ArticleJournal of cosmetic dermatology2025
Do Different High-Intensity-Focused Ultrasound Frequencies Have Different Effects? A Histological Analysis Correlated With Patients' Subjective Assessments.
Article in Journal of cosmetic dermatology, 2025. 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.
- Multimodal Non-Invasive Skin Imaging in Dermatology: Current Modalities, Clinical Applications, and Future Integration.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Dual-approach High-intensity Focused Ultrasound for Facial Contour Modulation and Submental Reduction.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2026Article
- Use of High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound in the Periorbital Rejuvenation: A Systematic Review.Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum · 2026Review
- High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound for Facial Rejuvenation and Body Contouring: A Bibliometric Analysis of Efficacy and Safety Studies.Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHigh-intensity-focused ultrasound (HIFU) has emerged as a noninvasive approach for facial rejuvenation, offering benefits such as collagen synthesis and subcutaneous fat reduction. However, the differential effects of varying HIFU frequencies on specific skin layers remain underexplored.
aimsTo evaluate the histological effects of different HIFU frequencies and correlate these findings with patient-reported outcomes, thereby optimizing clinical applications. PATIENTS/
methodsHistological analysis was performed on pig skin treated with HIFU at specific depths (2.0, 3.0, 4.5, and 6.0 mm) using the Ultraformer MPT device. Collagen types I and III, elastin fibers, and fat reduction were assessed using immunohistochemistry, Victoria blue staining, and Oil Red O staining. Additionally, 50 Asian female participants aged 30-60 years with skin laxity underwent HIFU treatment. Clinical outcomes were evaluated using standardized photographs, the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS), and a modified Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale.
resultsHistological analysis revealed increased collagen and elastin fiber synthesis and significant fat reduction post-HIFU. Clinical outcomes corroborated these findings, with 85.3% of participants reporting overall satisfaction and 70.6% noting improvements in facial contouring. Self-esteem assessments indicated a positive psychological impact, with 64.7% of participants expressing enhanced confidence.
conclusionsHIFU treatment at varying frequencies induces significant histological and clinical improvements, demonstrating its efficacy for skin rejuvenation. This study underscores HIFU's dual role in enhancing physical appearance and psychological well-being, supporting its integration into patient-centric aesthetic care.
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.