Cosmetic
Festoons are lax folds of skin and muscle at the lid-cheek junction — a challenging cosmetic concern best treated by oculoplastic specialists.
Medically reviewed by Thomas C. Spoor, MD, FACSOculoplastic SurgeonLast updated June 2026
Your Surgeon
Thomas C. Spoor, MD, FACS
Michigan Neuro-Ophthalmology & Oculoplastics
🏅 ASOPRS Fellow
Part of our complete guide to Under-Eye Bags — this page covers festoons and malar mounds in depth.
Festoons and malar mounds are among the most frustrating and misunderstood cosmetic concerns of the lower eyelid and cheek region. They appear as hammock-like folds, bags, or quilted pouches that sit below the lower eyelid and over the cheekbone — often persisting (or worsening) after patients have already undergone fillers, lower blepharoplasty, or skin tightening treatments. Patients frequently arrive at our offices after being told by general plastic surgeons or dermatologists that “nothing can be done.” In reality, festoons and malar mounds can be treated effectively — but only when the anatomy is correctly diagnosed and a specialist-level treatment plan is built around it.
A festoon is a redundant fold of orbicularis oculi muscle and overlying skin that drapes across the lid-cheek junction, typically extending from the lateral canthus down onto the malar eminence. A malar mound (or malar bag) refers more specifically to a localized, often triangular swelling that sits over the cheekbone itself, anchored above by the orbicularis-retaining ligament and below by the zygomaticocutaneous ligament. Both conditions involve a combination of soft tissue laxity, lymphatic congestion, and chronic low-grade edema — which is why they often look puffier in the morning, after salt, alcohol, or crying, and improve slightly throughout the day.
One of the most important steps in evaluating lower lid puffiness is distinguishing between the different causes — because the wrong diagnosis leads to the wrong treatment. The four entities most commonly confused are herniated orbital fat (true “eye bags”), tear trough hollowing, festoons, and malar mounds. Each occupies a different anatomic zone and responds to different interventions.
The tear trough, by contrast, is a depression rather than a fullness — it sits along the medial inferior orbital rim where the orbicularis-retaining ligament tethers the skin to bone. It is often treated with conservative tear trough correction or fat repositioning. Patients frequently have combinations of these findings, which is why an experienced oculoplastic evaluation is essential before any intervention.
This decision guide helps patients recognize which type of lower lid concern they likely have. It is not a substitute for an in-person evaluation, but it can help frame the conversation with Dr. Spoor.
| Finding | Location | Behavior | Likely Treatment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eye bags (fat herniation) | Above orbital rim, immediately below lashes | Constant; worse on upgaze | Lower blepharoplasty |
| Tear trough | Medial groove along inferior rim | Hollow rather than full; shadow appearance | Filler or fat repositioning |
| Malar mound | Triangular pouch over cheekbone | Fluctuates with salt, alcohol, sleep | Midface lift, laser, direct excision |
| Festoon | Hammock-like fold across lid-cheek junction | Persistent skin and muscle laxity; pinchable | Direct excision, CO2 laser, RF microneedling |
| Allergic / thyroid edema | Diffuse lower lid swelling | Worse with allergens; may have other symptoms | Medical management first |
Many patients have more than one finding at the same time — for example, true fat herniation above the rim plus a malar mound below it. A proper plan often combines techniques. Learn more about who treats this with our guide to oculoplastic surgeons.
Festoons and malar mounds develop because of a combination of intrinsic and extrinsic factors that weaken the lid-cheek soft tissue envelope and impair lymphatic drainage. Unlike pure orbital fat herniation, which is largely driven by septal weakening, festoons reflect a multifactorial process:
This is perhaps the single most important section on this page. Patients regularly present to oculoplastic offices after having spent thousands of dollars on hyaluronic acid fillers or undergoing lower blepharoplasty — only to find their lid-cheek puffiness worse than before. Understanding why this happens is critical.
Hyaluronic acid fillers are hydrophilic — they bind water. When injected into a region already prone to lymphatic stasis, even small amounts of filler in the tear trough or malar region can amplify malar mound swelling for months or years. Filler placed too superficially over the malar eminence can persist for far longer than expected (some studies suggest 5–10 years), creating a chronic, fluctuating bag that looks worst in the morning and after sodium intake.
Standard lower blepharoplasty — particularly the transcutaneous skin-muscle flap approach — can disrupt the delicate lymphatic channels that cross the lid-cheek junction. In a patient with subclinical or mild malar mounds, this lymphatic insult can unmask or worsen a festoon that was previously invisible. This is why oculoplastic surgeons specifically warn patients with even subtle malar findings before recommending blepharoplasty.
Important: If you have malar mounds or festoons, do not proceed with cheek or tear trough filler, and approach lower blepharoplasty cautiously. Seek evaluation by an ASOPRS-trained surgeon first — many filler-induced malar bags require hyaluronidase dissolution before any other treatment can be planned.
There is no single best treatment for festoons and malar mounds — the right approach depends on the severity, the dominant tissue component (skin vs. muscle vs. fluid), the patient’s skin type, and their tolerance for downtime. A modern oculoplastic approach often combines two or more modalities. The major categories of treatment include:
For severe, well-defined festoons — particularly in older patients with significant skin redundancy — direct excision remains the most definitive treatment. The procedure removes an ellipse of skin (and sometimes underlying orbicularis muscle) directly over the festoon itself. The trade-off is a visible scar along the cheek, which is why patient selection is critical.
Modern direct excision techniques carefully place the incision within an existing crease or wrinkle line, and the scar typically fades dramatically over 6–12 months. For patients with severe festoons and Fitzpatrick I–III skin, the resulting scar is often far less noticeable than the festoon it replaced. In darker skin types, scar visibility is a greater concern and laser or RF approaches are usually preferred.
For mild to moderate festoons — or in patients unwilling to accept a visible incision — energy-based skin tightening is the workhorse treatment. Fully-ablative CO2 laser resurfacing remains the gold standard for festoon improvement. It works through three mechanisms: immediate collagen contraction, neocollagenesis over 3–6 months, and improved lymphatic outflow as the inflammatory response remodels the dermal tissue.
CO2 resurfacing typically requires 7–14 days of social downtime, with prolonged erythema for 4–8 weeks. Two passes are often required, and many patients see significant improvement after a single treatment. Results continue to mature for up to a year. Learn more about energy treatments on our lasers page.
RF microneedling (devices such as Morpheus8, Vivace, or Sylfirm) is a less aggressive but effective alternative. It delivers radiofrequency energy via fine needles into the deep dermis and subcutaneous tissue, stimulating collagen contraction and dermal remodeling without ablating the epidermis. RF microneedling is typically performed as a series of 3–4 treatments spaced 4–6 weeks apart, with only 2–3 days of downtime per session. It is particularly useful in patients with darker skin types where CO2 carries higher pigmentation risk.
When malar mounds are accompanied by descent of the midfacial soft tissues — visible flattening of the cheek, deepening of the nasolabial fold, and a tired, downturned appearance — a midface lift may be the most appropriate treatment. The procedure repositions the suborbicularis oculi fat (SOOF) and malar fat pad superiorly, restoring youthful cheek projection while simultaneously flattening the malar mound itself.
Midface lifting can be performed through a transconjunctival approach, a subciliary incision, or a temporal endoscopic approach — often combined with canthopexy to support the lower lid. When done correctly by an oculoplastic surgeon familiar with the anatomy of the lid-cheek junction, it produces some of the most natural and durable improvements available. When done incorrectly, however, it can cause lower lid retraction, ectropion, and worsened festooning — another reason specialist evaluation matters.
An ideal candidate for festoon or malar mound treatment is a patient who:
The consultation should include careful inspection in both seated and supine positions, palpation to assess the pinchable skin component, evaluation for snap-back and lid distraction (to detect eyelid laxity), photographic documentation, and a discussion of prior filler or surgical history. In many cases, a trial of conservative measures — head-of-bed elevation, sodium restriction, topical retinoid — is recommended before committing to procedural intervention.
Recovery varies dramatically depending on the chosen treatment:
Patients should understand that festoon treatment is rarely “one and done.” The underlying lymphatic and dermal predisposition does not disappear, and maintenance treatments — touch-up laser, periodic RF, lifestyle measures — are often part of long-term care. With realistic expectations and a well-designed plan, however, most patients achieve dramatic and durable improvement in a concern they had been told was untreatable.
Festoons often coexist with other concerns. Comprehensive lower lid rejuvenation may combine festoon treatment with blepharoplasty, tear trough correction, and midface lifting — staged appropriately to protect lymphatic drainage.
Festoons and malar mounds are one of the clearest examples of a cosmetic concern that demands subspecialty expertise. The anatomy is subtle, the differential diagnosis is broad, and the risk of making the problem worse with the wrong intervention is real. ASOPRS-trained oculoplastic surgeons have completed approximately two years of fellowship training in ophthalmic plastic and reconstructive surgery of the eyelid, orbit, lacrimal system, and midface, and are uniquely positioned to evaluate and treat these conditions safely.
If you have been told that nothing can be done about your under-eye puffiness — or if you have already had filler or blepharoplasty that left you worse than before — you owe yourself a consultation with a true specialist. Find an ASOPRS oculoplastic surgeon near you to discuss whether festoon or malar mound treatment is right for your anatomy and goals.
Your Surgeon
Thomas C. Spoor, MD, FACS
Michigan Neuro-Ophthalmology & Oculoplastics
🏅 ASOPRS Fellowship Trained
Schedule a consultation with Thomas C. Spoor, MD, FACS to learn if this procedure is right for you.