Maximizing Aesthetic Results with the Most Powerful Monopolar Radiofrequency: Clinical Techniques and Strategies
Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of delivering 300 shots in a single session on one side of the face versus 100 shots per session for three sessions with one-moth intervals on the contralateral side, assessing their respective contributions to skin lifting and tightening.
To compare the efficacy of two delivering methods – gliding and stamping, in achieving optimal results with monopolar RF treatment.
To investigate the synergistic effects and safety profile of combining Microfocused Ultrasound treatment with monopolar RF, both on the same day and in separate settings with a one-month interval.
Introduction: With the growing popularity of non-invasive skin rejuvenation procedures, monopolar radiofrequency (RF) treatment has emerged as a promising modality for skin lifting and tightening. This study aims to contribute to the existing knowledge by conducting a split-face investigation into the impact of varying treatment parameters on the efficacy and safety of monopolar RF.
Materials / method: A rigorous split-face study design was employed, with each participant undergoing different treatments on opposing sides of the face. Parameters such as the number of shots per session, delivery method (gliding vs. stamping), energy levels, and mode of operation (Standard vs. Comfort) were systematically varied and evaluated.
Results: The stamping method was found to yield superior results compared to gliding method at equivalent energy levels, albeit with higher reported pain scores. Interestingly, the gliding method allowed for an increased in energy levels, resulting in enhanced outcomes. While there was a slight inclination favoring the single-session approach, separated sessions also demonstrated efficacy.
The combination of MFU and RF on the same day showed better results compared to separate sessions, hinting at a potential synergistic effect between the two modalities.
No observable side effects were reported.
Conclusion: This comprehensive comparative analysis utilizes diverse evaluation methods, providing a thorough understanding of the nuanced factors influencing the effectiveness and safety of monopolar RF treatment. These findings offer valuable guidance for clinicians and practitioners in optimizing treatment protocol for non-invasive skin rejuvenation.
