Randomized split-face trial demonstrates rapid lower-face volume reduction in adults receiving combined ultrasound and radiofrequency, indicating enhanced contouring alongside transient nerve risks.
Microfocused ultrasound (MFUS) and microneedle radiofrequency (MRF) are widely used for nonsurgical facial tightening, yet single-session outcomes remain variable. This evaluator-blinded, prospective, split-face randomized trial assessed volumetric, ultrasound-derived, skin-quality, and safety outcomes after single-session MFUS, MRF, or combined MFUS + MRF treatment. Thirty participants received one randomized hemiface intervention, with standardized photography, three-dimensional volumetric imaging, high-frequency ultrasound, VISIA skin analysis, and adverse-event monitoring during follow-up. MFUS + MRF produced earlier and greater mandibular volume reduction at 1 month (mean change, − 2.34 mL; 95% CI − 3.63 to − 1.04) than MFUS (− 0.39 mL; 95% CI − 1.34 to 0.55) or MRF (0.05 mL; 95% CI − 0.47 to 0.56; both adjusted P < 0.05). At 3 and 6 months, reductions remained numerically greater after MFUS + MRF (− 2.48 and − 2.66 mL) than after MRF (− 1.44 and − 1.23 mL) and were similar to MFUS (− 2.46 and − 2.28 mL). In this early-phase study, MFUS combined with MRF resulted in more rapid and greater lower-face contour changes than either modality alone; however, MFUS-containing treatments were associated with higher rates of transient paresthesia and rare transient motor weakness, underscoring the need for cautious parameter optimization. Adequately powered studies with longer follow-up are needed to confirm durability and define the optimal efficacy–safety balance. Clinical trial registration : This study was registered with the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR) under the registration number ChiCTR2400087490 ( https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.html?proj=227608 ), and was first posted on 29/07/2024.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: