Ingredient Beauty BenefitsRoute · Device-based
Microfocused ultrasound: brows rose 0.47–1.7 mm, and 42% of patients said they saw a change
In a 2023 systematic review of 16 studies, brow lift measured 0.47–1.7 mm and submental area fell 26–45 mm². In the same data, 92% were classed as improved by the treating physician — but only 42% of patients said so themselves. The gap between those two numbers is the honest size of this procedure.
Last checked Sep 17, 2026
Start here
- What it is
A device that focuses ultrasound to a point, creating heat only at a set depth beneath the skin. 'Ulthera' is the best-known name.
- What it is used for
Laxity of the face and neck, and in particular the jawline and the position of the brows.
- How it is said to work
It is said to leave the surface untouched while making many tiny points of thermal coagulation in the layer below, and that the healing of those points draws the tissue tighter.
There are no numbers and no citations in this box. What has been established, and how far, is below.
At a glance
- Session length
- 30–60 min
- Pain
- Very painful
- Downtime
- 0–2 days
- Sessions
- Once
- How long it lasts
- 6–12 months
- Relative cost
- Highest
- How well established
- Moderate evidence
“Reported in a trial” means a number a study on this page actually reported. “Typical range” is not a measured value but roughly how it is usually done, and it varies by clinic and by person.
Cost is not an amount but a band: where this procedure falls when the ones on this site are lined up per session, or per area treated. Real prices differ several-fold by clinic and by how much is treated, so they are not given here. Surgery is measured on a different scale and cannot be compared with this band.
This is not how large the effect is but how well confirmed it is. It shows the highest grade among the findings on this page.
Microfocused ultrasound with visualisation (MFU-V) focuses ultrasound to a point beneath the skin, creating small coagulation zones. In Korea the best-known brand is Ulthera.
This is not a topical cosmetic. It is a device procedure performed in a clinic, and this layer is kept separate from the ingredient layer.
The regulatory situation is the same as for radiofrequency: we have not yet opened the Korean device approval record, so this page says 'being verified'.
What is established
Measured in millimetres, brows rise about 1 mm
The 2023 systematic review screened 693 studies and kept 16. The inclusion criteria took randomised trials, controlled trials, cohorts — and case series of 10 or more.
The objectively measured values: brow lift 0.47–1.7 mm, and a 26–45 mm² reduction in submental area on lateral photographs.
It matters to look at those numbers as they are. A millimetre or so is a real change, but it is not the size that advertising photographs imply. This is the honest scale of the procedure.
The limits are equally clear. Some of the 16 are uncontrolled case series, every included study was in women only, and device settings and energies varied between studies. The authors noted that results decline with greater laxity and with a BMI above 30.
- Open-label trial in people (16) · sample size not reported · 52 weeks · Compared with no control group (before-and-after only) · Funding not declared · Endpoint instrument measurement PMID 36674277 · abstract read
Physicians said 92%; patients said 42%
The same review pooled two satisfaction scores separately.
Physician-rated (IGAIS, n = 337): 92% were classed as improved at day 90.
Patient-rated (SGAIS, n = 81): 42% at day 90, rising to 53% at day 360. The authors described the improvements as mild.
The same people, the same time point, and the scores split 92% against 42%. That does not mean one side is wrong. It means what you choose to measure can more than double the apparent size of the same procedure. This is exactly why this site shows the endpoint next to the evidence grade.
- Open-label trial in people (16) · 81 participants · 52 weeks · Compared with no control group (before-and-after only) · Funding not declared · Endpoint self-reported improvement PMID 36674277 · abstract read
We found no trial with a sham control
The same problem as on the radiofrequency page. Every randomised trial we read used either a different setting of the same device or a different device as its control. None compared against doing nothing.
The 16 studies in the systematic review also include uncontrolled case series. A change measured against baseline cannot be separated from time, lighting, posture, or knowing you were treated.
The review's authors wrote that future work should focus on objective outcome measures — which is another way of saying that the evidence so far leans heavily on subjective assessment.
The arm and abdomen trials compared one setting of the device against another
The 2021 trial randomised 30 people with upper-arm laxity to a single depth on one arm and two depths on the other. The 2020 trial used the same structure on the abdomen in 30 people, of whom 28 finished.
In both, single-plane and dual-plane came out the same. Arm circumference fell modestly on both sides.
Look at the design again: both sides were treated. So the question these trials answered is 'are two depths better than one', not 'does microfocused ultrasound work'.
One detail in the abdominal trial stands out. Participants who had given birth scored significantly higher on both physician and patient ratings, and their waist reduction was significant too. The sample is too small to settle anything, but it is a signal that who is treated moves the result a great deal.
- Randomised controlled trial in people · 30 participants · 26 weeks · Compared with another active ingredient · Funding not declared · Endpoint scores from blinded assessors PMID 32770693 · abstract read
- Randomised controlled trial in people · 30 participants · 26 weeks · Compared with another active ingredient · Funding not declared · Endpoint scores from blinded assessors PMID 32173882 · abstract read
Known risks
- Pain during treatment is common. The review called it moderately painful, and in the 2017 head-to-head against radiofrequency, the ultrasound side hurt more.
- Transient erythema and swelling are common.
- Other adverse effects in the review totalled 2%: dysaesthesia (numbness or hypersensitivity), bruising, stinging, mandibular burns, striations and contact dermatitis.
- Marked laxity and a BMI above 30 were proposed as relative contraindications.
- Any adverse reaction is something to have seen by the clinic that performed the procedure.
What is not established
- We have not verified the Korean device approval class.
- There is no follow-up data beyond one year; the review says so explicitly.
- There is no data in men. All 16 included studies were in women.
- Which device settings and energies are better — they varied between studies.
- How it compares against doing nothing at all.
Whether to have it done is a decision to make with a doctor.
What this article relies on
Unless marked otherwise, a paper was read to the abstract. Only papers whose full text we opened are marked as such.
- PubMed — 미국 국립의학도서관 문헌 데이터베이스National Library of Medicine · Checked on 2026-09-16