Why don't more doctors perform bladeless radio surgery on the Eyelids?

  You, the patient, should do whatever makes you feel the most comfortable.  Personally, after almost 30 years of practice and thousands of eyelid procedures,  I do not believe that the surgeon's choice of radio frequency, laser, or scalpel, makes any difference whatsover.  IMHO, it is all hype and marketing.  And yes, I have performed numerous procedures with all three methods you mentioned.  In fact, a recent conference I attended had two consecutive lectures about eyelid surgery.  The first was a talk which I had already heard countless times, and extolled the benefit of CO2 laser to make the incisions.  This talk was given by a doctor who made a name for himself promoting the CO2 laser for eyelid surgery.   The second was a double blind study comparing the results of the laser to those achieved a scalpel,   In the second study, the doctors reviewing the photos could not tell which side was done with either modality and concluded that there actually was no difference to support the use of the laser.  Obviously, whatever will get the patient to bite is what many doctors will promote but IMHO, there is no benefit whatsoever from radiofrequency or from laser, only increased costs.    Also, you likely would be far better off if you chose an eyelid surgeon over a general PS as they have far greater experience in these procedures.  And finally, you likely would also be better off choosing a doctor who is near to you in the unlikely event that you might develop a problem.  I wish you the best of luck with your procedure.

You have been taken in by the gravitational pull of slick marketing.  The radio frequency surgery has some advantages in certain applications.  However, the claims for the advantages are overstated by companies marketing these devices.  I personally do not care for the tissue feel of the devices I have used.  Lasers as cutting instruments for eyelid surgery are all about marketing hype.  They actually have profound negative downsides.  One of the biggest as far as I am concerned is the thermal injury created when the skin is cut by the laser.  This requires sutures to be left in place twice as long as normal and this can cause suture marks on the skin as a result.  When there is minimal adoption of a technology by the surgery community, you should listen to the collective wisdom.  The most important aspect of eyelid surgery is a very precise design and execution of the blepharoplasty by a highly experienced surgeon who has taken the time to extensively speak to you about your goals and has performed a very detailed examination. Congratulations on deciding to move forward with surgery.  Please let us know how it goes. 

"Bladeless Radiosurgery" sounds much more like a marketing term than a technique that is statistically proven to be superior to Blepharoplasty using a Bard Parker 15 blade (which works rather well).  If it really was a superior technique, you would see every Facial Plastic Surgeon, Plastic Surgeon, and Occuloplastic Surgeon in the greater DC/Baltimore area using it.  I doubt if you will find many Surgeons who agree that the scalpel belongs in the stone age!

it usually means that the vast majority of others have found that its of no benefit or the results cannot be reproduced.  The advertising will push the 'advantages' but in reality. there really are none.  But if you like the surgeon, then by all means go with him and he will do his best for you, regardless of how the tissue is 'cut'.

Eyelid surgery can be performed with knife, scissors, radio frequency, cautery, or a laser light beam. What is  more important is to what is performed during the blepharoplasty procedure, not how you cut tissue. There is no advantages to radio frequency .

Plastic surgeons usually are intelligent, have trained for many years, and stay up on the latest techniques and advances. If a technique is only used by a rare doctor, there is a reason. It is either it is of really no advantage other than marketing, or may have higher incidences of complications. If a procedure has been around for a while and is really showing no increase in complications and a quicker recovery time, and better results, we would all be doing it. Marketing in the competitive world exists. Lunch time facelifts, thread lifts, etc etc. Do your research, and be comfortable in your choice. The best thing since sliced bread hasn't been found.

There are plenty of very good responses here. The simple answer to your question of "why don't more doctors perform blameless radio surgery on the eyelids?" is that it makes it more expensive and doesn't improve the result of the incisional scar in the eyelids. Not everything that sounds "high tech" is an improvement on earlier (and usually less expensive) methods. 

All I can say is hogwash; any busy and qualified surgeon ( cosmetic) knows that there is no better way to make an atraumatic incision than a super sharp carbon steel blade. And nothing heals faster. Radio surgery and laser surgery to open an eyelid incision are more traumatic to the surrounding tissues that a super-sharp carbon steel blade in the hands of a skilled surgeon. They are nice sounding marketing ploys but of no added surgical value over high quality and skilled scalpel surgery. Stone age technique could not be farther from the truth.

I am afraid the marketing of the "bladeless radio frequency blepharoplasty" has made you see things that just are not there. Blepharoplasty can be performed with a scalpel, laser, radio frequency device or an electrocautery/knife. In spite of the advances in technology, the data has shown that there is no real difference in any one of the techniques as far as healing, swelling, bruising or other intra or postoperative measurement. If there were, almost everyone would use it. What is important is the surgeon and the technique of the procedure. 

I don't mean to sound mean spirited, but do you really believe if something was way better we would not all be doing it. I think the answer to your question should be more than obvious. Some people just need something "new and better" to differentiate their practice.Medical research using the true double blind method would be required to show the efficacy of this device and it has not stood up to that.