Device-based methods in facial skin restoration during rehabilitation after plastic and reconstructive surgeries
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.26641/2307-0404.2025.3.340536Keywords:
device-based methods, reconstructive surgery, plastic surgery, rehabilitation, skin restoration, radiofrequency therapy, laser therapy, light therapyAbstract
An analysis of current scientific literature shows that device-based treatment methods play an important role in the comprehensive postoperative rehabilitation of patients after reconstructive and plastic surgery on the face. Despite the active introduction of radiofrequency, laser, ultrasound and light methods into clinical practice, the question of comparing their effectiveness remains open. This is particularly relevant in the treatment of the consequences of deep mechanical and thermal damage, which are accompanied by complex processes of skin restoration. Objective: to conduct an analysis, including a multidimensional comparative analysis, of device-based methods for facial skin restoration during rehabilitation after plastic and reconstructive surgery. The study involved 72 subjects (women and men, average age 40.5±8.1 years) who underwent plastic or reconstructive surgery on the face. Depending on the method of hardware exposure, patients were divided into four groups: radiofrequency, laser, ultrasound (HIFU) and light (LED/IPL) therapy. The control group (n=24) consisted of patients who received only traditional treatment without device-based methods. The Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS), biometric parameters (Cutometer®, Corneometer®), dermatoscopy and the visual analogue scale (VAS) were used to evaluate the results. A multidimensional comparative analysis was performed using the sum of squares method, which took into account five key characteristics: clinical effectiveness, duration of the procedure, number of sessions, interval between surgery and the start of therapy, and cost of treatment. LED light therapy received the highest rating (R=1), which was characterised by the shortest interval between surgery and the start of treatment (21 days), the lowest cost (6,000 UAH) and the shortest duration of the procedure (0.5 hours). Radiofrequency and non-ablative laser therapies received the same rating (R=2), indicating their high effectiveness but longer and more expensive therapy (1 hour and 9-15 thousand UAH, respectively). The ultrasound method ranked third (R=3) due to significant time (90 days) and financial (15,000 UAH) constraints, as well as the duration of the procedure (1.5 hours). The results of the study indicate the advisability of early inclusion of LED and radiofrequency therapy in standardised rehabilitation protocols to improve skin healing quality, reduce the risk of scarring and enhance the overall aesthetic effect after plastic and reconstructive surgery on the face.
References
Alam M, et al. Efficacy of HIFU in enhancing facelift results: A randomized study. Dermatol Surg. 2021;47(5):289-98. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/DSS.0000000000002960
Jia X, Feng Y. Energy-based skin rejuvenation: A review of mechanisms and thermal effects. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2025;24(2):e16657. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocd.16657
Pan R, Gu D, Zhang Y, et al. Efficacy and safety of intense focused ultrasound for skin rejuvenation: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Dermatol Res. 2024;316(3):513.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00403-024-03263-y
Corduff N. Surgical or nonsurgical facial rejuvenation: The patients’ choice. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2023;11(10):e5318. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000005318
Shah SA, Alster TS. Anatomical approach to radiofrequency-assisted facial rejuvenation: A retrospective review. Aesthet Surg J. 2023;45(Suppl 1):S1-9. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjad001
Gold MH, et al. Radiofrequency microneedling in post-facelift skin rejuvenation. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2019;18(2):123-34. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocd.12759
Kneiber D, Amin M, Nguyen TA, Gharavi NM. Review of radiofrequency microneedling: History, devices and uses. J Cosmet Laser Ther. 2023;25(5-8):59-64. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/14764172.2023.2219851
Benítez-Roig V, Trelles MA. Procedure and results on lower face and neck rejuvenation using a temperature-controlled bipolar fractional radiofrequency microneedling device. Lasers Surg Med. 2022;54(5):639-47. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/lsm.23524
Chien AL, et al. Innovations in light-based therapies for aesthetic medicine. Int J Dermatol. 2023;62(5):615-22. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/ijd.16584
Kent DE, Jacob CI. Energy-based devices: The mainstays of aesthetic practices. The Aesthetic Guide [Internet]. 2023 [cited 2025 Apr 30]. Available from: https://www.theaestheticguide.com/energy-based-devices-treatments/energy-based-devices-the-mainstays-of-aesthetic-practices
Marchell NL, MacGregor JL. Safety and efficacy of combining RF microneedling with LED phototherapy in skin rejuvenation. Lasers Surg Med. 2022;54(6):716-24. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/lsm.23524
Nguyen L, Blessmann M, Schneider SW, et al. Radiofrequency microneedling for skin tightening of the lower face, jawline, and neck region. Dermatol Surg. 2022;48(11):1299-305. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/DSS.0000000000003502
Kamal A, et al. Blue light therapy: A skin treatment mask using blue light to cure skin disorders. Sukkur IBA J Emerg Technol. 2024;7(2):20-8. doi: https://doi.org/10.30537/sjet.v7i2.1454
Nadarajan V, Thota B, Dogaroiu A, Kim L, Niksic A, Barillas J, et al. Lasers, light, and energy-based devices in plastic surgery: A 3-year review of a resident cosmetic clinic experience. Aesthet Surg J Open Forum. 2024 Nov 29;6:ojae094. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/asjof/ojae094
Ryu HJ, et al. Ultrasound and radiofrequency sy-nergy for post-surgical facial contour maintenance. J Cosmet Laser Ther. 2024;26(1):20-8. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/14764172.2023.2219851
Shauly O, Marxen T, Menon A, Gould DJ, Miller LB, Losken A. Radiofrequency microneedling: Technology, devices, and indications in the modern plastic surgery practice. Aesthet Surg J Open Forum. 2023;5:ojad100. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjad100
Lin J, et al. Advancements in AI-driven energybased rejuvenation therapies. J Aesthet Sci. 2023;22(1):98-112.
Zhang Y, et al. Combination energy-based therapies in facial rejuvenation: A meta-analysis. Aesthet Med J. 2022;15(4):215-29.
Sullivan T, Smith J, Kermode J, McIver E, Courtemanche DJ. Rating the burn scar. J Burn Care Rehabil. 1990;11(3):256-60. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/00004630-199005000-00014
Hayes MH, Patterson DG. Experimental development of the graphic rating method. Psychol Bull. 1921;18(1):98-9.
Romanenko IV, Hubarieva OA. [Methods of statistical analysis in medical research]. Kharkiv: KhNMU; 2020. 168 p.
Rudenko VM. [Mathematical statistics]. Kyiv: Tsentr uchbovoi literatury; 2012. 304 p.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Medicni perspektivi

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Submitting manuscript to the journal "Medicni perspektivi" the author(s) agree with transferring copyright from the author(s) to publisher (including photos, figures, tables, etc.) editor, reproducing materials of the manuscript in the journal, Internet, translation into other languages, export and import of the issue with the author’s article, spreading without limitation of their period of validity both on the territory of Ukraine and other countries. This and other mutual duties of the author and all co-authors separately and editorial board are secured by written agreement by special form to use the article, the sample of which is presented on the site.
Author signs a written agreement and sends it to Editorial Board simultaneously with submission of the manuscript.



