answers
This page collects the questions that come up most often in consultation and answers them in full. It is arranged by subject, from diagnosis through to the clinic itself, but it is not written to be read in order. Each answer is meant to stand on its own, because that is how they are read: someone arrives with one question, finds it, and goes. The qualifications are therefore attached to each answer rather than gathered at the end, and an answer that repeats one above it does so deliberately.
01Diagnosis
Most of these questions come from people who do not know what was injected into them. The answers set out what can be established without that information, and what cannot.
Yes, in most cases. Ultrasound establishes where the material sits and how far it reaches, CT is added where bone is involved, and hyaluronidase helps where hyaluronic acid is likely. None of that requires a trade name, and those are the findings an operation is planned from. Where the nature of the material remains unclear, biopsy is added. Imaging has limits, and they are named before surgery rather than after.
Examination first, then ultrasound, which shows the distribution of the material and the state of the tissue around it. If the findings point to hyaluronic acid, a hyaluronidase response may be tried, and CT is added where bone is involved. Where a patient has had several sessions over the years, more than one material is usually present, and the mixture behaves differently from any of its parts.
The position and depth of the material, whether it has formed nodules or areas of fluid change, and how it relates to the structures around it, read in real time with the hand still on the face. Blood flow through and around the deposit is assessed at once. What ultrasound does not give is chemical identity. It will not name a product, and a report claiming otherwise should be treated with caution.
Yes. Ultrasound is reliable for position and depth within the first two centimetres of tissue, which covers most injected material in the face. It does not establish exact composition, and it does not show change across a wide area of bone, because sound does not pass through it. Where the bone surface is in question, CT is reviewed alongside it. Neither examination replaces the other.
Ultrasound is used to find material within soft tissue and to establish which layer it occupies. CT is used where the bone matters: its position, its surface, and deformity across a wide area. The first is the everyday instrument, the second added when a specific question requires it. Which are needed follows from the region and the history of previous procedures, so two patients with a similar complaint may not be examined alike.
To establish the exact position and size of the implant, how the bone beneath it has changed, and where the nerves run, so that the dissection is planned before the first incision rather than discovered during it. CT does not show the condition of the soft tissue above the implant, which has to be assessed by examination, and neither finding is sufficient alone.
Different materials have different densities and shapes, so they produce different echo patterns and borders on ultrasound. Calcium-based material is bright and casts a shadow. A thread reads as a fine bright line. Grafted fat resembles the patient’s own fat, which is the difficulty with it. These patterns are typical rather than diagnostic: an old deposit, several materials mixed, or advanced fibrosis will blur any of them.
It is useful information and not a diagnosis. A deposit that softens after hyaluronidase was probably hyaluronic acid, but the response is not specific enough to confirm a product. An absence of response is read the other way: it raises the likelihood of a semi-permanent filler, of polycaprolactone, of grafted fat, or of fibrous tissue around any of these. It narrows the possibilities rather than settling them.
It usually means the material is not hyaluronic acid. Collagen-based and calcium-based semi-permanent fillers are not broken down by hyaluronidase, and neither are polycaprolactone products, grafted fat, threads, or the scar tissue that forms around any of them. That is a reason to stop repeating the injection rather than to increase the dose. The composition still has to be established from the record or from further investigation.
Where imaging and response testing have left the nature of the material, or of the tissue reaction, genuinely unclear, and where the answer would change what is done. Biopsy is the last step in the sequence rather than a routine one. Whether it is appropriate depends on the size and position of the lesion, and in some regions the tissue that would be sampled is tissue worth preserving.
Because the same substance in a different plane is a different operation. Material under the skin, between the muscles, or directly on bone is reached by different routes and carries different risks. The plane decides the incision, the instrument, and how close the dissection comes to a nerve. Where material has spread across several layers, each may need its own approach, and addressing all of them at once is not always sensible.
Where there is deformity, pain or a sense of something foreign at an injection site, the first step is examination and ultrasound at a medical facility rather than an attempt to reconstruct the history. The examination establishes whether material is present and where it sits, which is more useful than a name. Where an unapproved substance is confirmed, removal is often appropriate even without symptoms, though that is judged case by case.
02Deciding what comes out
The difficult part of a removal is not the opening. It is deciding how much can safely come out, what should be left where it is, and whether the work belongs in one stage or several.
Because normal fat and nerve have to be preserved while the material is taken out, and the two aims conflict at the margin. Pursuing complete removal through adherent tissue is how nerve injury, hollowing and irregularity are produced. Where the material is localised and adhesion slight, most of it does come out in one operation. Where it has spread through several layers, staging is safer, and which applies is assessed beforehand.
Often not entirely, and that is a deliberate limit rather than a failure. Removal is carried out within the boundary set by normal tissue, so material lying against a nerve or embedded in muscle may be left. Where a deposit is discrete and free of adhesion, most of it is usually removed. Complete removal cannot be promised about a face with adhesions, and an account that promises it is describing different risks.
Material that cannot be felt, that lies against a nerve or within muscle, and that is not itself causing symptoms is generally left rather than pursued. The reasoning is proportion: what is gained by removing it is small and what can be lost is not. What has been left is recorded and explained rather than passed over, and if it later causes symptoms, further removal can be considered.
By appearance and by feel in theatre, with the boundary established beforehand on ultrasound and often marked on the skin. Injected material usually differs from native fat in colour, in firmness, and in how it separates. The difficulty is grafted fat, which resembles the patient’s own. Where a deposit is old and fibrosis has set in, the border is not distinct, and the surgeon is judging rather than following a visible line.
By reading the previous sites against the current state of the tissue, then setting the extent at the point where further removal would cost normal structure. Repeated injection tends to leave several materials in several planes with adhesion between them. Where that adhesion is widespread, the amount that can safely be done at once is limited, and the plan says so in advance.
The forehead, glabella and temple, where the supraorbital and supratrochlear nerves and the temporal branch of the facial nerve run in a shallow course close to material injected without reference to them. The lower lid and the infraorbital foramen are also unforgiving. Risk is not a property of the region alone: it depends on where the material sits, how adherent it has become, and how wide the dissection has to be.
Where there is an active inflammatory reaction, the stated principle is to settle the tissue first, with medication, and to operate afterwards. Operating into inflamed tissue makes the planes indistinct, increases bleeding and raises the risk of infection, and the result is usually a less complete removal than the same operation weeks later. How long settling takes depends on the degree of inflammation and the material, so no fixed interval is quoted.
Where the material is known to be hyaluronic acid, or the history and imaging make that likely, hyaluronidase is considered before an operation is planned. It is the lower-risk step and sometimes the whole treatment. Its usefulness is narrow. Old mixtures, grafted fat and established fibrous tissue respond poorly or not at all, and repeating it after two or three attempts without change is rarely productive.
The endoscope is used mainly where the risk of nerve injury is high and direct vision through a small opening is not possible: the forehead, glabella and temple in particular. Elsewhere a cannula or a direct incision often gives adequate access with less dissection. The region is not the only factor: firmness and the degree of adhesion can change the method within the same region.
Where a cannula cannot separate the material from the tissue holding it, an ultrasonic instrument may be used to break up the adherent portion, or an endoscopic or open approach substituted. Matching the instrument to the finding is the point, rather than committing to one method in advance. Where adhesion is extensive, staging is usually preferred, because each stage leaves tissue that has to recover before the next can be judged.
It means reducing the material causing symptoms, deformity or inflammation while leaving nerve, normal fat and muscle intact, and accepting an incomplete result where those aims conflict. Put plainly, the plan fixes what will be kept before it fixes what comes out. Where that boundary falls is not a rule: it depends on where the material sits, on what the patient is troubled by, and on what can be reached safely.
Substances never approved for injection tend to disperse irregularly rather than staying where they were placed, to provoke a stronger tissue reaction, and to sit in tissue whose blood supply has been compromised. The result is a poorly defined mass mixed with scar rather than a discrete deposit, which makes both the boundary and the plane harder to find. The difficulty varies with the substance, the depth, and the years passed.
03By material and region
The same substance behaves differently in the lower lid and in the cheek, and different substances in one place call for different operations. These questions cover both.
Yes, depending on what it was. Semi-permanent and permanent materials can remain for years, and polymer microspheres do not resorb at all. Hyaluronic acid is broken down more readily and has a shorter life, though deposits in the lower lid have been found years later in patients told the material was temporary. What remains is frequently the tissue reaction rather than the product, and the two are not treated alike.
Where the material is soft and not close to the lid margin, a non-incisional route through a small port usually suffices. Where it is firm, or where skin laxity has to be corrected at the same time, an incision is used. Incisional approaches divide further: through the conjunctiva where the skin needs no attention, and below the lashes where it does. The choice follows the position and consistency of the material.
On ultrasound, which shows the border of the deposit, the plane it occupies, and its relation to the fat pads. The two can look identical from outside and feel similar to the fingers, so examination alone frequently does not settle it. The operations differ: removing material is not the same as repositioning or reducing native fat, and treating one as the other produces a hollow or a ridge that was not there before.
The skin there is the thinnest on the face, the orbicularis muscle carries nerves and vessels, and the orbital septum and fat pads lie immediately behind. Material injected into that space frequently becomes entangled with the structures that hold the lid in position. How cautious the approach must be depends on how close the deposit lies to the lid margin, so the position is measured before the plan is fixed.
Because the structures supporting the lid are removed with the material when the two have become entangled and the dissection does not distinguish them. The result is a lid that sits lower, shows white below the iris, or turns outwards, which is harder to correct than the problem the patient arrived with. The risk is reduced by establishing the relationship between deposit and lid support beforehand and stopping there.
Because the nerves and vessels there run close to where material is usually injected, and the endoscope gives a magnified view of the plane through an incision that does not cross them. Working without direct vision in the temple risks the temporal branch of the facial nerve. It is not used for every case there: where material is superficial and easily reached, a cannula or a direct incision may serve better.
Over years, an implant resting on the frontal bone can produce a depression in the surface beneath it as the bone remodels under sustained pressure. When the implant is removed, that contour remains. It is one reason a forehead can look uneven afterwards even where the removal itself was complete. The degree varies with the implant and how long it has been in place, and CT establishes it rather than assumption.
Where fat has over-taken or calcified, the firm portion is treated selectively: an ultrasonic instrument for adherent areas, aspiration where it remains soft, excision for discrete calcified nodules. The problem is the boundary. Grafted fat in place for years resembles native fat, and the native fat is what the face needs. Where the firm area lies against nerve or muscle, part of it is left.
The deep cheek can usually be reached through an incision inside the mouth, under direct vision, with no scar on the skin. That route suits the deep medial cheek fat and the buccal region. It does not suit everything. Where the material extends laterally, lies superficially, or reaches towards the lower lid, a different approach is needed, sometimes in addition to the intraoral one.
A thread that is causing symptoms or can be felt is located first, on examination and ultrasound, and removal considered after that. Not every palpable thread needs to come out. Whether removal is right depends on the material, how long ago it was placed, and whether it is doing anything. Where it tethers tissue so that a dimple appears on movement, releasing the tether often achieves more than retrieving the thread.
Absorption depends on the individual as well as the material, so a thread described as fully absorbable can persist beyond its quoted schedule. More often, what is felt is not the thread. The fibrous track the body forms around it outlasts the thread by a considerable margin and feels much the same under the fingers. Examination and ultrasound distinguish the two, and they call for different treatment.
They are made of different materials and behave differently at the end. Collagen-based and calcium-based semi-permanent fillers are not broken down by hyaluronidase, so where they cause a problem the options are surgical removal or managing the reaction. Hyaluronic acid can be dissolved. A dissolving injection is therefore a reasonable first step for one group and a wasted month for the other, so what was injected has to be established.
They adhere firmly to the tissue around them and remain long enough for that adhesion to establish. Radiesse is calcium-based and mostly resorbs over a year to eighteen months, though firm residue can outlast that by a wide margin. Artecoll carries permanent polymer microspheres in a collagen vehicle: the collagen resorbs and the microspheres do not. Removal then means excising the tissue containing them, and difficulty increases with the years.
A foreign body granuloma is the tissue’s long answer to something it can neither break down nor ignore. Cells gather at the material and fuse, collagen is laid down around the whole, and that takes months or years to produce a mass firm enough to notice. It is not an infection and not simply the product sitting where it was placed. When it appears varies with the material and the individual.
By when it appeared, how it behaves, and what examination shows, with investigation added where the distinction is not clear. Infection tends to progress over days, with heat, spreading redness and increasing pain. A delayed inflammatory reaction to injected material more often appears months or years later and fluctuates. The two overlap enough that appearance alone will not settle it, and one is treated first with antibiotics.
It is the descent of the soft tissue in front of the chin point, so that the pad of tissue sits below the bony margin with a crease above it. It follows ageing, previous contouring surgery, injected material, or simply the shape a person was born with. The correction differs according to which applies, so the cause is established before anything is proposed.
04After removal
Taking material out leaves a space that has been occupied for years. These questions concern what appears in that space afterwards, how it is corrected, and in what order.
It can be. Material that has held volume in one place for years leaves a space when it goes, and the skin above it has usually stretched to accommodate it. What appears afterwards is some combination of hollowing, loose skin and irregularity. How much depends on the volume removed, the region and the condition of the tissue, which is why the likely appearance is discussed beforehand.
Usually around six months after removal, once inflammation and swelling have settled and the tissue has taken its final position. Grafting into tissue that is still inflamed gives poor survival and an unpredictable contour, and it can obscure whether further removal is needed. The timing follows the extent of the removal and the speed of recovery rather than a fixed date.
The inflammatory state and the blood supply of the skin are established first. Where both are satisfactory and the removal is localised, a lift can be carried out at the same time. Where there is active inflammation, where wide dissection is required, or where perfusion is compromised, the two are separated so that the lift is performed on settled tissue. That judgment can change between consultation and surgery.
It can be considered where there is no inflammation and the tissue is stable, but the usual advice is to wait. Fat placed into a bed that is inflamed or still changing survives unpredictably, and the amount needed cannot be judged until the tissue has settled. Whether they are combined depends on how much is being removed and how much hollowing is expected, decided case by case.
The combination is considered where there is no active inflammation, the material is localised, and marked descent is expected once it is gone. Doing both at once avoids a second recovery. Where infection is a risk, or removal requires wide dissection, staging is safer: a lift through a field just opened widely carries a higher risk of skin and wound problems than the same lift later.
No. Where inflammation is active or infection is possible, the stated principle is to settle the tissue first, then remove, then restore in a separate stage. Combining them in inflamed tissue risks a wound complication costing more than the second operation would have. How long settling takes is not quoted as a fixed period, because inflammation settled on the surface is not always settled beneath it.
Swelling increases for about 48 to 72 hours, then subsides, and most people return to ordinary activity from around the seventh day, as the clinic describes it. Marked bruising, a wide dissection, or removal in more than one region can extend that to two weeks or beyond. Those figures describe the usual course rather than a guaranteed one, and firm tissue at the dissection sites softens over months.
Longer than most patients expect. The lower lid forms firm scar tissue that takes time to soften, and swelling and discolouration can persist well beyond the first weeks. Six months is the period usually given before the result is judged. The pace depends on the extent of removal and on the individual, and a lid that looks uneven at two months frequently does not at eight.
Swelling and firm tissue at the dissection sites make the result difficult to read in the early months, and what is felt as remaining material is often the tissue reaction rather than the material. Waiting about six months before judging is the usual advice. Where a symptom persists then, further removal can be considered, decided from what is actually left and what it is doing rather than from the sensation.
Around three months after removal, as the clinic describes it, for energy-based devices intended to tighten skin and tidy the facial contour. Earlier treatment is applied to tissue still inflamed and still changing, so the result is unpredictable and the discomfort greater. The interval varies with the extent of removal and the speed of recovery. Where material remains in the area, whether to treat over it is settled at consultation.
05Endoscopic malarplasty
These answers concern the soft tissue side of the operation: what happens to the fat and SMAS above the bone once the bone has been moved. Endoscopic malarplasty at UVOM is performed by both directors.
Because the cheekbone is not only bone. Once the malar complex is repositioned, the fat and SMAS over it have to follow, and whether they do decides how the face reads afterwards. Bone moved correctly under soft tissue that stays where it was produces a narrower measurement and a heavier appearance. How far the tissue follows depends on age, skin elasticity and the extent of dissection, assessed before the osteotomy is planned.
Two reasons, usually together. The soft tissue over the malar region was supported by bone that has now been moved inwards, and the dissection needed to reach it releases some of the attachments holding that tissue up. How far the cheek descends varies with age, skin elasticity and the extent of dissection, and it is more likely where the tissue had already begun to descend before surgery.
It can, particularly where the face had little volume to begin with. Reducing the projection of the bone removes part of the platform the midface sits on, and the same tissue over a smaller frame reads as flatter rather than narrower. Whether it happens depends on the original volume and on the state of the skin and fat, which is why the assessment covers soft tissue as well as bone.
Yes. Soft tissue is more likely to descend and less likely to retract with age, so the extent of dissection and what is considered alongside the bone work both change. Age itself is a poor guide. What is actually assessed is skin elasticity and the degree of descent already present, measured on examination rather than inferred from a birth date.
It is often possible, but the route has to be re-established. Previous injection leaves adhesion, and adhesion changes where the planes lie and how the tissue behaves when it is lifted. Imaging and examination establish what is there before the approach is planned. Where adhesion is extensive, the dissection or the approach itself may differ, and it is sometimes better to remove the material first and operate on the bone later.
The position and thickness of the bone, asymmetry between the sides, and the shape of the malar body and zygomatic arch, which together determine where the osteotomies are placed. What CT will not show is how far the soft tissue has descended, so examination is required alongside it. Dr. Kang’s published work on assessing nasal bone reduction objectively on CT was a study of 313 fracture patients. It is background for reading facial imaging, not a validation of malar CT findings.
Where soft tissue descent is already evident before surgery, or where the reduction planned is large enough that descent is expected afterwards. Treating the bone and leaving the soft tissue produces a narrower face that looks older, so the two operations address halves of one result. Whether they are combined depends on age, skin condition and the extent of dissection, and separating them remains reasonable.
Because the skin, fat and SMAS covering the bone do not move with it. The bone can be exactly where it was planned to be and the surface still read as fuller than the measurement suggests, because the same tissue is now draped over a smaller frame. Some of that resolves as swelling settles and the tissue redrapes. Some does not, and how much varies with age and elasticity.
The first task is to establish whether the asymmetry lies in the bone or in the soft tissue, because the two have different corrections and a revision aimed at the wrong one will not help. CT answers the bone question and examination the other. Many faces were mildly asymmetric before surgery, which is worth confirming from earlier photographs. Whether a second operation is appropriate follows from that finding.
Where the deep cheek fat is bulky, it adds projection below the malar region and weight that draws the cheek downwards once the bone beneath has been moved. Reducing it can help limit that descent. The amount is a matter of judgment rather than a standard step: fat distribution differs considerably between faces, and removing too much produces the hollow midface the operation is otherwise trying to avoid.
06Facelift and the deep plane
The facelift belongs here because removal is not the end of the work. These questions cover the technique, the limits of the evidence behind it, and what recovery looks like.
Repositioning descended tissue: skin, SMAS and the deep fat layer moved together to address descent in the midface, lower face and neck. The tension is carried by the fascial layer rather than by the skin, and skin left over is trimmed at the end rather than being the thing that is pulled. How far the dissection extends, and which technique is used, follow from where the descent sits.
In a deep plane operation the skin and SMAS are not separated from one another. They are raised with the fat layer as a single composite, the plane of dissection running beneath the SMAS, and the retaining ligaments released so that the composite can be repositioned as a unit. Other SMAS techniques separate the layers and treat the SMAS by folding, tightening or excision. The extent of dissection is fixed in neither case.
That cannot be stated on the current evidence. A 2025 systematic review (Vayalapra S, Guerero DN, Sandhu V, et al. Ann Plast Surg. 2025;95(5):582-589) covering 47 studies and 10,766 patients found SMAS-based and deep plane operations comparable in safety. Only one study compared the two directly, and it reported better midface rejuvenation with the deep plane technique, which is too little to generalise from; the review’s own conclusion is that the choice should be individualised. Here it is made from the individual face: where the descent sits, how adherent the tissue has become after previous surgery or injection, and where the nerve risk lies.
The retaining ligaments are fibrous structures anchoring the skin and deep tissue to the bone and the fascia beneath. They hold tissue in place, which is useful until it has descended and needs moving back. Releasing them to the extent required allows the deep tissue to be repositioned instead of the skin being stretched over it. How much release is needed follows from where the descent lies and how far the tissue must travel.
No. The aim is enough mobility to reposition the tissue where it needs to go, which is not the same as the widest dissection possible. Dissection beyond that point adds swelling, firm tissue and risk without adding correction. How much is required depends on where the descent sits, on the state of the retaining ligaments, and on whether the face has had previous surgery.
Often, yes. What matters is the present state of the tissue rather than the number of sessions, and a face injected many times without adhesion is more straightforward than one injected twice with a marked reaction. Where adhesion is extensive, the plane has to be re-established as the operation proceeds, and in some of those faces it is better to remove the material first and lift afterwards.
The planning changes. Previous osteotomies and the scar around them alter the normal layers, ligament origins may no longer lie where they are described, and the bony platform under the soft tissue is not the one a standard approach assumes. Imaging and examination re-establish the dissection route before the plan is fixed. How much difference this makes depends on which operations were performed and how much adhesion they left.
Either because tissue has continued to age and descent has returned, which is expected over time, or because something about the first result was unsatisfactory from the outset. Those are different problems calling for different operations, so the cause is established before a revision is planned. The interval and approach depend on how extensive the first operation was and how the tissue has recovered.
Where descent extends into the neck and the jawline border has blurred, treating the face alone leaves an obvious discontinuity, so the two are usually combined. The neck has its own anatomy, including the platysma and the fat above and below it, and addressing it is not simply an extension of the facial dissection. Whether to combine depends on the degree of descent and on the overall plan.
Thread lifting suspends tissue from the skin side using threads placed through it, without opening or repositioning the deeper layers. A facelift dissects the deep tissue, moves it, and removes the skin that is then surplus. They are different operations with different recoveries and durations. Where descent is mild, thread lifting can produce a degree of improvement. Where it is established, threads are being asked to hold tissue that has to be repositioned.
Firm tissue at the dissection sites, which is the expected course rather than a complication. It is most noticeable between one and three months, which is when patients most often ask about it, and softens gradually over the following six months to a year. How much forms, and how long it takes to settle, vary with the extent of dissection and the individual. It is still worth reporting.
Swelling is most noticeable on the morning after surgery and can increase until about the third day, then settles, and by seven to ten days most people can be in ordinary company, as the clinic describes it. That is not the end of it. Firmness and the final settling of the contour take longer, and the result can fairly be judged in months rather than weeks.
07The surgeon and the clinic
These answers state what is on the record and mark what is not. Where a detail is unconfirmed, it is left out rather than estimated.
A board-certified plastic surgeon and a co-director of UVOM Plastic Surgery in Seoul. His published record is six peer-reviewed papers, first author on five: pain measured at fixed time points after breast augmentation, nasal bone reduction assessed on CT, and tissue volume followed over time and then divided into muscle and fat portions. That work was carried out in the Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, School of Medicine, Catholic University of Daegu. None of it is about facial aesthetic surgery.
Five as first author: the objective results of closed reduction of nasal bone fractures assessed on CT, in 313 patients; the relationship between the operative result and the patient’s own satisfaction in that same cohort, which the paper found to correlate; pain control after breast augmentation using an intercostal nerve block, in 44 patients; the volume change of a latissimus dorsi flap after partial breast reconstruction, in 11 patients followed on CT for five years; and a later study measuring the muscle and fat portions of that flap separately, in 16 patients. He is a co-author on a study of buttock ptosis. The populations are the nose, the breast and the buttock.
The clinic lists his practice as endoscopic malar reduction and foreign body removal. On this site that work is set out in three parts, because they arrive together in the same patients: facial foreign body removal, endoscopic malarplasty read from the soft tissue side, and the deep plane facelift that often follows a removal. The attending surgeon for a particular operation is confirmed at consultation.
Two: Dr. Jung Su Lee and Dr. Chang Min Kang, both board-certified plastic surgeons, holding the same title. Which of them consults on and performs a particular procedure depends on the operation, and for some the clinic has published no fixed rule. Where that is so, the attending surgeon is identified at consultation.
Because the published work shares one habit: dividing a thing into its parts and recording each separately rather than reporting an impression. Pain at four fixed moments rather than comfortable afterwards. A flap’s muscle portion and its fat portion rather than its volume. Carried into this practice, it means stating what will be left before stating what comes out. Those studies were of the breast, the buttock and the nasal bone. They prove nothing about any facial operation.
A plastic surgery clinic in Gangnam-gu, Seoul, with two board-certified plastic surgeons as its directors. Its stated practice includes facial foreign body removal, endoscopic malarplasty and facelift surgery. Separately from either surgeon’s record, the clinic has carried out medical outreach since 1999 in three forms: invited surgery in Korea with a non-profit partner, overseas outreach, and outreach to migrant workers living in Korea. The scope of practice and the staff listed can change.
Everything on this page describes general criteria rather than a recommendation. None of it substitutes for examination. Where a material sits, what the tissue around it has become, and how much of it can safely be removed are findings, not predictions, and they are established by examining the face in question. What applies to a particular face, and what should be done about it, is decided at consultation.ContinueEvidencePublished WorkSix peer-reviewed papers, confirmed against PubMed in September 2026. Each is given here in full, with its…EvidenceCommon ConcernsMost people arrive with a description rather than a diagnosis. This page begins from the description: ten complaints…The surgeonDr. Chang Min KangCleft lip and palate, reconstruction, facelift, and the removal of material injected into a face years earlier. The…