Expert consensus establishes MFU-V as a safe, effective method for addressing skin laxity in the abdomen and upper arms, suggesting evidence-based treatment protocols.
Background Microfocused ultrasound with visualization (MFU‐V) is well established for noninvasive lifting of the face, neck, and décolleté. U.S. FDA clearance was recently granted for treatment of the abdomen and upper arms, supported by favorable safety data and emerging evidence of efficacy of its use to address skin and soft tissue laxity in body regions. Guidance on best practices for these additional indications is desirable. Aims This consensus aims to provide evidence‐based and practice‐informed recommendations supporting safe, effective, and reproducible MFU‐V treatments for the additional body indications. Methods An international, multidisciplinary panel of aesthetic experts developed consensus recommendations for MFU‐V treatment of additional body areas based on clinical evidence, expert experience, and structured virtual discussions. Results This global expert consensus affirms MFU‐V as a safe and effective noninvasive modality for treating mild to moderate skin and soft tissue laxity in the abdomen and upper arms. Three key domains were identified as critical to optimizing outcomes: patient selection, treatment planning, and expectation management. Ideal candidates are those with mild to moderate laxity and target tissues located at treatable depths. Real‐time ultrasound imaging was emphasized for accurate targeting, anatomical safety, and treatment precision. The panel developed practical treatment protocols for the abdomen and upper arms, including recommended treatment zones, line densities, and transducer depths tailored to tissue characteristics. Conclusion Safe and effective MFU‐V outcomes rely on real‐time ultrasound visualization, thoughtful patient selection, expectation management, and anatomically guided treatment. Continued research is needed to refine protocols and guide emerging body applications.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lin et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: