muscles, whereas canthoplasty reconstructs and lifts the corners of the eyes by working on the supporting tissues. So if the problem is a distinctly low tilt requiring a true repositioning, the anatomical logic of authoritative sources favors canthoplasty, not a simple pexy. It's an inference, but it's directly supported by their definitions.

---

» Study #9 — bleph cantal and support AGAIN ( yes this one I put it again and I forgot the link but is higher)
Details: I know I've already posted this, but this time it's in relation to a negative tilt
→ Why this proves my point: The StatPearls text is even more useful because it discusses both negative canthal tilt and procedural choice. It states that a negative canthal tilt must be clearly identified preoperatively, that it is associated with a high risk of postoperative malposition, and then specifies that the choice between canthopexy and canthoplasty depends on the degree of laxity and the position of the globe. Most importantly, it explicitly states that canthopexy is usually sufficient for mild degrees of lateral laxity, while canthoplasty is more appropriate for extensive laxity, and that canthopexy is only suitable if the laxity can be corrected simply by tucking the eyelid margin against the globe. This doesn't fit the description of a severe tilt.

---

» Study #10 — ophtalmo opinion
→ Why this proves my point: Georgescu's PubMed review supports this view: for less severe cases, canthopexy may suffice for cases of profound eyelid laxity or ectropion, lateral tarsal strip canthoplasty is described as a powerful technique and remains the procedure of choice for severe cases. Again, the paper focuses primarily on laxity/ectropion rather than purely aesthetic tilt, so it's not a perfect description of "severe negative canthal tilt," but the underlying idea is the same: simple canthopexy = for milder cases.

---

TESTIMONIALS

---

» Testimonial #1 — bella eyes and shit

→ Why this proves my point: Three months post-op, she writes that nothing about her eyes has changed, that her eyes are exactly the same as before, and that there is “literally 0 difference” in the canthopexy procedure. it wasn't just canthopexy: it was a “Bella Eyes” type procedure combined with a brow lift.

---

» Testimonial #2 — nigga litteraly said black in white NO

→ Why this proves my point: I found something even more explicit on another RealSelf question about downturned eyes, a surgeon replies that a lateral canthopexy is NOT enough to give a lasting result, and that a lower lid retraction repair is necessary to provide the desired support. And on another page, another surgeon states outright, “Canthopexy will NOT work for you” if the goal is to achieve more almond-shaped eyes without scleral show; he says that the lower eyelids need to be lifted in addition to canthoplasty. These two opinions are online clinical opinions, not clinical trials, but they are very directly aligned with your question. if its severr pexy will not work because sometime plasty alone its crappy... for that matter

---

» Testimonial #3 — swelling frw

→ Why this proves my point: a patient asks if her lower eyelid and outer corner will lift after the swelling subsides. A board-certified surgeon answers clearly he doesn't expect the lower eyelids to lift with canthopexy alone he says it generally requires a lower eyelid lift. Another responds on the same page that the lower eyelid may need to be lifted via canthoplasty to raise the corner.k "simple canthopexy not enough"

---

» Testimonial #4 — 6month

→ Why this proves my point: said that 6 months after his canthopexy, her eyes had become round again and the corners had drooped again. This alone doesn't prove a "severe negative tilt," but it's a good public example of canthopexy that didn't last long enough to maintain the desired position.

---

---

In conclusion, canthopexy is an effective surgery for minor sagging or small structural improvements but it's not the procedure to correct a marked negative canthal tilt or a visible scleral show with a haut (i dont fucking care i said it in french im tired nigga ) MRD2 score. Its true strength in its mechanical and structural properties it's particularly useful in preventing ectropion, often caused by excessive lower blepharoplasty, and its benefits are most evident when combined with other surgeries.

The sources I cited are primarily related to scleral show because that's the focus of my research, but they remain entirely relevant. I also made sure to share only freely accessible documents nothing behind a paywall. Because that illegal

To answer @IDontBlameAnybody directly no, I haven't found any studies on PubMed claiming that canthopexy lasts an average of 10 to 15 years in terms of structure and visual results. And this point is important the follow-up periods in available studies are far too short to suggest a lasting structure over decades, some barely reaching an average of 4 years. But that hardly matters, because the subject here is cosmetic And everything I've been able to Glean from the literature points in the same direction a lasting 10-year visual change from a simple canthopexy is quite far-fetched. It all depends on the technique, of course but simply tightening the ligament will never be enough to correct a visible NCT. That's not what the procedure is designed to do.

My main point remains this: canthopexy has a fairly high rate of dissatisfaction. Complaints consistently fall into three categories: overly aggressive results (often because it was a canthoplasty, not a canthopexy), results that don't last the first six months (the crucial period for this type of surgery), or changes that are simply not visible.

And to go further in severe cases, even a canthoplasty alone isn't always sufficient. As we saw with decadouchéÉÉÉÉÉ the content creator, canthoplasty brought some improvement, but not enough. This type of case requires a combined approach. So, claiming that canthopexy alone can resolve severe NCT or significant scleral show is simply impossible not even a russian femboy will be able to pull this miracle.

If you want to contradict me, argue based on the points I've raised the duration of results, the rate of dissatisfaction, or the limitations of canthopexy in cases of significant NCT or scleral show( that was what had been discussed). Provide sources, not personal attack. I never claimed that canthopexy is useless tho I said it has a specific scope of application, and that outside of that scope is where the problems begin. Any attempt to make me say what I didn't say will be ignored.

your question about nct @Jgns

femboy russian part @puppyboy264

i am fucking tired i am not even finish i am sure i forgot some shit but im tired i will use my majestic vip to edit later i have to goon anyways if i forgot

and im not a certified board surgeon niggerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

---

— The facts speak for themselves —​

lovely i read it

 

[Jgns]

pexy last 10-15 years answear no
— Backed by autorithy source & testimonial —​

---

authoritative source

---

» Study #andrea

→ Why this proves my point: Kossler 2016, Locking Y lateral canthopexy : 53 canthopexies in 42 patients, a complex and very revision-heavy cohort mean follow-up 24 months, and only 3.7% required additional tightening. This is one of the best durability data beyond one year, but the technique is reinforced by bone fixation, so it is not the simplest cosmetic canthopexy procedure.

---

» Study #2 — long term follow up
Details: [MRD2, This is the measurement of the space between the center of your eye and the edge of your lower eyelid. The larger this space, the lower your eyelid sits and the more white of your eye is showing under the iris.]
Summary: Even in favorable sources, the promise is often modest. detail long term follow up
→ Why this proves my point: do not mean that canthopexy “always lasts 6 months.” There is also more structured data where lateral resuspension yields lasting but modest results: in a cohort of 25 adults, the average follow-up was 15.1 months, with an average decrease in inferior scleral show of only 0.27 mm and an improvement deemed lasting, while another source notes that the horizontal tension of a transcanthal canthopexy generally weakens after a certain postoperative period. Therefore, testimonials of “it didn’t hold” and the literature coexist the procedure may hold, but the cosmetic effect may be weak, or insufficient in some cases. Relate to what i said pexy far better for support combined with other than long lasting cosmetic and alone

---

» Study #3 — [america plastic surgeon]
→ Why this proves my point: The authorities do not describe canthopexy as the major tilt transformation surgery that many people imagine. The ASPS says it offers “subtle enhancement” and is ideal for people with little or no sagging, whose outer corner is already roughly in the correct position, and who mainly need a little extra support. The article adds that in practice, surgeons often perform it with a lower bleph to support the eyelid during healing. StatPearls says the same canthopexy is usually sufficient for mild degrees of laxity, while canthoplasty is more suitable for extensive cases. A review of lower eyelid malpositions also summarizes canthopexy as an effective lateral tendon plication in mild cases.

---

» Study #4 — l eyelid management
→ Why this proves my point: For isolated aesthetic canthopexy, the reliable literature consists mainly of series on functional/reconstructive cases, or of canthopexy performed with other procedures such as bleph repair, lower lid retraction, or entropion repair. some 2024 review on lower eyelid malpositions also notes a significant lack of reliable data on success rates, recurrence rates, and complications according to the techniques used, and a 2019 review reiterates that canthopexy alone is primarily indicated in mild cases. Even a large series of 316 patients undergoing "simple canthopexy" does not provide a long-term durability curve, only a very early evolution.

---

» Study #5 — transtale
Summary: transcantal for ectoprion
→ Why this proves my point: So, to put it simply yes, this one is solid, but it doesn't support the idea of a universal duration like "10 to 15 years " or "a constant multiple years." What it shows, rather, is that early loosening in the first few months is real, that some enhanced techniques often last 1 to 2 years or more, and that with simpler techniques, the final gain can be real but small. Patient testimonials clearly show that there are also cases where the result is considered lost or unsuccessful after only 2 to 6 months.

---

» Study #6 — plasty pexy again
→ Why this proves my point: if you want a simple and reliable critere the more significant, "cat-eye," restructuring, or permanently visible change the procedure is described, the more it resembles what the authorities define as canthoplasty rather than simple canthopexy. The ASPS explicitly states that canthoplasty results in more dramatic and lasting changes, while canthopexy is lighter and more subtle. This is an inference, but it's one very well supported by official definitions.

---

» Study #7 — bleph lower lid an CANTHAL SUPPORTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
Summary: more about bleph but still related
→ Why this proves my point: If someone says, “I had a canthopexy, it hardly changed anything” or “it loosened after a few months,” that aligns much better with what the literature says about canthopexy. A 2016 article in Eye explicitly states that horizontal tension after transcanthal canthopexy tends to loosen over time postoperatively because a suture cannot create a strong, lasting scar. A 2024 prospective study reiterates that horizontal tension weakens after a certain postoperative period. Again, these are functional rather than purely aesthetic contexts, so this isn't absolute proof for all cosmetic cases, but it clearly supports the idea that a weak or loosening effect is not at all incompatible with a true canthopexy.

---

» Study #8 — only clinic i trust
→ Why this proves my point: Cleveland Clinic says the same thing in a different way canthopexy tightens the outer corner of the lower eyelid but doesn't affect the existing tendons or muscles, whereas canthoplasty reconstructs and lifts the corners of the eyes by working on the supporting tissues. So if the problem is a distinctly low tilt requiring a true repositioning, the anatomical logic of authoritative sources favors canthoplasty, not a simple pexy. It's an inference, but it's directly supported by their definitions.

---

» Study #9 — bleph cantal and support AGAIN ( yes this one I put it again and I forgot the link but is higher)
Details: I know I've already posted this, but this time it's in relation to a negative tilt
→ Why this proves my point: The StatPearls text is even more useful because it discusses both negative canthal tilt and procedural choice. It states that a negative canthal tilt must be clearly identified preoperatively, that it is associated with a high risk of postoperative malposition, and then specifies that the choice between canthopexy and canthoplasty depends on the degree of laxity and the position of the globe. Most importantly, it explicitly states that canthopexy is usually sufficient for mild degrees of lateral laxity, while canthoplasty is more appropriate for extensive laxity, and that canthopexy is only suitable if the laxity can be corrected simply by tucking the eyelid margin against the globe. This doesn't fit the description of a severe tilt.

---

» Study #10 — ophtalmo opinion
→ Why this proves my point: Georgescu's PubMed review supports this view: for less severe cases, canthopexy may suffice for cases of profound eyelid laxity or ectropion, lateral tarsal strip canthoplasty is described as a powerful technique and remains the procedure of choice for severe cases. Again, the paper focuses primarily on laxity/ectropion rather than purely aesthetic tilt, so it's not a perfect description of "severe negative canthal tilt," but the underlying idea is the same: simple canthopexy = for milder cases.

---

TESTIMONIALS

---

» Testimonial #1 — bella eyes and shit

→ Why this proves my point: Three months post-op, she writes that nothing about her eyes has changed, that her eyes are exactly the same as before, and that there is “literally 0 difference” in the canthopexy procedure. it wasn't just canthopexy: it was a “Bella Eyes” type procedure combined with a brow lift.

---

» Testimonial #2 — nigga litteraly said black in white NO

→ Why this proves my point: I found something even more explicit on another RealSelf question about downturned eyes, a surgeon replies that a lateral canthopexy is NOT enough to give a lasting result, and that a lower lid retraction repair is necessary to provide the desired support. And on another page, another surgeon states outright, “Canthopexy will NOT work for you” if the goal is to achieve more almond-shaped eyes without scleral show; he says that the lower eyelids need to be lifted in addition to canthoplasty. These two opinions are online clinical opinions, not clinical trials, but they are very directly aligned with your question. if its severr pexy will not work because sometime plasty alone its crappy... for that matter

---

» Testimonial #3 — swelling frw

→ Why this proves my point: a patient asks if her lower eyelid and outer corner will lift after the swelling subsides. A board-certified surgeon answers clearly he doesn't expect the lower eyelids to lift with canthopexy alone he says it generally requires a lower eyelid lift. Another responds on the same page that the lower eyelid may need to be lifted via canthoplasty to raise the corner.k "simple canthopexy not enough"

---

» Testimonial #4 — 6month

→ Why this proves my point: said that 6 months after his canthopexy, her eyes had become round again and the corners had drooped again. This alone doesn't prove a "severe negative tilt," but it's a good public example of canthopexy that didn't last long enough to maintain the desired position.

---

---

In conclusion, canthopexy is an effective surgery for minor sagging or small structural improvements but it's not the procedure to correct a marked negative canthal tilt or a visible scleral show with a haut (i dont fucking care i said it in french im tired nigga ) MRD2 score. Its true strength in its mechanical and structural properties it's particularly useful in preventing ectropion, often caused by excessive lower blepharoplasty, and its benefits are most evident when combined with other surgeries.

The sources I cited are primarily related to scleral show because that's the focus of my research, but they remain entirely relevant. I also made sure to share only freely accessible documents nothing behind a paywall. Because that illegal

To answer @IDontBlameAnybody directly no, I haven't found any studies on PubMed claiming that canthopexy lasts an average of 10 to 15 years in terms of structure and visual results. And this point is important the follow-up periods in available studies are far too short to suggest a lasting structure over decades, some barely reaching an average of 4 years. But that hardly matters, because the subject here is cosmetic And everything I've been able to Glean from the literature points in the same direction a lasting 10-year visual change from a simple canthopexy is quite far-fetched. It all depends on the technique, of course but simply tightening the ligament will never be enough to correct a visible NCT. That's not what the procedure is designed to do.

My main point remains this: canthopexy has a fairly high rate of dissatisfaction. Complaints consistently fall into three categories: overly aggressive results (often because it was a canthoplasty, not a canthopexy), results that don't last the first six months (the crucial period for this type of surgery), or changes that are simply not visible.

And to go further in severe cases, even a canthoplasty alone isn't always sufficient. As we saw with decadouchéÉÉÉÉÉ the content creator, canthoplasty brought some improvement, but not enough. This type of case requires a combined approach. So, claiming that canthopexy alone can resolve severe NCT or significant scleral show is simply impossible not even a russian femboy will be able to pull this miracle.

If you want to contradict me, argue based on the points I've raised the duration of results, the rate of dissatisfaction, or the limitations of canthopexy in cases of significant NCT or scleral show( that was what had been discussed). Provide sources, not personal attack. I never claimed that canthopexy is useless tho I said it has a specific scope of application, and that outside of that scope is where the problems begin. Any attempt to make me say what I didn't say will be ignored.

your question about nct @Jgns

femboy russian part @puppyboy264

i am fucking tired i am not even finish i am sure i forgot some shit but im tired i will use my majestic vip to edit later i have to goon anyways if i forgot

and im not a certified board surgeon niggerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

---

— The facts speak for themselves —​

Fire asf bro mirin the dedication for this bro tysm

 

[LackEmpathyTherefor]

pexy last 10-15 years answear no
— Backed by autorithy source & testimonial —​

---

authoritative source

---

» Study #andrea

→ Why this proves my point: Kossler 2016, Locking Y lateral canthopexy : 53 canthopexies in 42 patients, a complex and very revision-heavy cohort mean follow-up 24 months, and only 3.7% required additional tightening. This is one of the best durability data beyond one year, but the technique is reinforced by bone fixation, so it is not the simplest cosmetic canthopexy procedure.

---

» Study #2 — long term follow up
Details: [MRD2, This is the measurement of the space between the center of your eye and the edge of your lower eyelid. The larger this space, the lower your eyelid sits and the more white of your eye is showing under the iris.]
Summary: Even in favorable sources, the promise is often modest. detail long term follow up
→ Why this proves my point: do not mean that canthopexy “always lasts 6 months.” There is also more structured data where lateral resuspension yields lasting but modest results: in a cohort of 25 adults, the average follow-up was 15.1 months, with an average decrease in inferior scleral show of only 0.27 mm and an improvement deemed lasting, while another source notes that the horizontal tension of a transcanthal canthopexy generally weakens after a certain postoperative period. Therefore, testimonials of “it didn’t hold” and the literature coexist the procedure may hold, but the cosmetic effect may be weak, or insufficient in some cases. Relate to what i said pexy far better for support combined with other than long lasting cosmetic and alone

---

» Study #3 — [america plastic surgeon]
→ Why this proves my point: The authorities do not describe canthopexy as the major tilt transformation surgery that many people imagine. The ASPS says it offers “subtle enhancement” and is ideal for people with little or no sagging, whose outer corner is already roughly in the correct position, and who mainly need a little extra support. The article adds that in practice, surgeons often perform it with a lower bleph to support the eyelid during healing. StatPearls says the same canthopexy is usually sufficient for mild degrees of laxity, while canthoplasty is more suitable for extensive cases. A review of lower eyelid malpositions also summarizes canthopexy as an effective lateral tendon plication in mild cases.

---

» Study #4 — l eyelid management
→ Why this proves my point: For isolated aesthetic canthopexy, the reliable literature consists mainly of series on functional/reconstructive cases, or of canthopexy performed with other procedures such as bleph repair, lower lid retraction, or entropion repair. some 2024 review on lower eyelid malpositions also notes a significant lack of reliable data on success rates, recurrence rates, and complications according to the techniques used, and a 2019 review reiterates that canthopexy alone is primarily indicated in mild cases. Even a large series of 316 patients undergoing "simple canthopexy" does not provide a long-term durability curve, only a very early evolution.

---

» Study #5 — transtale
Summary: transcantal for ectoprion
→ Why this proves my point: So, to put it simply yes, this one is solid, but it doesn't support the idea of a universal duration like "10 to 15 years " or "a constant multiple years." What it shows, rather, is that early loosening in the first few months is real, that some enhanced techniques often last 1 to 2 years or more, and that with simpler techniques, the final gain can be real but small. Patient testimonials clearly show that there are also cases where the result is considered lost or unsuccessful after only 2 to 6 months.

---

» Study #6 — plasty pexy again
→ Why this proves my point: if you want a simple and reliable critere the more significant, "cat-eye," restructuring, or permanently visible change the procedure is described, the more it resembles what the authorities define as canthoplasty rather than simple canthopexy. The ASPS explicitly states that canthoplasty results in more dramatic and lasting changes, while canthopexy is lighter and more subtle. This is an inference, but it's one very well supported by official definitions.

---

» Study #7 — bleph lower lid an CANTHAL SUPPORTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
Summary: more about bleph but still related
→ Why this proves my point: If someone says, “I had a canthopexy, it hardly changed anything” or “it loosened after a few months,” that aligns much better with what the literature says about canthopexy. A 2016 article in Eye explicitly states that horizontal tension after transcanthal canthopexy tends to loosen over time postoperatively because a suture cannot create a strong, lasting scar. A 2024 prospective study reiterates that horizontal tension weakens after a certain postoperative period. Again, these are functional rather than purely aesthetic contexts, so this isn't absolute proof for all cosmetic cases, but it clearly supports the idea that a weak or loosening effect is not at all incompatible with a true canthopexy.

---

» Study #8 — only clinic i trust
→ Why this proves my point: Cleveland Clinic says the same thing in a different way canthopexy tightens the outer corner of the lower eyelid but doesn't affect the existing tendons or muscles, whereas canthoplasty reconstructs and lifts the corners of the eyes by working on the supporting tissues. So if the problem is a distinctly low tilt requiring a true repositioning, the anatomical logic of authoritative sources favors canthoplasty, not a simple pexy. It's an inference, but it's directly supported by their definitions.

---

» Study #9 — bleph cantal and support AGAIN ( yes this one I put it again and I forgot the link but is higher)
Details: I know I've already posted this, but this time it's in relation to a negative tilt
→ Why this proves my point: The StatPearls text is even more useful because it discusses both negative canthal tilt and procedural choice. It states that a negative canthal tilt must be clearly identified preoperatively, that it is associated with a high risk of postoperative malposition, and then specifies that the choice between canthopexy and canthoplasty depends on the degree of laxity and the position of the globe. Most importantly, it explicitly states that canthopexy is usually sufficient for mild degrees of lateral laxity, while canthoplasty is more appropriate for extensive laxity, and that canthopexy is only suitable if the laxity can be corrected simply by tucking the eyelid margin against the globe. This doesn't fit the description of a severe tilt.

---

» Study #10 — ophtalmo opinion
→ Why this proves my point: Georgescu's PubMed review supports this view: for less severe cases, canthopexy may suffice for cases of profound eyelid laxity or ectropion, lateral tarsal strip canthoplasty is described as a powerful technique and remains the procedure of choice for severe cases. Again, the paper focuses primarily on laxity/ectropion rather than purely aesthetic tilt, so it's not a perfect description of "severe negative canthal tilt," but the underlying idea is the same: simple canthopexy = for milder cases.

---

TESTIMONIALS

---

» Testimonial #1 — bella eyes and shit

→ Why this proves my point: Three months post-op, she writes that nothing about her eyes has changed, that her eyes are exactly the same as before, and that there is “literally 0 difference” in the canthopexy procedure. it wasn't just canthopexy: it was a “Bella Eyes” type procedure combined with a brow lift.

---

» Testimonial #2 — nigga litteraly said black in white NO

→ Why this proves my point: I found something even more explicit on another RealSelf question about downturned eyes, a surgeon replies that a lateral canthopexy is NOT enough to give a lasting result, and that a lower lid retraction repair is necessary to provide the desired support. And on another page, another surgeon states outright, “Canthopexy will NOT work for you” if the goal is to achieve more almond-shaped eyes without scleral show; he says that the lower eyelids need to be lifted in addition to canthoplasty. These two opinions are online clinical opinions, not clinical trials, but they are very directly aligned with your question. if its severr pexy will not work because sometime plasty alone its crappy... for that matter

---

» Testimonial #3 — swelling frw

→ Why this proves my point: a patient asks if her lower eyelid and outer corner will lift after the swelling subsides. A board-certified surgeon answers clearly he doesn't expect the lower eyelids to lift with canthopexy alone he says it generally requires a lower eyelid lift. Another responds on the same page that the lower eyelid may need to be lifted via canthoplasty to raise the corner.k "simple canthopexy not enough"

---

» Testimonial #4 — 6month

→ Why this proves my point: said that 6 months after his canthopexy, her eyes had become round again and the corners had drooped again. This alone doesn't prove a "severe negative tilt," but it's a good public example of canthopexy that didn't last long enough to maintain the desired position.

---

---

In conclusion, canthopexy is an effective surgery for minor sagging or small structural improvements but it's not the procedure to correct a marked negative canthal tilt or a visible scleral show with a haut (i dont fucking care i said it in french im tired nigga ) MRD2 score. Its true strength in its mechanical and structural properties it's particularly useful in preventing ectropion, often caused by excessive lower blepharoplasty, and its benefits are most evident when combined with other surgeries.

The sources I cited are primarily related to scleral show because that's the focus of my research, but they remain entirely relevant. I also made sure to share only freely accessible documents nothing behind a paywall. Because that illegal

To answer @IDontBlameAnybody directly no, I haven't found any studies on PubMed claiming that canthopexy lasts an average of 10 to 15 years in terms of structure and visual results. And this point is important the follow-up periods in available studies are far too short to suggest a lasting structure over decades, some barely reaching an average of 4 years. But that hardly matters, because the subject here is cosmetic And everything I've been able to Glean from the literature points in the same direction a lasting 10-year visual change from a simple canthopexy is quite far-fetched. It all depends on the technique, of course but simply tightening the ligament will never be enough to correct a visible NCT. That's not what the procedure is designed to do.

My main point remains this: canthopexy has a fairly high rate of dissatisfaction. Complaints consistently fall into three categories: overly aggressive results (often because it was a canthoplasty, not a canthopexy), results that don't last the first six months (the crucial period for this type of surgery), or changes that are simply not visible.

And to go further in severe cases, even a canthoplasty alone isn't always sufficient. As we saw with decadouchéÉÉÉÉÉ the content creator, canthoplasty brought some improvement, but not enough. This type of case requires a combined approach. So, claiming that canthopexy alone can resolve severe NCT or significant scleral show is simply impossible not even a russian femboy will be able to pull this miracle.

If you want to contradict me, argue based on the points I've raised the duration of results, the rate of dissatisfaction, or the limitations of canthopexy in cases of significant NCT or scleral show( that was what had been discussed). Provide sources, not personal attack. I never claimed that canthopexy is useless tho I said it has a specific scope of application, and that outside of that scope is where the problems begin. Any attempt to make me say what I didn't say will be ignored.

your question about nct @Jgns

femboy russian part @puppyboy264

i am fucking tired i am not even finish i am sure i forgot some shit but im tired i will use my majestic vip to edit later i have to goon anyways if i forgot

and im not a certified board surgeon niggerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

---

— The facts speak for themselves —​

Nice

 

[PSD]

45 2

 

[PSD]

45 2

 

[PSD]

45 88

 

[PSD]

45 88

 

[PSD]

45 91

 

[PSD]

45 94

 

[PSD]

45 97

 

[PSD]

45 98

 

[PSD]

45 99

 

[PSD]

45 100

 

[PSD]

45 101

 

[PSD]

45 102

 

[PSD]

45 103

 

[PSD]

45 104

 

[PSD]

45 105

 

[PSD]

45 106

 

[PSD]

45 107

 

[PSD]

45 108

 

[PSD]

45 109

 

[PSD]

45 110

 

[PSD]

45 111

 

[PSD]

45 112

 

[PSD]

45 113

 

[PSD]

45 114

 

[PSD]

45 115

 

[PSD]

45 116

 

[PSD]

45 117

 

[PSD]

45 118

 

[PSD]

45 119

 

[PSD]

45 120

 

[PSD]

45 121

 

[PSD]

45 122

 

[PSD]

45 123

 

[PSD]

45 124

 

[PSD]

45 125