Device-based methods in facial skin restoration during rehabilitation after plastic and reconstructive surgeries

Авторы

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.26641/2307-0404.2025.3.340536

Ключевые слова:

device-based methods, reconstructive surgery, plastic surgery, rehabilitation, skin restoration, radiofrequency therapy, laser therapy, light therapy

Аннотация

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.

Библиографические ссылки

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.

Опубликован

2025-09-29

Как цитировать

1.
Hutchenko K, Shevchuk O, Savitska A, Kozachuk V, Alotaibi S, Shevchuk S. Device-based methods in facial skin restoration during rehabilitation after plastic and reconstructive surgeries. Med. perspekt. [Интернет]. 29 сентябрь 2025 г. [цитируется по 5 декабрь 2025 г.];30(3):25-30. доступно на: https://journals.uran.ua/index.php/2307-0404/article/view/340536

Выпуск

Раздел

DENTISTRY