Ultherapy: A Device We Don't Have, With Thicker Evidence Than Ours | 미소의원엔 없는 울쎄라, 근거는 왜 더 두꺼울까요?

🇰🇷 한글

한 줄 요약: 미소의원에는 울쎄라가 없어요. 다만 이 계열에서 유일하게 미치료 대조군을 둔 무작위 시험(NCT04795622)이 있는데, 90일 맹검 판정은 치료군 54.2% vs 대조군 47.0%로 유의하지 않았고, 같은 시험의 시술자 평가는 96.8%였어요.

먼저 말씀드릴게요 — 저희에겐 울쎄라가 없어요

이 글은 시술 소개가 아니에요. 저희 장비들의 근거를 계속 "대조군 없다"고 적어오다 보니, 대조군을 둔 시험이 있는 장비는 어떤 결과였는지 궁금해서 찾아봤어요.

대조군을 두자 숫자가 확 달라졌어요

시술군 101명과 90일간 미치료 대조군 100명을 비교한 무작위 시험(NCT04795622)에서, 맹검 평가자가 사진만 보고 판정했을 때 치료군 54.2%, 대조군 47.0%가 "좋아졌다"로 나왔고 이 차이는 통계적으로 유의하지 않았어요. 같은 시험에서 시술자 총괄평가는 96.8%, 환자 본인 평가는 94.7%였어요. 누가 평가했는지가 숫자를 이렇게 바꿔요.

이 47%가 제일 중요한 숫자예요

아무 시술도 안 받은 사람의 47%가 "좋아졌다"로 판정됐다는 건, 조명·각도·부기·표정만으로도 사진 판정이 그만큼 흔들린다는 뜻이에요. 대조군 없는 전후사진 개선율엔 이 47%가 이미 섞여 있고, 저희가 쓰는 장비들의 전후사진 근거에도 똑같이 적용되는 경고예요.

효과가 없다는 뜻은 아니에요

1회 시술·90일·경도~중등도 처짐 조건에서 우월성이 확인되지 않았다는 것이지, 효과가 없다고 증명된 건 아니에요. 이 계열에 대조군 시험이 이것 하나뿐이라는 점도 같이 봐야 공정해요.

자주 묻는 질문

Q. 미소의원에서 울쎄라를 받을 수 있나요? 아니요. 저희가 하는 집속초음파는 올리지오 키스에 들어있는 다른 장비예요.

Q. 그럼 울쎄라는 효과가 없는 건가요? 아니에요. 특정 조건에서 우월성이 통계적으로 확인되지 않았다는 뜻이에요.

Q. 왜 시술자 평가와 맹검 평가가 이렇게 다른가요? 누가 평가했는지가 다르기 때문이에요. 맹검 평가자는 사진만 보고 판단해요.

---

이 글은 대구 미소의원(경대병원역 1번 출구, 이치학 원장) 정보를 바탕으로 작성했어요. 개인차가 있으니 상담 후 결정하세요. 문의 053-428-2700 · clinicmiso.co.kr

👉 더 자세한 근거는 홈페이지 원문 칼럼에 있어요. 관련 글: Density vs XERF vs Oligio Kiss · What is XERF? · Density: pain & downtime · Monopolar vs bipolar RF

---

🇺🇸 English

One-line answer: Miso Clinic doesn't offer Ultherapy. But it's the only device in this category with a randomized trial against an untreated control (NCT04795622), where the 90-day blinded assessment showed 54.2% vs 47.0% — not statistically significant — while the same trial's investigator-rated score was 96.8%.

Let's be upfront — we don't have Ultherapy at our clinic

This isn't a post promoting a treatment we offer. We keep writing that the devices we use (XERF, Density, and others) lack control-group studies, and that raised an obvious question: what does the one device in this category with a real control-group trial actually show? Looking into that led us to Ultherapy, so this post is about someone else's device.

Its US clearance wording is different from ours right off the bat

Ultherapy's FDA clearance language directly includes phrases like "lift the eyebrow" and "lift lax submental and neck tissue," and the summary states that clinical data from 167 subjects across seven studies was submitted. That's the opposite of the radiofrequency devices we use, which are cleared only for electrocoagulation and hemostasis. Worth noting, though: that clearance wording is qualified as producing "temporary" changes.

The numbers shifted once a control group was added

The manufacturer registered and published results for a randomized trial (NCT04795622): 101 treated patients versus 100 untreated controls followed for 90 days. Blinded reviewers, looking only at photos, rated 54.2% of the treated group as improved versus 47.0% of the untreated control group — a difference that wasn't statistically significant (the confidence interval for the odds ratio crossed 1). The trial's stated goal was to demonstrate superiority over an untreated control, and at this endpoint, that goal wasn't met.

But the treating physicians rated it 96.8%

In that same trial, with the same patients, the investigator's overall assessment was 96.8% improved, and patients rated themselves at 94.7%. Compare that to the blinded reviewers' 54.2%. That gap is exactly the point — who's doing the rating changes the number dramatically. When the person evaluating knows a treatment happened, expectation and memory inevitably creep in.

That 47% might be the most important number here

The fact that 47% of people who received no treatment at all were still rated as "improved" tells you how much lighting, angle, swelling, expression, and just having an off day can shift a photo assessment. That means any improvement rate built purely from before/after photos, without a control group, likely already has some of that 47% baked in. And that's not just about Ultherapy — it applies equally to the before/after evidence behind devices we ourselves use, like XERF and Density.

This doesn't mean Ultherapy doesn't work

What this trial shows is that, under a specific set of conditions — a single session, a 90-day endpoint, mild-to-moderate laxity — superiority over an untreated control wasn't confirmed. That's different from proving the treatment has no effect. It's also fair to note this is the only controlled trial that exists in this whole category. We're not trying to recommend or discourage Ultherapy here — we just wanted to show, plainly, how much the numbers move once a control group enters the picture.

FAQ

Q. Can I get Ultherapy at Miso Clinic? No, we don't offer it. Our focused-ultrasound treatment is a different device built into Oligio Kiss, and no study has directly compared that device against Ultherapy in humans.

Q. Does this mean Ultherapy doesn't work? No. It means that under specific conditions (single session, 90 days, mild-to-moderate laxity), superiority over an untreated control wasn't statistically confirmed — that's not the same as proving no effect.

Q. Why is there such a big gap between the investigator rating and the blinded rating? Because different people did the rating. The treating physician and the patient know a treatment happened, so expectation and memory factor in. Blinded reviewers only see photos. That's why the same trial can produce very different numbers depending on who's scoring it.

---

Based on information from Miso Clinic in Daegu, South Korea (Exit 1 of Kyungpook National University Hospital Station; Dr. Chihak Lee). Results vary. Please consult before deciding. Tel +82-53-428-2700 · clinicmiso.co.kr

👉 The full evidence write-up is on our website: original column. Related posts: Density vs XERF vs Oligio Kiss · What is XERF? · Density: pain & downtime · Monopolar vs bipolar RF