Microfocused Ultrasound With Visualization (MFU-V) Effectiveness and Safety: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Issued Date
2025-03-01
Resource Type
ISSN
1090820X
eISSN
1527330X
Scopus ID
2-s2.0-85218723501
Pubmed ID
39540440
Journal Title
Aesthetic Surgery Journal
Volume
45
Issue
3
Start Page
NP86
End Page
NP94
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
Aesthetic Surgery Journal Vol.45 No.3 (2025) , NP86-NP94
Suggested Citation
Amiri M., Ajasllari G., Llane A., Casabona G., Pavicic T., Sevi J., Spada J., Vachiramon V., Vasconcelos R., Tuck Wah S., Muka T., Fabi S.G. Microfocused Ultrasound With Visualization (MFU-V) Effectiveness and Safety: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Aesthetic Surgery Journal Vol.45 No.3 (2025) , NP86-NP94. NP94. doi:10.1093/asj/sjae228 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/105543
Title
Microfocused Ultrasound With Visualization (MFU-V) Effectiveness and Safety: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Author's Affiliation
Corresponding Author(s)
Other Contributor(s)
Abstract
Microfocused ultrasound with visualization (MFU-V) is an advanced, noninvasive cosmetic procedure widely performed for skin lifting and tightening. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the aesthetic effectiveness, patient satisfaction, skin quality, and safety profile of MFU-V treatment. A comprehensive search of 5 bibliographic databases up to 2023 was conducted. Pooled effect estimates with random effects models and corresponding 95% confidence intervals were calculated. Out of 4019 references, 42 studies were included. Meta-analysis showed 89% of patients (95% CI: 81%-94%; I2: 63%, n = 411) demonstrated some degree of global aesthetic improvement, as assessed by investigators. Similarly, 84% of patients (95% CI: 73%-91%; I2: 64%, n = 312) reported improvement following treatment. Satisfaction of any level was reported by 84% of patients (95% CI: 61%-94%; I2: 52%, n = 326), and 62% (95% CI: 37%-82%; I2: 3%, n = 172) when “neutral” as a response option was provided for patients. Skin quality (eg, wrinkles, texture) also improved. Patients reported a pooled mean pain score of 4.85 (95% CI: 4.35, 5.35; I2: 97%, n = 785), indicating moderate pain. Common adverse events included erythema, edema, swelling, bruising, and tenderness, all of which were generally mild to moderate in severity. Overall, our analysis demonstrated a notable increase in global aesthetic improvement and patient satisfaction following MFU-V treatment, accompanied by moderate pain and a generally favorable safety profile. However, the potential misclassification of neutral responses as positive may result in an overestimation of the treatment's efficacy. These findings highlight the need for well-designed trials to further explore MFU-V's clinical applications.