Microfocused Ultrasound With Visualization (MFU-V) Effectiveness and Safety: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

dc.contributor.authorAmiri M.
dc.contributor.authorAjasllari G.
dc.contributor.authorLlane A.
dc.contributor.authorCasabona G.
dc.contributor.authorPavicic T.
dc.contributor.authorSevi J.
dc.contributor.authorSpada J.
dc.contributor.authorVachiramon V.
dc.contributor.authorVasconcelos R.
dc.contributor.authorTuck Wah S.
dc.contributor.authorMuka T.
dc.contributor.authorFabi S.G.
dc.contributor.correspondenceAmiri M.
dc.contributor.otherMahidol University
dc.date.accessioned2025-03-08T18:21:51Z
dc.date.available2025-03-08T18:21:51Z
dc.date.issued2025-03-01
dc.description.abstractMicrofocused 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.
dc.identifier.citationAesthetic Surgery Journal Vol.45 No.3 (2025) , NP86-NP94
dc.identifier.doi10.1093/asj/sjae228
dc.identifier.eissn1527330X
dc.identifier.issn1090820X
dc.identifier.pmid39540440
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85218723501
dc.identifier.urihttps://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/105543
dc.rights.holderSCOPUS
dc.subjectMedicine
dc.titleMicrofocused Ultrasound With Visualization (MFU-V) Effectiveness and Safety: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
dc.typeReview
mu.datasource.scopushttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85218723501&origin=inward
oaire.citation.endPageNP94
oaire.citation.issue3
oaire.citation.startPageNP86
oaire.citation.titleAesthetic Surgery Journal
oaire.citation.volume45
oairecerif.author.affiliationRamathibodi Hospital
oairecerif.author.affiliationSanto Amaro Medical School

Files

Collections