A study of combined microfocused ultrasound and hyaluronic acid dermal filler in the treatment of enlarged facial pores in Asians. (5th August 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Vachiramon, Vasanop; Namasondhi, Amornrut; Anuntrangsee, Tanaporn; Kositkuljorn, Chaninan; Jurairattanaporn, Natthachat
• Is Part Of: Journal of cosmetic dermatology. Volume 20:Number 11(2021)
• Page Start: 3467
• Page End: 3474
• Publication Date: 2021-08-05
• Subjects: energy‐based device -- high‐intensity focused ultrasound -- rejuvenation -- soft tissue augmentation; Skin -- Diseases -- Treatment -- Periodicals; Lasers in surgery -- Periodicals; Skin -- Pathophysiology -- Periodicals; Surgery, Plastic -- Periodicals; 616.5
• DOI: 10.1111/jocd.14360
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1473-2130

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Enlarged facial pores are a common cosmetic complaint in practice. Microfocused ultrasound with visualization (MFU‐V) and low‐degree crosslinked hyaluronic acid filler (L‐HA) injection has recently become a popular procedure for skin rejuvenation. The effectiveness of the combined MFU‐V and L‐HA injection in the treatment of enlarged pores has not been evaluated. Objectives: To compare the efficacy of MFU‐V monotherapy (single technique) and MFU‐V combined with L‐HA injection (combined technique) for the treatment of enlarged facial pores in Asians. Methods: We conducted a randomized, single‐blinded, split‐face study on participants with enlarged facial pores. Each side of the face was randomly assigned to treatment with one session of single technique or combined technique. Pore volume was objectively measured by an Antera 3D ® system. Subjective assessment was evaluated by one‐blinded physician using a pore grading score (0–4). Patients rated the improvement in terms of satisfaction using the visual analog scale (VAS, 0–10). Results: Forty‐six participants completed the study. The mean pore volume of both sides declined with statistical significance at every visit compared to baseline, with the lowest mean at 4 months post‐treatment. The combined technique showed a lower mean pore volume than single technique throughout the follow‐ups. Physician's subjective evaluation showed no statistically significant difference between the two techniques. The patient satisfaction score showed a similar trend to the mean pore volume, with a statistically significant difference at 4 and 6 months post‐treatment. Conclusions: Both techniques are effectively minimize enlarged facial pores. The combined technique resulted in more patient satisfaction.