ArticleAesthetic plastic surgery2024
Histological Changes of Porcine Animal Skin with Micro-focused Ultrasound.
Article in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Advanced azelaic acid hyalubilosome-loaded microneedles for potent anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, and antimicrobial for Acne treatment by up-regulation of Nrf2/HO-1 signaling pathway.International journal of pharmaceutics: X · 2026Article
- Next-Generation Minimally Invasive Anti-Aging Therapy: Incorporation of Resveratrol-Nicotinamide Cerosomes into PLGA Microneedles for Enhanced Skin Permeation.Pharmaceutics · 2026Article
- Enhancing the Efficacy of Poly-l-Lactic Acid Injections With Micro-Focused Ultrasound: An Evaluation of Combined Treatment and Optimal Sequence.Journal of cosmetic dermatology · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAs a noninvasive alternative therapy, microfocused ultrasound (MFU) has become a research hotspot in recent years for its potential to enhance skin laxity. While several clinical studies have explored the effects of MFU on improving skin laxity, there is limited literature available on the histological changes resulting from MFU treatments. It has been established that the skin structure and composition of the Bama miniature pigs closely resembles that of humans, including collagen content, type I collagen distribution, and elastin distribution.
methodsThis study primarily focuses on examining the histological alterations in the skin tissue of Bama miniature pigs following MFU application. We also selected some typical clinical photographs of patients treated with MFU and compared the clinical effects with histological changes observed in porcine skin. The MFU device utilized in this study incorporates ultra-pulse technology and large focal area technology.
resultsFollowing the standard operating procedures provided by the manufacturer, different handles were used in different skin area of pigs. Biopsies were obtained immediately after treatment and 1 month after treatment. Significant histological changes were observed in the Bama miniature pigs skin, including collagen contraction and fragmentation, dilation and congestion of superficial dermal capillaries immediately after MFU treatment; dermal thickening, increased thickness and density of collagen fibers, elevated levels of elastin and type I collagen, as well as thickened fiber septa in the adipose layer 1 month later. These histological results corresponded to clinical findings in human, such as facial redness and swelling immediately after treatment, and improvement in facial relaxation after approximately 1 month after treatment.
conclusionCollectively, these histological findings provide valuable evidence supporting the clinical application of MFU for enhancing skin laxity. NO LEVEL ASSIGNED: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each submission to which Evidence-Based Medicine rankings are applicable. This excludes Review Articles, Book Reviews, and manuscripts that concern Basic Science, Animal Studies, Cadaver Studies, and Experimental Studies. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.