Comparison of effect between high intense focused ultrasound devices for facial tightening: Evaluator-blinded, split-face study

Jung, Hyun Ae; Min, Jung; Seo, Hyun-Min; Kim, Won‐Serk

doi:10.3109/14764172.2016.1157359

Cited by 14 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A comparative analysis between selected HIFU devices available on the market (Ulthera, Ultra-Skin) shows similar effects, indicating effectiveness in comparison with the initial state in patients [18].…”

Section: Przebieg Zabiegumentioning

confidence: 85%

High-intensity focused ultrasound technology as a non-surgical alternative to face lifting

Smoczok¹,

Leonik²,

Bergler‐Czop³

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Treatments improving the tension of the facial skin are an important branch of aesthetic dermatology. There is an ongoing increase in medical options of non-invasive alternatives to surgical face lifting. One of them is the high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) technology. The evaluation of the efficacy of this technique shows a significant improvement in the condition of the facial skin. However, the durability of the resulting changes is still debatable. Compared to other procedures, the high-intensity focused ultrasound technology has the benefit of a very good safety profile and short recovery period. Therefore, it is worth considering as an possible alternative to surgical methods.

show abstract

Section: Przebieg Zabiegumentioning

confidence: 85%

High-intensity focused ultrasound technology as a non-surgical alternative to face lifting

Smoczok¹,

Leonik²,

Bergler‐Czop³

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The pain score reported to be low to moderate depending on with or without using analgesics/anesthetics in the literature 14 . In a split face comparison of two different MFU device pain was reported to be much more severe after Ulthera than Ultra‐Skin treatment 15 . Two devices were found to have similar efficacy in blinded clinician and quantitative assessment, although there were some differences in patient satisfaction in favor of Ulthera.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of microfocused ultrasound for improving skin laxity in the lower face: A retrospective study

Yalıcı-Armağan

Elçin

2020

Dermatologic Therapy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of a newer microfocused ultrasound (MFU) device on the lower face laxity. Subjects who underwent MFU therapy for skin tightening were enrolled in the study. The primary outcome measure was overall improvement in skin laxity of the lower face that was evaluated by improvement on jawline irregularities, marionette line, and submental laxity. Assessments were obtained from two blinded dermatologists paired pre-and post-treatment photographs with Investigator-Global-Aesthetic-Improvement-Scale (IGAIS) and from subjects with Subject-GAIS (SGAIS). A total of 24 subjects were evaluated on a median of 4.3 months after 1 session MFU application. According to IGAIS, 5 subjects (20.9%) demonstrated improvement and 15 subjects (62.5%) had no change. Four subjects (16.7%) were scored as worsening. According to SGAIS, 11 subjects (45.9%) reported an improvement whereas 9 subjects (37.5%) reported no change. There was a statistically significant difference between the improvement rate assessed by the investigators and the subjects, where investigators scored lower (P = .006). No serious adverse effects were observed. The relatively high improvement rate observed by the subjects' self assessments compared to investigators evaluation from the photographs suggested that we need to find new evaluation methods other than photography which may reflect what subjects feel but we cannot see.

show abstract

“…9 Potential side effects associated with MFU treatment include pain, erythema, welts, edema, ecchymoses, and nerve injuries. [6][7][8] A proper contact between the transducer and the skin likely will reduce the incidence of these side effects, in particular, welts and edema. Pain may be lessened if energy is not delivered directly to the bone.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…According to a split‐face study comparing the effectiveness of MFU with visualization to MFU without visualization for the treatment of facial tightening and laxity in cheek area by Jung et al, 6 30% of patients rated more improvement on MFU with visualization while 5% of patients rated more improvement on MFU without visualization. Although 20 patients gave higher pain scores on the MFU with visualization, many of them still preferred MFU with visualization due to better treatment outcomes 6 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy of a high‐intensity focused ultrasound device with and without real‐time visualization system in face and neck treatment of skin laxity

Vachiramon

Techakajornkeart

Leerunyakul

et al. 2020

J of Cosmetic Dermatology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Microfocused ultrasound (MFU) is a nonsurgical treatment for the improvement of skin laxity. Multiple MFU devices with and without a visualization system are commercially available. Aims: This study aims to compare the accuracy rates of MFU on target treatment areas with and without a visualization system. Patients/Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted using 52 dermatologists as study subjects. Each subject was asked to treat one simulated volunteer on the face and upper neck with MFU for 2 sessions using the training mode. Participants were allowed to see the ultrasound monitoring screen in one session (visualized session) and were not allowed to see the monitoring screen in the other session (nonvisualized session). One investigator evaluated the accuracy rate by monitoring real-time whether an appropriate contact between the transducer and the skin is shown on the visualization system when the energy release button is pressed. Results: Higher accuracy rates were observed in the visualized session than the nonvisualized session in all treatment areas including brow, lateral orbit, infraorbital, cheek, and upper neck. The greatest difference in accuracy rates was observed when performing the treatment on the upper neck. Participants with more experiences had higher accuracy rates while performing visualization session when compared to those who had less experiences. Visualized sessions required a significantly longer treatment time. Conclusions: The utilization of MFU with visualization system increases the likelihood of proper skin contact. This in turn may give a more favorable treatment outcome and decrease the rates of complications from MFU treatment.

show abstract

Comparison of effect between high intense focused ultrasound devices for facial tightening: Evaluator-blinded, split-face study

Abstract: To the author's knowledge, both HIFU devices tested can be used safely and effectively for facial tightening.

Cited by 14 publications

References 17 publications

High-intensity focused ultrasound technology as a non-surgical alternative to face lifting

High-intensity focused ultrasound technology as a non-surgical alternative to face lifting

Evaluation of microfocused ultrasound for improving skin laxity in the lower face: A retrospective study

Accuracy of a high‐intensity focused ultrasound device with and without real‐time visualization system in face and neck treatment of skin laxity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About