ArticleLasers in medical science2026
Objective and subjective retrospective evaluation of XERF, a novel single-shot dual-frequency non-invasive monopolar radiofrequency.
Article in Lasers in medical science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Facial support is maintained by the vertical anchoring system, a collagen-rich network comprising the dermis, retinacula cutis, superficial musculoaponeurotic system, and retaining ligaments, which progressively deteriorates with age. Noninvasive monopolar radiofrequency (NMRF) induce collagen contraction and remodeling within these structures; however, clinical outcomes with conventional NMRF remain variable. XERF (Cynosure-Lutronic, South Korea) is a dual-frequency NMRF that sequentially delivers 6.78 MHz and 2 MHz energy within a single pulse. This study objectively and subjectively evaluated its efficacy for improving facial skin laxity and skin quality. This retrospective study reviewed adult patients who underwent a single XERF treatment session. Outcomes were extracted from routinely collected clinical data obtained immediately post-treatment and at 1- and 3-month follow-up visits relative to baseline. Objective assessments included three-dimensional stereophotogrammetry for volumetric redistribution, standardized morphometric analysis of periorbital lifting, and computerized skin-quality evaluation. Subjective outcomes were derived from completed prefilled questionnaires, including validated FACE-Q instruments, visual analog scales for perceived age and pain, overall satisfaction, willingness to repeat or recommend treatment, and Patient Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale scores. Safety was assessed through retrospective review of documented adverse events in medical records. Sixteen adult female patients completed follow-up. Objective assessments demonstrated volumetric redistribution, characterized by lateral volume augmentation and medial volume reduction. Periorbital morphometric analysis (n = 15) revealed progressive elevation of the eyebrows and upper eyelids. Skin-quality assessment showed improvements in wrinkle severity, skin evenness, pore size, and oiliness, with no significant changes in pigmentation. Subjective outcomes were consistent with objective findings, demonstrating improvements in FACE-Q scores accompanied by a reduction in perceived age. Treatment was well tolerated, with high patient satisfaction and only mild and transient adverse events. In this retrospective study, XERF demonstrates improvements in facial skin laxity and quality, supported by objective and subjective outcomes, with a favorable safety and tolerability profile. These findings should be considered preliminary and require confirmation in larger prospective controlled studies.
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.