There's a trend that has been embedded in social media for years and that, as surgeons, we find ourselves having to dismantle fairly often: the obsession with a "feline" look, fox-eye style, lifted at the tail with a marked upward angle. And the first thing we want to make clear is this: we don't pursue animal shapes on human faces. It isn't an arbitrary aesthetic stance; it's that the idea makes no anatomical sense.
And we'll say it this plainly: if what you're truly after is the eyes of a fox, a cat or any other animal, the place to go isn't a plastic surgery theatre. It's the vet. The eye shapes of other species belong to those species, not to a human eye that can be surgically modified without paying a functional price.
What you see in most of those photos isn't surgery. It's well-executed make-up, brows drawn at a specific angle and, in many cases, filters. When someone tries to translate that into an operating theatre literally, they enter territory where the result stops being "beautiful eyes" and starts being "a face you don't recognise as yours" or, worse, a face with genuine functional problems. We'll come back to this below, because there's a technical side to it.
What we do do: reposition, not reinvent
The procedure we want to talk about today is the endoscopic brow lift. It's performed through 4 or 5 small incisions in the scalp, with instruments designed specifically to work through those minimal access points. The goal isn't dramatic or eye-catching: it's returning the brow to a more relaxed position, the one it had before the effects of ageing and tissue laxity over time.
Here's the part we most want to get across, because it's where things go wrong most often outside our consultation room: we're not trying to create surprised or startled faces. We don't change the shape of the brow, or move it to a position different from the one it originally had. All we do is correct the descent that has happened over time. Restore, not invent.
When a brow lift is done well, the person looking at you from outside doesn't think "look how lifted her brows are". They think "how rested her eyes look". That's the difference between a good result and one that gives away the surgery from ten metres.
Why blepharoplasty alone, past a certain age, almost never delivers what's expected
Here comes another point where we often have to manage expectations: from around age 40, in most cases, isolated upper blepharoplasty doesn't achieve the effect the patient expects. And it isn't because the technique fails. It's because, in many of those cases, the cause of the problem is mixed: there's descent of the brow position, there's excess eyelid skin, and sometimes there are also changes in orbital volume that need to be identified before operating.
If you only remove eyelid skin and don't address the real position of the brow or the orbital volume component, the result tends to be partial, or plainly disappointing. That's why, in many of these cases, we approach eye rejuvenation as a whole: a brow lift when indicated, upper blepharoplasty, and assessment of the orbital volume component, rather than treating the eyelid as an isolated problem.
Lower blepharoplasty doesn't always enter that equation. We include it only when there's a real indication for it, not as a systematic add-on.
Canthoplasty: well indicated, it's excellent. Misused, it's a functional problem
Another procedure often mentioned alongside eye rejuvenation is canthoplasty. Here we want to be especially clear, because it's a procedure with a correct use and a use that worries us quite a lot:
Well indicated, in the right case, canthoplasty is an excellent procedure. For example, to correct a negative canthal tilt (that downward droop of the outer corner of the eye). There it has a clear functional and aesthetic purpose.
What we don't do is use it as a pure tool to "stretch" the eye and achieve a more almond-shaped, foxy-eyes look. Not because it's technically impossible in some cases, but because, badly indicated, it can cause real functional problems, such as issues with tear drainage, among others, that in no way justify a change of shape which, at heart, can be simulated with make-up at zero risk.
Choosing the case well, here, isn't a courtesy phrase. It's the difference between an eye that looks more rested and beautiful, and an eye that starts causing functional trouble within a few months.
The conclusion, no beating around the bush
With common sense, and without pushing beyond what each face can give, eye rejuvenation delivers very good, stable results. The moment someone starts to over-exaggerate or invent features that face never had, the result almost always shows, and not in a good way.
We don't promise cat eyes. We promise that the eyes you already had will look rested.
This content is for general information and reflects our clinical view. It doesn't replace an individual assessment: every case requires an in-person consultation to determine which procedures, if any, are indicated.
→ Book your free consultation now
