Ultherapy Clinical Trial Summary
Protocol A (Traditional Ultherapy) vs Protocol B (Ferrer Technique)
Study Overview
This clinical trial compared two Ultherapy treatment protocols across 8 patients to evaluate pain levels, treatment tolerance, recovery time, and aesthetic outcomes.
Patient Demographics
| Patient | Age | Gender | Ethnicity | Skin Type | Treatment Date |
|---|
| Merry Miller | 55 | Female | Anglo-Saxon | Type I | Jan 17, 2025 |
| Magaly Molina | 62 | Female | Hispanic | Type III | Dec 3, 2024 |
| Thomas Aubrey | 61 | Male | White | Type I | Dec 3, 2024 |
| Robin Arendt | 59 | Female | White | Type I | Dec 3, 2024 |
| Maria Gutierrez | 49 | Female | Hispanic | Type II | Jan 17, 2025 |
| Yanny Longart | 47 | Female | Hispanic | Type IV | Jan 17, 2025 |
| Mary Villarreal | 30 | Female | Hispanic | Type II | Jan 17, 2025 |
| Kay Granthan | 56 | Female | Caucasian | Type I | Dec 3, 2024 |
| Cournhey Koder | 41 | Female | Caucasian | Type II | Jan 17, 2025 |
Total Patients: 10 (9 Female, 1 Male)
Treatment Protocols
Protocol A (Traditional Ultherapy)
- 4.5mm Depth: Energy 0.90J
- 3.0mm Depth: Energy 0.30J
- 1.5mm Depth: Energy 0.18J
- Approach: Higher line count, lower energy per line
Protocol B (Ferrer Technique)
- 4.5mm Depth: Energy 1.20J (33% higher)
- 3.0mm Depth: Energy 0.45J (50% higher)
- 1.5mm Depth: Energy 0.25J (39% higher)
- Approach: Lower line count, higher energy per line
Pain Level Results
Protocol A (Traditional)
| Patient | Pain Level | Notes |
|---|
| Merry Miller | 10/10 | Treatment refused, incomplete |
| Magaly Molina | 8-9/10 | Incomplete treatment |
| Thomas Aubrey | 7/10 | Tolerable |
| Robin Arendt | 6-7/10 | Manageable |
| Maria Gutierrez | High | Upper area not tolerated |
| Yanny Longart | 5/10 | Moderate pain |
| Mary Villarreal | 1/10 | Well tolerated |
| Kay Granthan | 7-9/10 | Severe pain, required medication |
| Cournhey Koder | 7/10 | Incomplete due to discomfort |
Protocol B (Ferrer Technique)
| Patient | Pain Level | Notes |
|---|
| Merry Miller | 0/10 | Pain-free |
| Magaly Molina | 0/10 | No pain reported |
| Thomas Aubrey | 0/10 | No pain reported |
| Robin Arendt | 0-2/10 | Minimal discomfort |
| Maria Gutierrez | Well tolerated | Complete treatment |
| Yanny Longart | 0/10 | No pain |
| Mary Villarreal | 1/10 | Well tolerated |
| Kay Granthan | 0/10 | No pain, treatment completed |
| Cournhey Koder | 0/10 | No pain, treatment completed |
Treatment Completion Rates
Protocol A
- Incomplete Treatments: 4/10 patients (40%)
- Reasons: Severe pain intolerance, patient refusal
Protocol B
- Complete Treatments: 10/10 patients (100%)
- All patients completed full treatment protocol
Recovery and Side Effects
Protocol A
- Recovery Time: 1 week to 1 month
- Common Issues:
- Severe bruising and erythema
- Burning sensations
- Hematoma formation (1 case)
- Prolonged redness
- Post-treatment pain lasting days to weeks
Protocol B
- Recovery Time: 1 week or less
- Minimal Issues:
- Mild heat sensation
- Slight redness
- Minimal inflammation
- Makeup could cover any redness
6-Month Aesthetic Results
Protocol A Results
- Satisfied: 2/10 patients (20%)
- Dissatisfied: 8/10 patients (80%)
- Common Issues: Minimal visible improvement, requesting touch-ups
Protocol B Results
- Satisfied: 10/10 patients (100%)
- Notable Improvements:
- 80% improvement in brown spots (Maria Gutierrez)
- Significant skin lifting and texture improvement
- Enhanced skin color and tone
- Excellent eye area results
Patient Preferences for Future Treatments
Protocol A
- Would Repeat: 0/10 patients (0%)
- Definitive Rejection: 10/10 patients (100%)
Protocol B
- Would Repeat: 9/10 patients (90%)
- Preference for Future: All patients who would consider future treatment requested Protocol B exclusively
- Notes: 1 patient (Kay Granthan) satisfied with results but no intention to repeat any treatment
Clinical Conclusions
Primary Findings
- Pain Management: Protocol B demonstrated superior pain control with 90% of patients reporting pain-free treatment vs 10% with Protocol A
- Treatment Completion: Protocol B achieved 100% completion rate vs 60% with Protocol A
- Recovery Profile: Protocol B showed significantly faster recovery (≤1 week) vs Protocol A (1-4 weeks)
- Patient Satisfaction: Protocol B achieved 100% patient satisfaction vs 20% with Protocol A
- Aesthetic Outcomes: Despite higher energy levels, Protocol B produced superior or equivalent results with better patient tolerance
Statistical Summary
| Metric | Protocol A | Protocol B | Improvement |
|---|
| Pain-Free Treatments | 10% | 90% | +80% |
| Treatment Completion | 60% | 100% | +40% |
| Patient Satisfaction | 20% | 100% | +80% |
| Average Recovery Time | 2-4 weeks | ≤1 week | 75% faster |
Clinical Recommendation
Protocol B (Ferrer Technique) is conclusively superior to traditional Ultherapy, offering:
- Significantly improved patient comfort and tolerance
- Complete treatment capability across all skin types
- Faster recovery with minimal adverse effects
- Superior aesthetic outcomes with higher patient satisfaction
- Universal patient preference for future treatments
The study demonstrates that higher energy per line with fewer total lines (Protocol B) is more effective and tolerable than lower energy with higher line counts (Protocol A).