| Literature DB >> 35368623 |
Man-Lok Lio1, Chang-Cheng Chang2,3,4,5, Andy Deng-Chi Chuang6, Li-Cheng Tsai7, Chien-Chou Chen8.
Abstract
Background: Multiple penetration depths of high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) treatment for facial rejuvenation have not been quantified.Entities:
Keywords: HIFU; facial aging; facial periorbital rejuvenation; high-intensity focused ultrasound; midface rejuvenation
Year: 2022 PMID: 35368623 PMCID: PMC8968221 DOI: 10.2147/CCID.S350556
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol ISSN: 1178-7015
Figure 1(A) Left, designed landmarks with four angular assessments. (B) Right, five linear assessments.
Movement of the Linear and Angular Assessments When Rejuvenation Present After Treatment
| Symbol | Length | Movement When Rejuvenation Present |
|---|---|---|
| a | Eyebrow-Orbital length | ↑ increased |
| b | Orbital-Upper Eyelid length | ↓ decreased |
| c | Vertical Palpebral Fissure length | ↑ increased |
| d | Eyebrow-Iris length | ↓ decreased |
| e | Tragus-Oral length | ↓ decreased |
| A | Eyebrow Peak angle | ↑ increased |
| B | Eyebrow Tail angle | ↑ increased |
| C | Pupil-Eyebrow Peak angle | ↓ decreased |
| D | Canthus-Oral-Nasal angle | ↑ increased |
Means of the Assessment Results for 12 Patients Along with the Angles, Standard Deviations, and p values < 0.05 Were Considered Statistically Significant
| n=24 | 0 Day | 60 Days | 90 Days |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eyebrow peak angle ± SD | 25.958° ± 4.554° | 26.750° ± 4.748° | 28.208° ± 3.923° |
| / | 0.1322 | 0.0003 | |
| Eyebrow tail angle ± SD | 3.417° ± 5.291° | 4.292° ± 4.573° | 4.250° ± 4.306° |
| / | 0.1377 | 0.2011 | |
| Pupil–eyebrow peak angle ± SD | 4.000° ± 2.414° | 3.917° ± 2.466° | 2.833° ± 2.057° |
| / | 0.8024 | < 0.0001 | |
| Canthus–oral–nasal angle ± SD | 29.625° ± 5.037° | 29.792° ± 4.644° | 29.958° ± 4.573° |
| / | 0.7974 | 0.5881 |
Abbreviations: N, the sample size; SD, standard deviation; angles, degrees.
Means of the Assessment Results for 12 Patients Along with the Lines, Standard Deviations, and p values < 0.05 Were Considered Statistically Significant
| n=24 | 0 Days | 60 Days | 90 Days |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eyebrow–orbital length (mm) ± SD | 3.100 ± 1.184 | 3.600 ± 1.304 | 3.991 ± 1.409 |
| / | 0.0126 | 0.0016 | |
| Orbital–upper eyelid length (mm) ± SD | 7.204 ± 2.208 | 6.883 ± 1.848 | 6.588 ± 1.909 |
| / | 0.2431 | 0.0352 | |
| Vertical palpebral fissure length (mm) ± SD | 11.163 ± 1.157 | 11.758 ± 1.775 | 11.979 ± 1.187 |
| / | 0.1034 | 0.0052 | |
| Eyebrow–Iris length (mm) ± SD | 6.813± 2.663 | 7.250 ± 2.933 | 6.633 ± 2.436 |
| / | 0.1411 | 0.5440 | |
| n=12 | 0 days | 60 days | 90 days |
| Tragus–oral length (mm) ± SD | 169.893 ± 26.617 | 171.400 ± 27.531 | 168.852 ± 25.354 |
| / | 0.4477 | 0.4943 |
Abbreviations: N, the sample size, SD, standard deviation, mm, millimeter.
Figure 2(Left) Pretreatment (day 0) and (Right) posttreatment (days 90) comparison using our designed angles and lengths system. Upward red arrows mean the data was increased posttreatment (days 90) and vice versa. Solid arrows mean rejuvenation was obtained and hollow arrow means no rejuvenation posttreatment (days 90). Standardized photographs were obtained with OBSERV A+.