• Archives of Plastic Surgery
• /
• v.47 no.2
• /
• pp.171-177
• /
• 2020

Background Infrabrow blepharoplasty has become a common surgical method used to rejuvenate aged upper eyelids in Asians. In this paper, we describe the parallel excision method for infrabrow blepharoplasty as a useful alternative to the conventional elliptical excision method. The authors' experience over a 3-year period is presented and reviewed. Methods A retrospective review of parallel excision infrabrow blepharoplasty cases at our hospital between 2014 and 2017 was performed. Three oculoplastic surgeons compared preoperative and postoperative photographs using the Strasser grading system. Results From the medical records of 123 patients, a total of 93 patients with moderate-to-severe bilateral dermatochalasis were selected as subjects. The exclusion criterion was levator function less than 8 mm. The total mean follow-up period was 2 years (range, 0.5-3.5 years). The mean skin excision height and width were 9.75 mm (range, 5-16 mm) and 58.51 mm (range, 42-75 mm), respectively. All patients who underwent surgery recovered without major complications, and all patients had high levels of satisfaction and improvements in their visual field. In the Strasser evaluation performed by the oculoplastic surgeons, most patients were found to have excellent results. Conclusions The parallel excision method for infrabrow blepharoplasty is a safe and effective technique that yields more natural- and youthful-looking eyelids than the conventional elliptical excision method. In our method, more effective manipulation of the orbicularis oculi muscle led to a reduction in frontalis compensation, resolution of sunken eyelids, and correction of lateral hooding.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.16 no.1
• /
• pp.3-82
• /
• 2015

This paper is concerned in the theme of the liability for the breach of duty to inform(Haftungszurechnung der $Aufkl{\ddot{a}}rungspflichtverletzung$) and the malpractice of cosmetic surgery. Here, the terms, treatments for healing purposes and purely medical-technical cosmetic operations are well integrated in the category of "medical conduct(medizinische Handlung)" within the meaning of the public and administrative 'Medical Law'. In the judgment of 6. 13. 2013 Az. 2012DA94865 provides the KHGH(Korean Highest Court of Justice) to inform the patient about the prospects and risks of cosmetic surgery(Infrabrow Excision Blepharoplasty) stringent requirements, similar to the judicature of BGH(cf. BGH, Urt. v. 6. 11. 1990, Az.: VI ZR 8/90). Even in the judgment of 5. 12. 2014 Az. 2013GASO865646 the SZLG(Seoul Central Regional Court) recognizes the physician contract for 'cosmetic septoplasty' as a sort of contract for work. The medical treatment(${\ddot{a}}rztliche$ Heilbehandlung) is still regarded as a prototype of the medical activity, therefore in the meaning of the 'Civil Law(KBGB)', its term needs to be used immediately for healing purposes. The cosmetic operation, desired by a patient, differs from the healing treatment by the element of "indication" and the fact that the "healing purpose(Heilzweck)" itself is missing. In comparative context - methodically fully aware that the unreflective term transfer between different laws might contradict their legal purposes - a series of judgments BSG(BSGE 63, 83, BSGE 72, 96, BSGE, 82, 158, BSGE 93, 252 etc.) and some judgments of LSG are reviewed. In addition, also the dogmatic topic for the "legal natur of a medical treatment contract" is to reconsider by comparative introducing BGHZ 63, 306. Now in view of the current state of greater popularity of artificial cosmetic surgery still indeed is the sentences: The doctor is minister naturae, a helper of nature. A doctor promises regularly only the proper treatment of the patient, but the contractual liability for work should not be excluded in medical conditions for cosmetic surgeries altogether. "With cosmetic operations, seeking to eliminate the external deformities, the doctor may miss the medical profession entirely." - A. Laufs, Medical Law, 5th ed. P. 18.