u/EyehoPS

Non-incisional double eyelid surgery, also called the buried-suture method, creates a crease without cutting the eyelid skin. But in some cases, the crease can loosen over time, become faint, or disappear on one side.

When that happens, the first question is usually:
Can I just redo the same method?

Sometimes redoing the sutures makes sense, but sometimes it just repeats the same problem. If the eyelid wasn’t a good match for the non-incisional method in the first place, the crease may loosen again a few months later.

Case reference: a soft, defined buried-suture crease

This image is not a released-suture revision case, but it shows the kind of soft, defined crease patients often want from the buried-suture method. When a non-incisional crease loosens, the goal is not just to make the line visible again. The real question is whether the eyelid tissue can still hold this type of natural-looking fold with sutures alone, or whether incision would give a more stable result.

1. Why sutures release in the first place

The buried-suture method creates a crease without cutting the skin or removing tissue. Sutures hold the fold in place, and over time, the skin and deeper tissue are supposed to form enough adhesion to keep that crease stable.

When the line loosens, the reason can vary. Sometimes the adhesion never formed strongly enough. Sometimes the eyelid tissue was not a great match for the method in the first place. Sometimes the eyelid was repeatedly rubbed, pulled, or irritated during recovery. And sometimes the crease was placed in a position that created more tension than the sutures could hold long-term.

The important thing is that “my crease came undone” does not explain why it happened. A crease that disappears after a few months is very different from a crease that held for years and then gradually became faint. That difference is exactly why the next step is not always the same, even if both situations get described as “the sutures came loose.”

When redoing non-incisional makes sense

If the crease held well for several years before loosening, that's actually a relatively good sign. It suggests the tissue wasn't fundamentally incompatible with the method, the adhesion just weakened over time.

If the eyelid skin is still thin and elastic, if there's no significant scar tissue from the first procedure, and if the release was gradual rather than early, redoing with sutures at a slightly adjusted placement can be a reasonable path.

In this kind of case, the first surgery may not have “failed” because the method was wrong. It may simply have weakened over time, which is a different situation from an early release.

When switching to incision is usually the better call

If the crease released within months rather than years, that's a signal the tissue may not hold sutures reliably, and doing the same thing again carries a real risk of the same outcome.

The same logic applies if there's visible or palpable scar tissue from the first procedure, because scar tissue changes how the eyelid folds and how sutures hold.

If the eyelid has thickened, if there's excess skin folding over the crease, or if this would be the second or third time redoing non-incisional on the same eyelid, incision is almost always the more stable option.

It allows the surgeon to directly address whatever caused the original failure, including managing scar tissue at the same time.

Why this decision feels harder than expected

Most people who chose non-incisional originally did so because they wanted to avoid a permanent cut. Being told they may now need incision feels like losing twice, once because the result didn't hold, and again because the option they preferred is no longer the right one.

That reaction is completely valid.

But a redo with incision isn't just a fallback. Because the surgeon can directly see and address what caused the failure the first time, the result is often more stable than the original procedure ever was.

The scar from incisional surgery on a previously operated eyelid also tends to be less of a concern than people expect, since there's usually already some degree of skin change from the first round.

The question worth asking directly in a consultation is:

“Given why my crease released, what's the actual likelihood of it releasing again if we redo non-incisional versus switching to incision?”

If the surgeon can answer that specifically based on examining your eyelid, rather than giving a general answer, that's usually a sign the plan is being built around your situation.

Has anyone been through this decision? Whether you redid non-incisional or switched to incision, curious how the reasoning got explained to you.

Before you decide that the puffiness under your eyes needs to be removed, look at old photos of yourself first.

Around age 18 to 22, was that same lower-lid fullness already there? Did it look soft, youthful, or natural at that time? And does it become more visible when you smile?

That simple comparison can tell you a lot, because not every “puffy” area under the eye is an under eye bag. Sometimes it is aegyosal, and removing it can make the eyes look older instead of fresher.

There's a consultation pattern that comes up enough to be worth writing about. Someone points to the area just under their lower lash line and says they want it removed. It looks puffy, it bothers them in photos, and they've been told it makes them look tired. Sometimes that's a completely valid concern. But sometimes what they're pointing at is aegyosal.

The confusion is understandable because the two can sit in almost the same spot.

1. Where aegyosal and under-eye bags sit

Aegyosal is a small pad of muscle and fat that sits just below the lash line. When it's present, it creates a soft ridge when you smile, catches light, and in East Asian beauty contexts especially, it's strongly associated with a youthful and warm expression. A lot of people actually spend money trying to add it through surgery or filler.

Under eye bags are different. They sit lower, under the orbital rim, and they come from herniated fat pushing forward through weakened tissue. The shadow they cast tends to be heavier and more pronounced, and they generally worsen with age and fatigue.

The clinical problem is that both can read as "puffiness" in a selfie or a flat photo, which is where a lot of the confusion starts.

This case shows why the distinction matters. The lower, heavier under-eye bulge was improved through under-eye fat repositioning, but the area right under the lash line was not completely flattened. The goal is not always to remove every bit of lower-lid fullness. In many cases, the more important question is which fullness is causing the tired look, and which fullness should be preserved for a softer eye shape.

2. What old photos can tell you

A simple check before any consultation:

Look at a photo of yourself around age 18 to 22.

• Was that lower lid area already prominent?
• Did it look good or bad in photos from that period?
• Does it get more visible when you smile?

Aegyosal typically becomes more noticeable with expression. Herniated fat generally does not shift much when you smile.

If that fullness looked natural or even gave you a softer expression when you were younger, there is a decent chance it is aegyosal rather than a structural under eye bag problem.

This does not diagnose the issue by itself, but it gives you a better question to bring into consultation: “Is this fat actually in the wrong place, or has this always been part of my lower eyelid shape?”

3. Why the treatment direction matters

Lower blepharoplasty for true under eye bags is a real procedure with real indications. But if a surgeon doesn't separate which puffiness is which, things can go wrong in either direction.

Removing aegyosal that was actually contributing to a youthful appearance can leave the lower eyelid looking hollow and flat, and that's not always easy to reverse. Adding volume back after the fact is possible, but it's rarely quite the same.

The opposite mistake is also important and gets talked about less: trying to “create aegyosal” with filler or fat grafting when there is already herniated fat underneath.

In that situation, the added volume may not create a cute lower-lid ridge. It can make the whole under eye area look heavier, more swollen, or more congested because the existing bulge was never addressed.

So the question is not just “Should I remove fat or add volume?” It is “Which layer and which position is creating the fullness?”

4. Why photos can be misleading

Some people genuinely dislike their aegyosal, and that's a valid preference. But it's worth making sure the dislike comes from actually seeing it clearly, not from an overhead selfie that makes everything under the eye look heavier than it is in person.

Lower eyelid surgery is one of the harder areas to revise, and what reads as excess tissue in a photo isn't always excess tissue in a clinical assessment.

Before deciding to remove anything in that zone, the question worth raising in a consultation is:

“Is this fat actually in the wrong place, or does it just look that way in certain lighting and angles?”

Has anyone been told conflicting things about whether their lower lids needed removal or augmentation? Curious what the reasoning was on each side.

Many non-Asian patients visit Korea after seeing double eyelid results that look clean, natural, and refined.
But the same technique does not always create the same result on every eyelid. The final outcome depends on the patient’s existing crease, brow position, skin thickness, fat distribution, and how the fold moves when the eyes open and close.
For this reason, Korean double eyelid techniques often need to be adjusted rather than copied directly.

1. Some eyelids already have a crease, so the surgery is not starting from zero

In many East Asian eyelids, the connection between the eyelid-opening muscle and the upper eyelid skin may be weak or less defined. Korean double eyelid surgery is often designed to create or strengthen that connection.
In many non-Asian eyelids, some form of crease already exists. This changes the surgical plan.
• the existing crease may compete with the new surgical line
• one side may have stronger crease memory than the other
• the fold may look different when blinking or closing the eyes
• excessive fixation can make the crease look deeper than intended
So the key question is not only where the line should be placed. It is whether the eyelid can naturally follow that line after surgery.

2. The same crease height can look different depending on the eyelid structure

Crease height is often explained as a number, such as 6mm, 7mm, or 8mm. But the measured height does not always match how high the crease appears visually.
A crease can look more or less exposed depending on:
• how much skin folds over the line
• brow position
• upper eyelid space
• skin thickness
• fixation strength
• existing crease depth
This is why copying the crease height from a Korean before-and-after photo can be misleading. Two patients may have the same measured crease height, but one may look soft and natural while the other looks higher, sharper, or more operated.

3. Upper eyelid heaviness is not always caused by fat

Upper eyelid fullness is often blamed on fat, but the cause can be more complex.
Heaviness may come from:
• actual upper eyelid fat
• loose skin folding over the crease
• brow position pushing the eyelid downward
• weak eyelid opening strength
• swelling-prone tissue
• a combination of several factors
This matters because fat removal alone does not always make the eyelid look lighter. If the heaviness is mainly caused by skin folding or brow descent, removing fat can create hollowing while the eye still looks heavy.
For patients with thinner eyelid tissue or less natural fullness, preserving volume can be just as important as removing excess tissue.

4. Reference photos should guide the mood, not become the surgical map

Many non-Asian patients who like Korean double eyelid results are usually drawn to the overall feeling of the result, not necessarily the exact crease shape.

What they often want is not just “the same line,” but a similar overall impression:
• a cleaner, softer fold that makes the eyelid look less heavy
• brighter-looking eyes with natural movement when opening, closing, and blinking
• a result that looks refined without looking obviously surgical

These qualities can guide the aesthetic direction. But the actual crease height, curve, fixation strength, and tissue adjustment should be planned around the patient’s own eyelid anatomy.

A crease may look balanced in a still photo but appear too fixed, too sharp, or too exposed when the patient blinks, closes the eyes, looks down, or relaxes the brow. This is why movement matters during consultation, not just front-facing photos.
The most natural results usually come from adapting the technique, not copying it.

If you had eyelid surgery in Korea, did your consultation include an explanation of your eyelid anatomy, or was it mostly focused on the crease style you wanted?