ArticleArchives of dermatological research2025
An 18-year comprehensive safety study on microfocused ultrasound and monopolar radiofrequency combined with cosmetic injectables in 1,040 patients.
Article in Archives of dermatological research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Microfocused ultrasound (MFU) and (MRF) are non-invasive modalities widely used for skin rejuvenation and are often combined with injectables, including neuromodulators and soft tissue fillers. However, large-scale, long-term safety data on such combination therapies are lacking. To address this gap, we conducted a retrospective chart review at two private practice dermatology clinics in South Korea from June 2005 to December 2023. A total of 1,040 patients were included, comprising 515 (49.5%) and 525 (50.5%) patients undergoing MFU and MRF, respectively. Regarding combination therapy, the patients received neuromodulators (76.9%) or dermal filler injections using hyaluronic acid (HA) (17.3%) or poly-L-lactic acid (PLLA) (5.8%) in conjunction with MFU/MRF. Documented adverse events included one case of paradoxical bulging and three cases of eyelid ptosis among those treated with MFU/MRF and neuromodulators (overall incidence: 0.1% and 0.4%, respectively), two cases of surface irregularity among those treated with MFU/MRF and HA fillers (overall incidence: 1.1%), and one case of cheek asymmetry among those treated with MFU/MRF and PLLA injections (overall incidence: 1.7%). No adverse events such as infection, necrosis, burn, filler migration, or unexpected premature loss of filler were reported. While limited by its retrospective design and the inclusion of only two dermatology clinics, which restricts the generalizability of the findings, our study highlights the favorable long-term safety profile of combining MFU and MRF with cosmetic injectables. Our study offers reassurance to clinicians and patients considering these approaches.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39821337What 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.