Scholarlink

Background <p>Radiofrequency microneedling (RFMN) utilizes RF energy delivered via needles to the dermis to enhance texture, reduce laxity, and improve dyschromia. However, evidence has been fragmented by indication/device heterogeneity. We evaluated clinical effectiveness, safety, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of RFMN across dermatological conditions.</p> Methods <p>Searches of PubMed, Google Scholar, and Semantic Scholar (January 2015–July 2025) (PROSPERO registration: CRD420251089393) were conducted, and English-language RCTs, cohort studies, case series, and reports of RFMN across skin indications were included (non-human studies excluded). A modified Critical Appraisal Skills Programme&#xa0;(CASP) checklist was used for quality analysis. Findings were narratively synthesized.</p> Results <p>Forty-one studies met the criteria (15 RCTs, 19 prospective non-randomized studies, 5 prospective cohorts, 2 case series) spanning diverse geographies and Fitzpatrick skin types. For atrophic acne scars, RFMN consistently reduced scar scores and demonstrated efficacy comparable to fractional lasers. For skin laxity/photoaging, RFMN improved wrinkle scales, dermal density, and submental volume, (histologically evidenced). Additional benefits were noted for rosacea, melasma, and striae, though effect sizes varied. In primary axillary hyperhidrosis, <i>botulinum</i> toxin A outperformed RFMN for symptom reduction/comfort. Safety was favorable; erythema, edema, and transient pain predominated; post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation was infrequent and self-limited. PROs indicated high satisfaction and minimal downtime. Reporting of technical parameters, especially temperature, pulse width, and cooling, was inconsistent.</p> Conclusions <p>RFMN is safe, well-tolerated, with credible efficacy across multiple indications and skin types, and an attractive recovery profile. Standardized outcomes, longer follow-up periods, and rigorous reporting of device settings are necessary to refine protocols and facilitate head-to-head device comparisons.</p> Level of Evidence III <p>This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these evidence-based medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors <a href="http://www.springer.com/00266">www.springer.com/00266</a>.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Effectiveness of Radiofrequency Microneedling in the Treatment of Dermatological Conditions: A Systematic Review

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年4月28日

查看全文
  • Narendra Kumar,
  • Hyoung Moon Kim,
  • Ayaka Nishikawa,
  • Chan Yeong Heo,
  • Woffles T. L. Wu

摘要

Background

Radiofrequency microneedling (RFMN) utilizes RF energy delivered via needles to the dermis to enhance texture, reduce laxity, and improve dyschromia. However, evidence has been fragmented by indication/device heterogeneity. We evaluated clinical effectiveness, safety, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of RFMN across dermatological conditions.

Methods

Searches of PubMed, Google Scholar, and Semantic Scholar (January 2015–July 2025) (PROSPERO registration: CRD420251089393) were conducted, and English-language RCTs, cohort studies, case series, and reports of RFMN across skin indications were included (non-human studies excluded). A modified Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklist was used for quality analysis. Findings were narratively synthesized.

Results

Forty-one studies met the criteria (15 RCTs, 19 prospective non-randomized studies, 5 prospective cohorts, 2 case series) spanning diverse geographies and Fitzpatrick skin types. For atrophic acne scars, RFMN consistently reduced scar scores and demonstrated efficacy comparable to fractional lasers. For skin laxity/photoaging, RFMN improved wrinkle scales, dermal density, and submental volume, (histologically evidenced). Additional benefits were noted for rosacea, melasma, and striae, though effect sizes varied. In primary axillary hyperhidrosis, botulinum toxin A outperformed RFMN for symptom reduction/comfort. Safety was favorable; erythema, edema, and transient pain predominated; post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation was infrequent and self-limited. PROs indicated high satisfaction and minimal downtime. Reporting of technical parameters, especially temperature, pulse width, and cooling, was inconsistent.

Conclusions

RFMN is safe, well-tolerated, with credible efficacy across multiple indications and skin types, and an attractive recovery profile. Standardized outcomes, longer follow-up periods, and rigorous reporting of device settings are necessary to refine protocols and facilitate head-to-head device comparisons.

Level of Evidence III

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these evidence-based medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.