Dermatologic surgery : official publication for American Society for Dermatologic Surgery [et al.] · 2019
A Randomized, Split-Face, Evaluator-Blind Clinical Trial Comparing Monopolar Radiofrequency Versus Microfocused Ultrasound With Visualization for Lifting and Tightening of the Face and Upper Neck.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Alhaddad Marwan, Wu Douglas C, Bolton Joanna, Wilson Monique J, Jones Isabela T, Boen Monica, Goldman Mitchel P
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Over the past decade, 2 major modalities for noninvasive skin tightening have emerged: monopolar capacitive-coupled radiofrequency (MRF) and microfocused ultrasound with visualization (MFU-V). Up to date, no comparative clinical trials have been performed.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of MRF versus MFU-V for the lifting and tightening of the face and neck.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty subjects with mild to moderate skin laxity received MFU-V over one-side of the face and MRF over the other side of the face at the same time. Subjects were followed for 6 months.
RESULTS: Both MRF and MFU-V led to a decrease in the Fasil Face and Neck Laxity Grading Scale (FLR). These differences became significant at Day 30 and remained significantly improved through Days 90 and 180 in both groups. There was no statistically significant difference in the FLR Scale between MRF-treated and MFU-V-treated sides. Subjects' Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale showed improvement at Day 30, 90, and 180.
CONCLUSION: Both MRF and MFU-V led to significant improvement in face and neck laxity. There were no statistical differences between MRF and MFU-V in standardized investigator measures of face and neck laxity, patient satisfaction, and adverse events.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of MRF versus MFU-V for the lifting and tightening of the face and neck.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty subjects with mild to moderate skin laxity received MFU-V over one-side of the face and MRF over the other side of the face at the same time. Subjects were followed for 6 months.
RESULTS: Both MRF and MFU-V led to a decrease in the Fasil Face and Neck Laxity Grading Scale (FLR). These differences became significant at Day 30 and remained significantly improved through Days 90 and 180 in both groups. There was no statistically significant difference in the FLR Scale between MRF-treated and MFU-V-treated sides. Subjects' Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale showed improvement at Day 30, 90, and 180.
CONCLUSION: Both MRF and MFU-V led to significant improvement in face and neck laxity. There were no statistical differences between MRF and MFU-V in standardized investigator measures of face and neck laxity, patient satisfaction, and adverse events.