Effectiveness of two types of micro-focused ultrasound devices in combination with botulinum toxin for facial rejuvenation
10.3760/cma.j.cn114657-20240819-00125
- VernacularTitle:两种微聚焦超声设备联合A型肉毒毒素注射用于面部年轻化的疗效
- Author:
Haijie WANG
1
;
Danyang CHEN
1
;
Pan PENG
1
;
Ling ZHOU
1
;
Min WANG
1
;
Lili YE
1
;
Yulin CAO
1
;
Wei ZHOU
1
;
Jia GUO
1
;
Liang GUO
1
Author Information
1. 武汉大学中南医院整形美容科，武汉 430071
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Focused ultrasound therapy;
Micro-focused ultrasound;
Botulinum toxin;
Facial rejuvenation
- From:
Chinese Journal of Medical Aesthetics and Cosmetology
2025;31(2):131-137
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To investigate the efficacy of two types of micro-focused ultrasound devices combined with botulinum toxin type A (BoNT-A) injection for facial rejuvenation.Methods:A retrospective study was conducted, including 60 female patients aged 28-70 (41.3±7.9) years, who received facial rejuvenation treatment at the Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, from April 2023 to April 2024. Patients were divided into two groups based on the treatment method: the control group (received only micro-focused ultrasound treatment, n=30) and the combined group (received both micro-focused ultrasound and BoNT-A injection, n=30). Additionally, patients were further categorized into four subgroups based on the type of micro-focused ultrasound device used: Peninsula Microultra? (PM) device group ( n=15), Intelligent Ultrasound? (IU) device group ( n=15), PM device + BoNT-A injection group ( n=15), and IU device + BoNT-A injection group ( n=15). The severity of facial wrinkles was assessed using the wrinkle severity rating scale (WSRS), the Merz aesthetic scale (MAS), and the global aesthetic improvement scale (GAIS) at baseline and 6 months post-treatment. Adverse event rates were also recorded. Results:At 6 months post-treatment, the combined group showed significantly lower WSRS and MAS scores than the control group (both P<0.001). No significant differences were found between the PM and IU device groups, or between the PM + BoNT-A and IU + BoNT-A groups regarding WSRS and MAS scores (all P>0.05). Self-reported GAIS improvement was 56.7% (17/30) for the control group and 80.0% (24/30) for the combined group, with the combined group showing superior results ( P=0.015). The physician-assessed GAIS improvement was 70.0% (21/30) for the control group and 96.7% (29/30) for the combined group, again with the combined group showing superior results ( P=0.007). No significant differences were found in self-reported or physician-assessed GAIS improvement between the PM and IU device groups, or between the PM + BoNT-A and IU + BoNT-A groups (all P>0.05). No severe adverse reactions, such as blisters, scabbing, purpura, bruising, scarring, peripheral facial paralysis, allergies, muscle weakness, dysphagia, or dysphonia, were observed in any patient. Conclusion:The combination of micro-focused ultrasound and BoNT-A injection for facial rejuvenation is more effective than micro-focused ultrasound alone, while there are no significant differences in efficacy between the two micro-focused ultrasound devices.
