A comparative study of pain perception during the microfocused ultrasound procedure between topical anesthesia and combined topical anesthesia with forced air cooling
1
Issued Date
2023-04-01
Resource Type
ISSN
14732130
eISSN
14732165
Scopus ID
2-s2.0-85145329280
Pubmed ID
36575874
Journal Title
Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology
Volume
22
Issue
4
Start Page
1279
End Page
1285
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology Vol.22 No.4 (2023) , 1279-1285
Suggested Citation
Vachiramon V., Palakornkitti P., Anuntrangsee T., Rutnin S., Visessiri Y., Fabi S. A comparative study of pain perception during the microfocused ultrasound procedure between topical anesthesia and combined topical anesthesia with forced air cooling. Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology Vol.22 No.4 (2023) , 1279-1285. 1285. doi:10.1111/jocd.15568 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/123456789/82346
Title
A comparative study of pain perception during the microfocused ultrasound procedure between topical anesthesia and combined topical anesthesia with forced air cooling
Other Contributor(s)
Abstract
Background: The experience of pain during microfocused ultrasound with visualization (MFU-V) treatment is common and crucial for dictating patient satisfaction and retention. Objective: To compare the pain perception during the MFU-V procedure between two pain reduction methods (topical anesthesia alone versus combined topical anesthesia with forced air cooling). Materials and Methods: This was a prospective, single-blinded, randomized controlled trial. A square area on the inner side of both arms of healthy volunteers was marked as an experimental site and randomly assigned to receive each pain reduction method: topical anesthesia or combined topical anesthesia with forced air cooling. Thereafter, MFU-V was performed with a 4.5 MHz, 4.5 mm transducer (10 lines, 0.9 J) followed by a 7 MHz, 3.0 mm transducer (10 lines, 0.3 J). The visual analog scale (VAS) for pain was measured immediately after 4.5 mm transducer (T1a), immediately after 3.0 mm transducer (T1b), and after the entire procedure (T2). Results: Twenty-one participants with a mean (SD) age of 34.67 (±6.18) years were enrolled. The mean (±SD) pain score of combined topical anesthesia with forced air cooling-treated area was 5.40 (±1.64), 4.80 (±1.63), and 5.40 (±1.56) at T1a, T1b, and T2, respectively. The mean pain score for topical anesthesia-treated areas was 5.89 (±1.45), 5.00 (±1.72), and 5.76 (±1.67) at T1a, T1b, and T2, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences in the pain perception between the two methods. Conclusion: The addition of forced air cooling is not beneficial for pain reduction during the MFU-V procedure because its temperature reduction effect cannot be delivered to the deep parts of the skin, which is the target site of MFU-V.