Consensus Recommendations for 4th Generation Non-Microneedling Monopolar Radiofrequency for Skin Tightening: A Delphi Consensus Panel

January 2020 | Volume 19 | Issue 1 | Original Article | 20 | Copyright © January 2020


Published online December 13, 2019

Anne Chapas , Brian S. Biesman , Henry Hin Lee Chan , Michael S. Kaminer , Suzanne L. Kilmer , Mary P. Lupo , Ellen Marmur , Susan Van Dyke

aUnion Square Laser Dermatology, New York, NY bBrian S. Biesman PLLC, Nashville, TN cHong Kong Dermatology and Laser Center, Hong Kong dSkin Care Physicians, Chestnut Hill, MA eLaser & Skin Surgery Center of Northern California, Sacramento, CA fLupo Center for Aesthetic & General Dermatology LLC, New Orleans, LA gMarmur Medical, New York, NY hVan Dyke Aesthetics, Paradise Valley, AZ

en over the course of the rounds because overall feedback is given to each participant. Second, the lack of face-to-face collaboration, coupled with the increased potential for participant burnout as the number of rounds increases.

Finally, although these Consensus Statements provide clinicians with recommendations, further work is necessary to generate the data that would be needed to develop evidence-based guidelines. We encourage the manufacturer to support the development of a patient registry that would allow prospective collection of outcomes data from both patients and treatment data from clinicians.

DISCLOSURES

All authors were financially compensated by Solta Medical, a division of Bausch Health, for their work on the development, editing, review, approval and decision to submit the manuscript for publication, their participation in the consensus statement process and analysis and interpretation of the data.

Solta Medical had no role in the design or conduct of the study nor collection, management, analysis or interpretation of the data; nor in the preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Dr. Anne Chapas had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

The authors would like to thank Jeffrey S. Dover MD, FRCPC, (SkinCare Physicians, Chestnut Hill, MA), for his expert review of the manuscript and Judi Miller (SRxA, McLean, VA) for assistance with consensus statement methodology research, questionnaire design and interpretation and manuscript preparation. Ms. Miller’s work was financially supported by Solta Medical.

REFERENCES

1. Descriptions of Methods and Techniques. Jytte Brender, in Handbook of Evaluation Methods for Health Informatics. 1st ed. Burlington, MA: Elsevier Academic Press; 2006.
2. Hsu CC. The Delphi technique: making sense of consensus. practical assessment, research & evaluation. 2007;12;10:1-8.
3. Jones J, Hunter D. Qualitative research: consensus methods for medical and health services research. BMJ (Clin Res Ed). 1995;311(7001):376–80.
4. Avouac J, Fransen J, Walker UA, Riccieri V, et al. Preliminary criteria for the very early diagnosis of systemic sclerosis: results of a Delphi consensus study from EULAR Scleroderma Trials and Research Group. Ann Rheum Dis. 2011;70(3):476–81.
5. Powell BJ, McMillen JC, Proctor EK, Carpenter CR, et al. A compilation of strategies for implementing clinical innovations in health and mental health. Med Care Res Rev. 2012;69(2):123–57.
6. Ilic D, Nordin RB, Glasziou P, Tilson JK, et al. Development and validation of the ACE tool: assessing medical trainees’ competency in evidence based medicine. BMC Med Educ. 2014;14(1):114.
7. Rosier PF, De Ridder D, Meijlink J, Webb R, et al. Developing evidence-based standards for diagnosis and management of lower urinary tract or pelvic floor dysfunction. Neurourol Urodyn. 2012;31(5):621-4.
8. Kerr MP, Mensah S, Besag F, de Toffil B, et al. International consensus clinical practice statements for the treatment of neuropsychiatric conditions associated with epilepsy. Epilepsia. 2011;52(11):2133-8.
9. Flume PA, Mogayzel PJ, Robinson KA, Rosenblatt RL, et al. Cystic fibrosis pulmonary guidelines: pulmonary complications: hemoptysis and pneumothorax. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2010;182(3):298–306.
10. Linstone HA, Turoff M. The Delphi method: techniques and applications. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley; 1975.
11. MedlinePlus [Internet]. Bethesda (MD): National Library of Medicine (US); https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed. Accessed September 4, 2019.
12. Burnes JA. Thermage: Monopolar radiofrequency. Aesthetic Surg J. 2005;25:38-42.
13. Alexiades-Armenakas M.R. A quantitative and comprehensive grading scale for rhytides, laxity and photoaging. J Drugs Dermatol. 2006 Sep; 5 (8): 808-9.
14. Dover JS, Zelickson B; 12-Physician multispecialty consensus panel. Results of a survey of 5,700 patient monopolar radiofrequency facial skin tightening treatments: assessment of a low-energy multiple-pass technique leading to a clinical end point algorithm. Dermatol Surg. 2007;33(8):900-7.
15. Solta Medical; Hayward, CA. Personal communication. June 26, 2019.
16. Jiminez-Lozano J, Vacas-Jacques P, Franco W. Thermo-elastic response of cutaneous and subcutaneous tissues to noninvasive radiofrequency heating. Excerpt from the Proceedings of the 2012 COSMOL Conference in Boston.
17. Kirsch KM, Zelickson BD, Zachary CB, Tope WD. Ultrastructure of collagen thermally denatured by microsecond domain pulsed carbon dioxide laser. Arch Dermatol. 1998; 134(10):1255-1259.
18. Kist D, Burns J, Sanner R, Counters J, et al. Ultrastructural evaluation of multiple pass low energy versus single pass high energy radio-frequency treatment. Lasers Surg Med. 2006;38:150-144.
19. Beasley KL, Weiss RA. Radiofrequency in cosmetic dermatology. Dermatol Clin. 2014;32:79-90
20. Fritz M, Counters JT, Zelickson BD. Radiofrequency treatment for middle and lower face laxity. Arch Facial Plast Surg. 2004;6:370-3. 21. Zelickson BD, Kist D, Bernstein E, Brown DB, et al. Histological and ultrastructural evaluation of the effects of a radiofrequency-based nonablative dermal remodeling device: a pilot study. Arch Dermatol. 2004;140:204-9.

AUTHOR CORRESPONDENCE

Anne Chapas MD drchapas@unionderm.com