Ernurse, I complained one month out and then again at 6 months. In fact, on the day that I had the stitches removed, I perceived him to be condescending and dismissive of my concerns. For instance, it was clear to me (as well as to my sister and mother who stayed with me during the initial post-op period) that the outer corners of my lids were sewn shut--upon researching this I learned that the name for this procedure is "tarsorrhaphy." I panicked and obsessed that my eyes would remain permanently narrowed, but when I asked him about having done that particular procedure, he irritatingly denied doing that and then smirked to his nurse, something to the effect of "why's she talking about a tarsorrhaphy?". All that was missing was the eye-roll.
Yet at my one-month appointment, he admitted that a tarsorrhaphy was done in order to prevent my eye from opening and falling. I was still very upset and worried that my eyes would be permanently changed but agreed to remain calm and allow some time for my eyes to heal for them to go back to their normal size and shape, which of course they never did. More research indicated that he had performed a canthoplasty, which I would have never agreed to, given the invasiveness of the procedure, its nature (which was contraindicated for my goals) and the permanence. However, during my six-month appointment, he denied having performed the canthoplasty, and dismissed me. I later came upon a professional paper that McCord authored in which he admitted to performing a cantholpasty in all his surgeries, not just the revisions but also the initial blephs and cheeklifts, in order to prevent ectropion. I saved that paper but never confronted him. Why bother?
Of course, I have the telltale small, slanted eyes and the little knot on my lateral orbital rim that says otherwise. I never went back, but sunk into a deep depression. After two years, my savings were exhausted and I had to get back to work. Complicating matters is that I am a PhD and my field happens to frown upon women who wear makeup, let alone those who have cosmetic surgery. Dr. McCord knew this (assuming he was actually paying attention, which I believe he was) before my surgery. I reiterated just how important it was for me NOT to look "done" or different in any way. He even went back over my goals on the morning of surgery, asking me if I wanted him to turn the lower lid slightly outward (because it was a popular request at the time) or if I wanted him to change the axis to make it more like (I can't remember the supermodel's name). As tempting as it was (sarcasm), I said, no, you'd better keep them the way they are. I also was assured that I would be presentable (with concealer) in approximately two weeks and could return to work. Ironically, one of the main reasons I elected to have this surgery was because I was finding myself more dependent on concealer and eye shadow, and I wanted simply to get back to the way I was at a younger time, sans makeup.
Even more ironically, the only way now that I can make myself resemble my former self is to rely on eye liner and shadow. The little raised lump where the hole was drilled and my canthus attached? No amount of shadow can hide that. And I need eyeliner because my lashes never grew back where the corners of my eyes were sewn together.
I suppose I have digressed here, so to answer your initial point regarding the aggressiveness--yes--I believe that technique is very aggressive, and while I realize that I'm not an expert, I have read that same opinion expressed by a number of the experts who post on this board. If you do a search for canthoplasty, that is. The consensus seems to be that a canthoplasty ALWAYS results in a smaller eye and in most cases, an unnatural upward tilt.
I can't speak to your friend's case as you said she had a revision performed, but you didn't specify why. I'd be interested to know if you care to say more. My understanding is that a canthoplasty is oftentimes necessary in a lower bleph revision--especially when the lid has been lowered far below its normal axis and the skin so stretched out that the eyes have lost their ability to close. In those cases it makes sense that the surgeon would have to shorten the canthus and stabilize it by affixing it to the orbital rim, but to take an eye that has a good shape and no laxity and perform such an invasive procedure? Yes, very aggressive.
McCord wrecked my eyes also. However, my surgery was not a revision, but an initial surgery that was supposed to correct a minor amount of under eye fat with a slight (I was only 41 and with excellent skintone) cheek descent. I specifically expressed my fears about altering the shape and size of eyes, which were my best feature. He assured me that I had nothing to worry about.
My surgery involved a canthoplasty, which resulted in a most unnatural slant to my eyes, along with a shortening of the horizontal plane. Now my beautiful eyes are small and my face no longer resembles that of my old self. I went through a major depression as a result, unable to leave my house for a couple of years. I am no longer ashamed that I was so vain, but angry at the arrogance of my former surgeon. I write this with the full realization that he and his colleagues at Paces have been a God-send for many who have undergone revisions. But I want to warn others who may not know to ask precisely what technique will be utilized in their surgeries, especially when they are first-time patients.
Recent comments
Posted to Love my New Eyes - San Diego, CA on 3 Jul 2011
Posted to Devastated After Lower Eyelid Surgery - Washington, DC on 27 Jun 2011
Yet at my one-month appointment, he admitted that a tarsorrhaphy was done in order to prevent my eye from opening and falling. I was still very upset and worried that my eyes would be permanently changed but agreed to remain calm and allow some time for my eyes to heal for them to go back to their normal size and shape, which of course they never did. More research indicated that he had performed a canthoplasty, which I would have never agreed to, given the invasiveness of the procedure, its nature (which was contraindicated for my goals) and the permanence. However, during my six-month appointment, he denied having performed the canthoplasty, and dismissed me. I later came upon a professional paper that McCord authored in which he admitted to performing a cantholpasty in all his surgeries, not just the revisions but also the initial blephs and cheeklifts, in order to prevent ectropion. I saved that paper but never confronted him. Why bother?
Of course, I have the telltale small, slanted eyes and the little knot on my lateral orbital rim that says otherwise. I never went back, but sunk into a deep depression. After two years, my savings were exhausted and I had to get back to work. Complicating matters is that I am a PhD and my field happens to frown upon women who wear makeup, let alone those who have cosmetic surgery. Dr. McCord knew this (assuming he was actually paying attention, which I believe he was) before my surgery. I reiterated just how important it was for me NOT to look "done" or different in any way. He even went back over my goals on the morning of surgery, asking me if I wanted him to turn the lower lid slightly outward (because it was a popular request at the time) or if I wanted him to change the axis to make it more like (I can't remember the supermodel's name). As tempting as it was (sarcasm), I said, no, you'd better keep them the way they are. I also was assured that I would be presentable (with concealer) in approximately two weeks and could return to work. Ironically, one of the main reasons I elected to have this surgery was because I was finding myself more dependent on concealer and eye shadow, and I wanted simply to get back to the way I was at a younger time, sans makeup.
Even more ironically, the only way now that I can make myself resemble my former self is to rely on eye liner and shadow. The little raised lump where the hole was drilled and my canthus attached? No amount of shadow can hide that. And I need eyeliner because my lashes never grew back where the corners of my eyes were sewn together.
I suppose I have digressed here, so to answer your initial point regarding the aggressiveness--yes--I believe that technique is very aggressive, and while I realize that I'm not an expert, I have read that same opinion expressed by a number of the experts who post on this board. If you do a search for canthoplasty, that is. The consensus seems to be that a canthoplasty ALWAYS results in a smaller eye and in most cases, an unnatural upward tilt.
I can't speak to your friend's case as you said she had a revision performed, but you didn't specify why. I'd be interested to know if you care to say more. My understanding is that a canthoplasty is oftentimes necessary in a lower bleph revision--especially when the lid has been lowered far below its normal axis and the skin so stretched out that the eyes have lost their ability to close. In those cases it makes sense that the surgeon would have to shorten the canthus and stabilize it by affixing it to the orbital rim, but to take an eye that has a good shape and no laxity and perform such an invasive procedure? Yes, very aggressive.
Posted to Devastated After Lower Eyelid Surgery - Washington, DC on 25 Jun 2011
I am so sorry for you're having to go through.
Posted to Devastated After Lower Eyelid Surgery - Washington, DC on 25 Jun 2011
My surgery involved a canthoplasty, which resulted in a most unnatural slant to my eyes, along with a shortening of the horizontal plane. Now my beautiful eyes are small and my face no longer resembles that of my old self. I went through a major depression as a result, unable to leave my house for a couple of years. I am no longer ashamed that I was so vain, but angry at the arrogance of my former surgeon. I write this with the full realization that he and his colleagues at Paces have been a God-send for many who have undergone revisions. But I want to warn others who may not know to ask precisely what technique will be utilized in their surgeries, especially when they are first-time patients.