Fractional Laser Vs. Ultrasound for Periorbital Wrinkles

Early Phase 1

Active, not recruiting

• Conditions: Wrinkles

• Registration Number: NCT01529983
• Lead Sponsor: Northwestern University

Brief Summary

The primary objective of this study is to compare the efficacy of intense focused ultrasound and carbon dioxide-fractionated laser for treatment of periorbital wrinkles.

Detailed Description

This is a prospective randomized comparison study comparing the efficacy of micro-focused ultrasound versus fractionated carbon dioxide laser for treatment of periorbital wrinkles. Subjects who meet inclusion and exclusion criteria will be enrolled in the study. The treated sites are both lower eyelids and lateral orbits. Each side will be randomized to receive 1550nm-fractionated laser treatment on one side and the contralateral side will receive micro-focused ultrasound treatment every 6-8 weeks for a total of 2 treatments.

Study Timeline

• Study Start: 2012-02
• Study First Submitted: 2012-02-07
• Study First Submitted QC: 2012-02-07
• Study First Posted: 2012-02-09
• Status Verified: 2025-01
• Last Update Submitted: 2025-01-29
• Last Update Posted: 2025-01-31
• Primary Completion: 2025-12
• Study Completion: 2025-12

Recruitment & Eligibility

• Status: ACTIVE_NOT_RECRUITING
• Sex: All
• Target Recruitment: 20

Inclusion Criteria

1. Age 35-60 years old male and female subjects with moderate lower eyelid rhytids and crowsfeet
2. Subjects with Fitzpatrick skin type I-III.
3. Subjects who are willing, have the ability to understand and provide informed consent, and are able to communicate with the investigator.

Exclusion Criteria

1. Subjects who have received injectable soft-tissue augmentation materials to the face, or facial ablative resurfacing, within the past 6 months.
2. Subjects who were received injectable botulinum toxin to the face, or any nonablative laser treatment to the face, within the past 3 months.
3. Subjects who have local infections, open facial wounds, or other significant local skin disease that would interfere with periorbital treatment with energy devices.
4. Subjects who are allergic to lidocaine or prilocaine.
5. Subjects who have a history of abnormal scarring in the treatment area.
6. Subject who have ectropion or or other eyelid disfigurement.
7. Subjects who have history of isotretinoin use in the preceding year
8. Pregnant or lactating individuals

Study & Design

• Study Type: INTERVENTIONAL
• Study Design: CROSSOVER

Primary Outcome Measures

Name	Time	Method
Quantitative eyelid laxity scale	3 months	Two non-treating dermatologists will independently blindly evaluate the photographs at baseline, 1 and 3 months after treatment; differences will be resolved via a forced agreement process.
Global Improvement Scale	3 months	Global improvement scale score, as a percent improvement from baseline to 1 and 3 months, respectively, after treatment. Two non-treating dermatologists will independently blindly evaluate the photographs at baseline, 1 and 3 months after treatment; differences will be resolved via a forced agreement process.

Secondary Outcome Measures

Name	Time	Method
Adverse events	10 years	Any adverse events related to the use of the fractionated laser and ultrasound-tightening device (e.g. infection, prolonged erythema, prolonged edema, bleeding, ulceration, erosion or pigmentation) will be recorded.
Subject Satisfaction	10 years	Subject satisfaction will be determined by a satisfaction questionnaire, and subjects will be asked to select the treatment side they preferred

Trial Locations

Locations (1)

Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Department of Dermatology; 🇺🇸 Chicago, Illinois, United States