We have located links that may give you full text access.
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
A Randomized Evaluator-Blinded Trial Comparing Subsurface Monopolar Radiofrequency With Microfocused Ultrasound for Lifting and Tightening of the Neck.
Dermatologic Surgery : Official Publication for American Society for Dermatologic Surgery [et Al.] 2017 December
BACKGROUND: Both subsurface monopolar radiofrequency (SMRF) and microfocused ultrasound with visualization (MFU-V) have demonstrated the ability to lift and tighten the neck. No head-to-head comparison study exists of these 2 technologies.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of SMRF and MFU-V for the lifting and tightening of neck.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty subjects aged from 18 to 65 with moderate neck skin laxity were randomized to receive either one treatment of SMRF or MFU-V.
RESULTS: At Days 0, 30, 90, and 180, the mean (SD) investigator-assessed Neck Laxity Grade was 2.7 (0.67), 2.1 (1.1), 1.6 (1.2), and 0.86 (0.7), respectively, for patients treated with SMRF, and 2.8 (0.63), 2.4 (1.07), 1.5 (0.53), and 1.4 (0.7), respectively, for those treated with MFU-V. Both SMRF and MFU-V led to a significant decrease in the mean investigator-assessed Neck Laxity Grade by Day 90 and persistent to Day 180. Subject assessment of firmness, texture, and laxity also significantly improved by Day 90 and persistent to Day 180. Adverse events were mild and transient.
CONCLUSION: There were no were statistically significant differences between SMRF and MFU-V in investigator-assessed and patient-assessed measures of neck laxity, patient satisfaction, and adverse events. Microfocused ultrasound with visualization was associated with more procedural pain.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of SMRF and MFU-V for the lifting and tightening of neck.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty subjects aged from 18 to 65 with moderate neck skin laxity were randomized to receive either one treatment of SMRF or MFU-V.
RESULTS: At Days 0, 30, 90, and 180, the mean (SD) investigator-assessed Neck Laxity Grade was 2.7 (0.67), 2.1 (1.1), 1.6 (1.2), and 0.86 (0.7), respectively, for patients treated with SMRF, and 2.8 (0.63), 2.4 (1.07), 1.5 (0.53), and 1.4 (0.7), respectively, for those treated with MFU-V. Both SMRF and MFU-V led to a significant decrease in the mean investigator-assessed Neck Laxity Grade by Day 90 and persistent to Day 180. Subject assessment of firmness, texture, and laxity also significantly improved by Day 90 and persistent to Day 180. Adverse events were mild and transient.
CONCLUSION: There were no were statistically significant differences between SMRF and MFU-V in investigator-assessed and patient-assessed measures of neck laxity, patient satisfaction, and adverse events. Microfocused ultrasound with visualization was associated with more procedural pain.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app