A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Accuracy of a high-intensity focused ultrasound device with and without real-time visualization system in face and neck treatment of skin laxity. | LitMetric

Background: Microfocused ultrasound (MFU) is a nonsurgical treatment for the improvement of skin laxity. Multiple MFU devices with and without a visualization system are commercially available.

Aims: This study aims to compare the accuracy rates of MFU on target treatment areas with and without a visualization system.

Patients/methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted using 52 dermatologists as study subjects. Each subject was asked to treat one simulated volunteer on the face and upper neck with MFU for 2 sessions using the training mode. Participants were allowed to see the ultrasound monitoring screen in one session (visualized session) and were not allowed to see the monitoring screen in the other session (nonvisualized session). One investigator evaluated the accuracy rate by monitoring real-time whether an appropriate contact between the transducer and the skin is shown on the visualization system when the energy release button is pressed.

Results: Higher accuracy rates were observed in the visualized session than the nonvisualized session in all treatment areas including brow, lateral orbit, infraorbital, cheek, and upper neck. The greatest difference in accuracy rates was observed when performing the treatment on the upper neck. Participants with more experiences had higher accuracy rates while performing visualization session when compared to those who had less experiences. Visualized sessions required a significantly longer treatment time.

Conclusions: The utilization of MFU with visualization system increases the likelihood of proper skin contact. This in turn may give a more favorable treatment outcome and decrease the rates of complications from MFU treatment.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jocd.13512DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

visualization system
16
accuracy rates
16
upper neck
12
treatment
8
skin laxity
8
treatment areas
8
monitoring screen
8
screen session
8
visualized session
8
session nonvisualized
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!