Irreversible damage and deformity, agonizing mistake to trust Mr. Paun (he). My beauty destroyed.
There were red flags. I asked him for a minor tweak, to reduce the bump from my side profile and that I liked my front nose profile. He didn’t schedule proper consultation time; he snatched his portfolio from me whilst I was looking at it. Spending most of my 2nd consultation time ‘pushing’ a treated recycled donor cartilage without disclosing the known risks such as possible infection & incompatibility, this left ONLY 5 minutes to respond to his photo imaging. In no uncertain terms I told him how I disliked both the two images, so instead of doing more imaging or insisting on scheduling another consultation I was told ‘I will take half of the bump off and you will not see any difference from the front’. I went up to the mirror to show him ‘I don’t like a turned up (raised) nose and that’s all I want removed - the excess bump while leaving a little curve, that’s it.’ I said. He hurriedly showed me the door. He then called me to convince me that I should be unconcerned with the recycled cartilage, and he reassured me ‘Don’t worry I won’t take too much off, you will not see any difference to the front’. On the surgery day, I said ’I like noses with a curve, you have a curve, I like that.’ He replied, ‘You mean convex.’ ‘Yes!’ I said. So, he replied ‘I will take half off the bump.’ So, by taking half the bump off, it was not necessary to alter the overall nose size or length. I told him that ‘I don’t mind shading my nose, so keep it on the bigger side’. In total I was given 3 consistent assurances of our agreement. The front profile is paramount, & any proposed changes would require my consent, I was not shown any frontal imaging and I so relied on his assurances as the basis of my contractual assent. On surgery night, I had breathing problems, I called the hospital, my GP also a rhinoplasty surgeon said, ‘its the result of trauma a sign of over aggressive surgery.’ On taking off the pack he said ‘it’s like a new hair cut you have to get used to it’. Why would he say that if I would not see any difference and why should I get used to something that I not only didn’t ask for but which I explicitly told him I didn’t want. The following few weeks while there were a few irregularities which I thought would settle, it looked like a minor change and so upon his request I made a positive review not realising at the time that my nose would shrink as much in the next two years as it did over the first two months. He asked me to come in to take pictures (which I declined) besides this no other follow up appointment was offered. It is misleading to write a review or show pictures at this premature stage as temporary natural looking swelling disguises the final result. Unlike our agreement, I am now left with a tiny nose with radically reduced volume and length, tip is raised and is vastly narrower, barely any curve left. The skeletal bones & nostrils are more exposed, nose bending over, and longer on one side, all the natural tissue gone – nose no longer in proportion to my very large face. There are dents, visible ‘shrink wrap’ a bent tip that’s accentuated with the slightest smirk. As defined by how much of my nose cartilage he removed, my nose is now even worse/much more exaggerated than the imaging than he showed me that I rejected. After seeking a remedy, devastated two years on, he was trying to convince me of how nice the nose is & asking me to seek other opinions as to the nose aesthetic. It’s my nose my beauty standard, no surgeon has a right to impose their beauty ideals on me. He wasted my time with feigned interest to remedy the nose and ultimately refused to undertake revision surgery. I saw two acclaimed surgeons and the fact is the damage, the excessive removal of my precious natural cartilage is irreversible, a ‘revision specialist’ should have known better. I was once very photogenic now it’s painful to look at my pictures. It unfair when a surgeon profits financially while the client is suffering ongoing misery. I did not receive a reply to my letter of 20th October despite repeated assurances.