Surgical and Non-Surgical Approach for Tear Trough Correction: Fat Repositioning Versus Hyaluronic Acid Fillers.

: This paper compares two popular techniques for tear trough correction-fat repositioning and hyaluronic acid (HA) fillers-highlighting their efficacy, safety profiles, patient satisfaction, and associated complications. : A narrative review of 20 studies comparing fat repositioning and HA fillers was conducted, focusing on parameters such as duration of results, volume restoration, complication rates, and patient satisfaction. : Fat repositioning provides long-lasting results but carries higher surgical risks compared with HA fillers. The transconjunctival approach is suitable for patients with minimal skin excess. The supraperiosteal plane allows for a quicker procedure and, despite postoperative edema and temporary irregular contouring, shows no difference in final cosmetic outcomes compared with other planes. Internal fixation reduces the risk of fat relapse and skin scarring but carries the risk of suboptimal positioning. HA fillers offer immediate, minimally invasive results but require periodic maintenance. The use of a cannula reduces the risk of vascular occlusion. Combining a high G' filler for the midface with a low G' with low hydrophilicity for the tear trough reduces the amount of filler needed and prolongs the results. Both surgical and non-surgical methods are effective, depending on patient needs and anatomical considerations. : Fat repositioning is ideal for patients seeking long-term correction and are willing to undergo surgery, while HA fillers suit those preferring non-invasive treatments with customizable, short-term effects. Both techniques have pros and cons that must be matched to patient goals and conditions.