Journal of Clinical and Aesthetic Dermatology

APR 2017

An evidence-based, peer-reviewed journal for practicing clinicians in the field of dermatology

Issue link: http://jcadonline.epubxp.com/i/811500

Contents of this Issue

Navigation

Page 26 of 64

27 JCAD journal of clinical and aesthetic dermatology April 2017 • Volume 10 • Number 4 o R I g I n A L R E S E A R C h the indication for effective treatment. Immediately after the treatment, the treated area was visually assessed for skin response such as erythema and edema. Patients were asked to complete satisfaction questionnaires at the end of the treatment sessions. Overall change was graded on a scale of 0 to 4, where 0=no improvement, 1=mild (less than 25%) change, 2=moderate (between 25 and 50%) change, 3=significant (between 50 and 75%) change, and 4=extensive (more than 75%) change. Safety of the treatment was monitored by patient subjective grading of pain during every treatment. RESULTS Ninety-two percent of the patients were pleased with the results after completing all of the treatment sessions, and 92 percent of the patients would recommend the treatment to others. Twenty-two patients saw significant improvement in body shape, two saw only mild improvement, and only one patient did not see any change (Figures 4–7). To measure objective improvement, the authors used the five-grade GAIS, where 0=no improvement, 1=improvement of <25 percent, 2=improvement of 26 to 50 percent, 3=improvement of 51 to 75 percent, and 4=improvement of >75 percent. The mean GAIS improvement was found to be 2.36±0.84 (t-test, statistically significant p<0.001). Overall change graded by the physicians according to the GAIS provided the following results: 44 percent of the patients had more than 75-percent improvement, 32 percent of the patients between 51- to 75-percent improvement, 20 percent of the patients had between 26- to 50-percent improvement, and only four percent had less than 25-percent improvement (Figure 8). None of the patients experienced discomfort during the treatment, and no adverse events occurred during the treatments. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION The demand for nonablative skin tightening for body contouring and skin tightening is increasing. First-generation technologies were frequently associated with pain (monopolar) or low efficacy (bipolar/ multipolar). In this study, the authors use a new generation of RF—multisource RF technology— in a new configuration utilizing six circular electrodes, each connected to an independent RF generator. The unique ability of this technology to independently control the polarity of each electrode allows focused deep heat with decreased epidermal heating. Figures 4A–4C. Shaper treatment on the abdomen of a 44-year old woman. (A) baseline; (b) After eight treatment sessions; (C) After three months follow-up. Photos courtesy of Dr. Sam Robson, Aberdeen, UK.

Articles in this issue

Archives of this issue

view archives of Journal of Clinical and Aesthetic Dermatology - APR 2017