ReviewAesthetic plastic surgery2025
Clinical Relevance of Skin Tightening with Minimally Invasive Subdermal Energy-Based (EB) Technologies.
Review in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 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.
- Helium Plasma Radiofrequency for Aesthetic Subdermal Treatment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSkin retraction and tightening are essential cornerstones of facial rejuvenation and body contouring. Retraction depends on skin recoil secondary to volume reduction, while tightening results from active contraction of dermal and subdermal collagen fibers and activation of the healing process promoting neocollagenesis and neoelastinogenesis. Use of energy-based (EB) technologies including lasers, ultrasound, monopolar and bipolar radiofrequency (RF), and plasma/RF is becoming increasingly frequent for aesthetic interventions. The current review is intended to critically analyze their reported outcomes and determine their clinical relevance regarding skin retraction and tightening. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A systematic literature search was conducted across the MEDLINE, PubMed, and EMBASE databases.
resultsA limited number of clinical studies about each of percutaneous EB technologies were identified. Studies provide low-level evidence for skin tightening, and very few describe objective measurement with supporting documentation. Furthermore, most studies do not differentiate retraction due to volume reduction from actual improvement in skin biomechanical characteristics.
conclusionAlthough histologically significant outcomes have been demonstrated, clinically evident skin tightening with EB devices remains poorly measured and documented. Effective skin laxity correction and true long-term skin tightening are the result of reparative healing of a superficial dermo-subdermal injury, be it thermal or mechanical. Further studies are needed to determine the most effective device or modality able to induce a superficial injury capable of triggering the most intense flat scar contracture. Determining maximal potential of this natural biologic phenomenon is also necessary for selection of patients that would benefit most from minimally invasive interventions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. 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
40576814What 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.