Possible to get botched with a fat graft overfill undereyes?

[LTN]

I've been seeing the fat graft threads that it's pretty much standard advice to ask for an overfill of 30% ... issue is that every other resource outside of .org seems to directly contradict this, heavily warn against overfilling in the midface-undereyes.

What's the deal here? Hunch tells me that too much asymmetric fat retention in the periorbital region is a good problem to have (especially regarding anti-ageing), but at the same time, it feels odd to go against caution that exists everywhere else except for .org.

 

[jezebelslayer]

Org is sort of full of larpers or trolls…the majority didn’t even had any surgeries or procedures before.

I’d bet on the real life advice from people who’ve studied and had patients before.

 

[nathan_Bs123]

I've been seeing the fat graft threads that it's pretty much standard advice to ask for an overfill of 30% ... issue is that every other resource outside of .org seems to directly contradict this, heavily warn against overfilling in the midface-undereyes.

What's the deal here? Hunch tells me that too much asymmetric fat retention in the periorbital region is a good problem to have (especially regarding anti-ageing), but at the same time, it feels odd to go against caution that exists everywhere else except for .org.

good to be skeptical but yes an overfill is usually the right idea. Even the clinics are aware of this. I'm not sure why the literatuer is behind on this but fat survival rate is obviously not uniform across regions. When we say 'overfill' what does that even mean, what is that standardized to? The real answer is each patient is going to be unique in how much graft survival is possible per area and how much fat is needed in each area

 

[LTN]

Org is sort of full of larpers or trolls…the majority didn’t even had any surgeries or procedures before.

I’d bet on the real life advice from people who’ve studied and had patients before.

lol, ngl though, whenever I've found a contradiction between .org vs mainstream plastic surgery, .org tends to end up being closer be to the truth ...

 

[LTN]

good to be skeptical but yes an overfill is usually the right idea. Even the clinics are aware of this. I'm not sure why the literatuer is behind on this but fat survival rate is obviously not uniform across regions. When we say 'overfill' what does that even mean, what is that standardized to? The real answer is each patient is going to be unique in how much graft survival is possible per area and how much fat is needed in each area

Based on what I read after looking into it, my hypothesis is that overfilling significantly increases the risk of fat graft complications (fat necrosis, lumps and nodules, inner-tissue scarring) with the specific complications being falsely attributed to "poor results from overfilling". However, the risk essentially approaches zero when grafting with someone who knows what they're doing, thus, .org is just giving advice in the right direction provided that you're not going to butchers / low-skill surgeons.

 

[nathan_Bs123]

Based on what I read after looking into it, my hypothesis is that overfilling significantly increases the risk of fat graft complications (fat necrosis, lumps and nodules, inner-tissue scarring) with the specific complications being falsely attributed to "poor results from overfilling". However, the risk essentially approaches zero when grafting with someone who knows what they're doing, thus, .org is just giving advice in the right direction provided that you're not going to butchers / low-skill surgeons.

I think that’s a good take