Efficacy and Safety of Microwave Energy–Based Device for Facial Rejuvenation: A Retrospective Comparative Study With High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound

BACKGROUND: Facial aging is characterized by soft tissue atrophy, subcutaneous fat redistribution, and dermal laxity, most pronounced in the lower face and submental region. High-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) is the benchmark noninvasive lifting modality, whereas microwave energy-based devices (MEBDs) have recently emerged, targeting adipose tissue and dermis. Although MEBD has been validated in body contouring, evidence for facial efficacy and safety remains limited. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of MEBD and HIFU for facial rejuvenation in an East Asian population, emphasizing temporal improvement patterns, tolerability, and adverse events. METHODS: The authors retrospectively analyzed 171 patients (MEBD: n = 89; HIFU: n = 82) treated at a single institution. MEBD used 7 and 3 mm handpieces for subcutaneous lipolysis and dermal tightening, guided by fat-compartment mapping. HIFU applied 600 shots at 3.0 and 4.5 mm depths targeting the dermis and superficial musculoaponeurotic system. Outcomes included blinded evaluator Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS), Cutometer elasticity, Facial Aesthetic Surgery Outcome Questionnaire (FACE-Q) satisfaction, pain, and adverse events, assessed at baseline, 1 month, and 3 months. RESULTS: MEBD showed greater early improvements in GAIS, Cutometer parameters (R2, R5), and FACE-Q scores at 1 month, with lower pain (2.3 vs 4.7, P < .001) and fewer adverse events. By 3 months, HIFU surpassed MEBD in sustained GAIS, FACE-Q, and elasticity gains. Both modalities were safe, with only mild, transient effects. CONCLUSIONS: MEBD demonstrated rapid onset, superior tolerability, and lower complication rates, whereas HIFU provided stronger long-term lifting and elasticity improvements. These findings support complementary clinical roles and a compartment-based rationale for facial MEBD.