Comparative Evaluation of Oxygen- and Ultrasound-based Lymphatic Drainage Programs for Postoperative Recovery after Facial Plastic Surgery

Kim, Hyeon-Ji; Jeon, Han-Sung; Hyeon-Ji Kim; Han-Sung Jeon

doi:10.20402/ajbc.2025.0088

Asian J Beauty Cosmetol > Volume 23(4); 2025 > Article

안면성형 후 회복관리 프로그램의 효과 검증(OLG와 ULG의 비교)

Research Article

Asian J Beauty Cosmetol 2025; 23(4): 667-677.

Published online: December 18, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.20402/ajbc.2025.0088

안면성형 후 회복관리 프로그램의 효과 검증(OLG와 ULG의 비교)

김현지¹, 전한성^1,^2,^*

¹동국대학교 뷰티아트케어학과, 서울, 한국

²동국대학교 국어교육과, 서울, 한국

Comparative Evaluation of Oxygen- and Ultrasound-based Lymphatic Drainage Programs for Postoperative Recovery after Facial Plastic Surgery

Hyeon-Ji Kim¹, Han-Sung Jeon^1,^2,^*

¹Department of Beauty Arts Care, Dongguk University, Seoul, Korea

²Department of Korean Language Education, Dongguk University, Seoul, Korea

面部整形手术后恢复方案的有效性验证(OLG 与 ULG 的比较)

金泫知¹, 全韓成^1,^2,^*

¹东国大学美容艺术护理学科，首尔，韩国

²东国大学韩国语教育学科，首尔，韩国

^*Corresponding author: Han-Sung Jeon, Department of Korean Language Education and Department of Beauty Art Care, Dongguk University, Pildong-ro 1 gil 30, Jung-gu, Seoul 04620, Korea. Tel.: +82 2 2260 3394 Fax: +82 2 2260 3394 Email: maldoror13@hanmail.net

Received September 2, 2025 Revised October 6, 2025 Accepted November 13, 2025

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0), which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

요약

목적

본 연구는 안면 성형수술 후 회복을 위해 시행된 산소+림프 배출 관리(OLG)와 초음파+림프 배출 관리(ULG)의 효과를 비교하고자 하였다.

방법

총 16명의 참여자가 2주간 6회기의 회복관리 프로그램을 받았으며, 신체적 지표 변화를 반복측정 분산분석(repeated measures ANOVA)을 통해 분석하였다.

결과

두 집단 모두 시간에 따른 유의한 변화가 나타났으며, OLG는 초기 부종 감소에, ULG는 후기 탄력 및 수분 개선에 더 효과적인 것으로 나타났다.

결론

체계적인 회복관리 프로그램은 최소 3회기 이상 적용 시 안면 성형 후 회복에 효과적인 것으로 확인되었다.

핵심용어: 안면 성형 수술, 성형 후 회복 관리, 산소 요법, 초음파 요법, 림프 배농

Abstract

Purpose

This study compared oxygen + lymph drainage (OLG) and ultrasound + lymph drainage (ULG) for postoperative recovery following facial plastic surgery.

Methods

A total of 16 participants underwent six sessions, and physical indicators were analyzed via repeated measures analysis of variance.

Results

Both groups exhibited significant time effects: OLG was more effective in reducing early swelling, whereas ULG enhanced elasticity and moisture in later stages.

Conclusion

Structured recovery care was effective after at least three sessions.

Keywords: Facial cosmetic surgery, Postoperative recovery, Oxygen Therapy, Ultrasound therapy, Lymphatic drainage

中文摘要

目的

本研究比较了氧气 + 淋巴引流(OLG)和超声 + 淋巴引流(ULG)在面部整形手术后恢复中的应用。

方法

共16名受试者接受了6次治疗，并采用重复测量方差分析法分析各项生理指标。

结果

两组均表现出显著的时间效应: OLG在减轻早期肿胀方面更有效，而ULG在后期增强了皮肤弹性和水分。

结论

系统化的术后恢复护理至少需要3次治疗才能达到有效效果。

关键词: 面部整形手术, 术后恢复护理, 氧疗, 超声波疗法, 淋巴引流

Introduction

In contemporary society, cosmetic surgery is perceived as a means to enhance not only appearance but also self-esteem and psychological well-being (Triana et al., 2024). According to a cross-sectional survey comparing aesthetic procedure experiences across East Asian countries, South Korea showed one of the highest rates of aesthetic treatment experience and positive attitudes toward cosmetic procedures (Kwon et al., 2021). Recovery management plays a pivotal role in ensuring physical stability and psychological outcomes following surgery (Offodile et al., 2019).

Despite the importance of postoperative recovery management, most programs still rely on single modalities, such as radiofrequency or light emitting diode (LED) therapy, and lack a standardized, evidence-based framework (Uhlman et al., 2025). Recently, combined approaches-particularly manual lymphatic drainage (MLD) and device-assisted care-have attracted increasing attention owing to their ability to promote circulation and reduce swelling(Lee & Oh, 2020). MLD facilitates lymph flow and tissue regeneration (Kim et al., 2010; Van de Velde et al., 2020; Li et al., 2025), whereas oxygen and ultrasound therapies enhance recovery through distinct physiological mechanisms: oxygen therapy improves tissue oxygenation and cellular metabolism (Thom, 2011; Barysch et al., 2020), whereas ultrasound therapy promotes collagen remodeling and skin elasticity (Wong et al., 2023; Lee, 2019; Pan et al., 2024).

The enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) concept has been widely applied in aesthetic and reconstructive surgeries to promote faster, safer, and multimodal recovery pathways (Dumestre et al., 2017; Foster et al., 2025). Within this framework, early-stage, noninvasive management aimed at enhancing circulation and reducing inflammation is considered to be a critical component of postoperative care. However, few empirical studies have directly compared oxygen- and ultrasound-assisted recovery in combination with lymphatic drainage in patients undergoing facial surgery.

Therefore, this study aimed to compare the effects of oxygen therapy + lymphatic drainage (OLG) and ultrasound therapy + lymphatic drainage (ULG) on postoperative facial recovery. Objective indicators, such as edema, skin elasticity, and pigmentation, were analyzed to provide scientific evidence for ERAS-based, structured recovery protocols in aesthetic practice.

Methods

1. Participants

This study included 16 women aged 20-40 years who had undergone facial cosmetic surgery and were in the early postoperative recovery phase (between 3 days and 2 months postoperatively). They were classified into two groups according to their postoperative stage.

Group A (OLG, n=8) included participants within 3 weeks postoperatively who exhibited noticeable swelling and bruising, thereby requiring low-intensity care to alleviate irritation.

Group B (ULG, n=8) included participants within ≥3 weeks postoperatively, focusing on skin regeneration and elasticity restoration.

The study period lasted approximately 12 weeks, from December 12, 2024, to February 27, 2025, and all participants received the recovery management program three times per week for two consecutive weeks, totaling six sessions.

Program effectiveness was evaluated by comparing pre- and postintervention outcomes to analyze physical changes associated with recovery progress.

2. Experimental Design and Procedures

The recovery program spanned 2 weeks (three sessions per week, a total of six sessions) and was standardized and supervised by a single researcher following a standard operating procedure.

Each 60 min session included (1) cleansing (5 min), (2) device-assisted therapy (oxygen or ultrasound, 15 min), (3) MLD (15-20 min), (4) sheet mask for soothing and hydration (10 min), and (5) finishing care (5 min).

Oxygen therapy promoted microcirculation, tissue oxygenation, and lymphatic flow using adjustable air pressure (1.2-7.5 bar), whereas ultrasound therapy (3 MHz) enhanced tissue permeability, fibroblast activity, and dermal elasticity.

MLD followed the Vodder technique using gentle rhythmic strokes for 15-20 min to facilitate lymphatic return and reduce edema. Pressure intensity was adjusted according to swelling severity.

All procedures adhered to the ERAS concept, emphasizing noninvasive, circulation-promoting, and tissue-regenerative recovery.

3. Outcome Measures and Instruments

To objectively examine the effects of the postoperative recovery management program, facial data were collected using a 3D skin analysis system (Focuskin, Korea) and a 3D scanner (Creality, China). The intervention involved the use of a multifunctional device, Octoline II (Eunsung Global Co., Ltd., Korea), equipped with oxygen and ultrasound handpieces.

Facial measurement parameters were determined using validated techniques described by Kim & Jeon (2024), and outcomes were analyzed using ImageJ (NIH, USA) at baseline (T0) and after the sixth session (T6) (Figure 1).

4. Data Analysis

Data were analyzed using SPSS Statistics 26.0 (IBM Corp., USA). Frequency analysis, descriptive statistics, chi-squared (χ²) test, and independent t-test were employed to examine participants’ general characteristics and baseline homogeneity. Repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was adopted to test the main effects of Time, Group, and the Time × Group interaction to analyze temporal changes. Normality was evaluated using the Shapiro-Wilk test, and Greenhouse-Geisser corrections were used when Mauchly’s sphericity test was significant.

The reported F and P values were based on adjusted degrees of freedom. As the baseline sebum secretion (SS) levels differed between the groups (higher in ULG), repeated measures ANOVA, including SS as a covariate, was conducted. The results confirmed that the significance patterns for the main Time and Time × Group effects were consistent with the ANOVA results (all p>0.05).

Bonferroni-adjusted post hoc tests identified significant reductions from T0 to T6 (e.g., FW, JW, FL; adjusted p<0.05). Effect sizes were expressed as partial η², and statistical significance was set at p<0.05 (two-tailed).

5. Ethical Considerations

This study was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board of Dongguk University (approval no.: DUIRB2024-11-10). All participants were fully informed of the study’s purpose and procedures, and written informed consent was obtained before participation.

Results

1. General Characteristics and Homogeneity Test of the Participants

General characteristics and homogeneity test of participants A χ² test was conducted to analyze the participants’ general characteristics and confirm baseline homogeneity between the groups.

The analysis revealed that the largest proportion of participants (50.0%) were aged 30-34 years, most of whom (93.8%) resided in Seoul. Regarding education, the majority (75.0%) had completed a university degree, whereas the predominant occupations were freelancing (43.8%) and self-employment (31.3%). Monthly income was most commonly reported as ≥5,000,000 KRW (50.0%) and 4,000,000-4,999,000 KRW (43.8%), whereas 26.7% reported spending over 700,000 KRW per month on appearance management. Majority of the participants (93.8%) reported no history of allergies.

The results of the homogeneity test indicated no statistically significant differences between the groups for most variables (p>0.05), confirming that the groups were comparable. However, a significant difference was observed in the SS variable (p<0.05), suggesting that this factor should be cautiously considered when interpreting the results.

2. Changes in Facial Recovery Indicators Over Time

A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to examine changes in facial recovery indicators over time and determine whether such changes significantly differed between the groups.

1) Changes in Horizontal Facial Dimensions

The repeated measures ANOVA revealed that for facial width (FW), ear helix width (EHW), and jaw width (JW), neither the main effect of group nor the group × time interaction effect reached statistical significance.

However, the main effect of time was statistically significant for all indicators (FW: F=11.38, p=0.002; EHW: F=9.96, p=0.001; JW: F=15.46, p<0.001) (Table 1).

These findings indicate that FW gradually decreases over time in both management groups, suggesting that the recovery management program effectively contributes to the reduction of postoperative facial swelling.

2) Changes in Vertical Facial Dimensions

For facial length (FL), glabella–facial length (GFL), suborbital vertical length (SVL), and subnasale–to–chin vertical length (SCVL), neither the main effect of group nor the group × time interaction effect was significant. However, the main effect of time was significant for all variables (FL: F=11.48, p<0.001; GFL: F=24.12, p<0.001; SVL: F=16.17, p<0.001; SCVL: F=25.83, p<0.001) (Table 2).

These results indicate that both management groups exhibit consistent reductions in vertical facial dimensions over time.

3. Changes in Skin Properties

For pore size (PS), wrinkle (WR), skin elasticity (SE), and pigmentation (PI), neither the group effect nor the interaction effect reached statistical significance; however, the main effect of time was significant (PS: F=20.41, p<0.001; WR: F=13.41, p<0.001; SE: F=24.43, p<0.001; PI: F=16.87, p<0.001) (Table 3).

These results indicated that skin characteristics, such as pores, wrinkles, elasticity, and pigmentation, continuously improved over time.

Contrarily, the SS variable showed a significant group effect (F=10.03, p=0.007), which may have resulted from higher baseline values in the ULG group. Nevertheless, the main effect of time was also significant (F=25.75, p<0.001), suggesting a progressive reduction in sebum secretion in both groups (Table 3).

4. Effects and Satisfaction with Postoperative Recovery Management

The results of the χ² and independent t-tests indicated no statistically significant differences between the groups (p>0.05) (Table 4).

Among the perceived effects, the most frequently reported improvement was swelling reduction (87.5%), followed by accelerated recovery speed (43.8%), bruise reduction (18.8%), and pain relief (12.5%).

As regards satisfaction, the most frequently cited factor was swelling reduction (93.8%), followed by attentive professional care (43.8%) and use of advanced equipment (43.8%). These findings underscore swelling reduction as a key benefit of postoperative facial recovery management.

The average number of weekly sessions required to achieve noticeable recovery was 3.56, and the total number of sessions considered to be appropriate was 9.06. No significant differences were observed between the groups (p>0.05), suggesting that regardless of the specific management modality, at least three repeated sessions are required to achieve meaningful postoperative recovery outcomes.

Overall, oxygen- and ultrasound-based management methods effectively enhanced facial recovery and patient satisfaction, with no significant differences observed between the groups.

Discussion

This study compared the effects of OLG and ULG on postoperative recovery following facial cosmetic surgery.

Both methods showed significant short-term improvements in edema, bruising, and skin condition, confirming their efficacy as noninvasive recovery modalities. No statistically significant differences were observed between the groups, suggesting that oxygen and ultrasound therapies facilitate lymphatic circulation and tissue regeneration through distinct yet complementary mechanisms.

The results are consistent with previous reports indicating that lymphatic drainage effectively reduces postoperative swelling (Yaedú et al., 2017; Van de Velde et al., 2020), oxygen therapy enhances blood flow and cellular metabolism (Thom, 2011; Barysch et al., 2020), and ultrasound therapy improves SE by promoting collagen remodeling (Lee, 2019; Wong et al., 2023; Pan et al., 2024).

Furthermore, these findings are consistent with the ERAS framework, which has proven effective in improving recovery outcomes and reducing opioid use in plastic surgery (Stahl et al., 2024; Foster et al., 2025; Offodile et al., 2019).

Unlike previous single-modality studies, the present study provides integrated evidence supporting the synergistic application of device-assisted recovery methods within the ERAS framework.

These findings offer practical guidance for postoperative care practitioners and aesthetic clinicians seeking to implement ERAS-based, evidence-driven recovery protocols in clinical settings.

First, this study adopted a short, 2-week intervention period, limiting the evaluation of long-term effects and durability. In clinical practice, postoperative recovery extends beyond physical improvements to include psychological stability and quality of life.

Second, the small pilot sample (n=16) restricts the generalizability of the findings. Future research should include larger, longitudinal designs (≥3–6 months) to confirm the reproducibility and sustainability of the observed effects.

Third, the incorporation of complementary approaches, such as aromatherapy and scalp therapy, may enhance autonomic regulation, reduce stress, and improve sleep quality, thereby strengthening emotional recovery and overall well-being.

In summary, this study empirically demonstrated that oxygen and ultrasound therapies, when combined with MLD, effectively promote short-term recovery following facial cosmetic surgery.

These findings highlight the clinical importance of structured, evidence-based recovery management and the need for continued research to establish standardized, sustainable, and patient-centered postoperative recovery protocols for long-term outcomes.

Conclusion

This study aimed to examine and establish empirical evidence for the clinical effectiveness of OLG and ULG during the postoperative recovery phase after facial cosmetic surgery.

The results indicated that both management approaches induced significant short-term improvements in key recovery indicators—including edema, bruising, SE, and pigmentation—whereas no statistically significant differences were observed between the groups. These findings suggest that oxygen and ultrasound therapies promote lymphatic circulation and tissue regeneration through distinct physiological mechanisms, positively contributing to early postoperative recovery.

The academic and clinical value of this study stems from its empirical validation of a structured recovery management program based on the ERAS framework. Specifically, the integrated program combining oxygen or ultrasound therapy with MLD was found to shorten recovery time, stabilize skin physiology, and enhance patient satisfaction. These outcomes provide foundational evidence for the establishment of standardized, noninvasive, and evidence-based postoperative recovery management protocols in aesthetic medicine.

However, this study had limitations, including a short intervention period of 2 weeks (6 sessions) and a small pilot sample of 16 participants, which may restrict the generalizability of the findings. Future research should include larger sample sizes and longitudinal follow-up studies spanning at least 3 to 6 months to confirm the sustainability and reproducibility of recovery outcomes. Furthermore, the incorporation of standardized patient-reported outcome measures—such as the Visual Analogue Scale, FACE-Q (Klassen et al., 2010), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and Body Image Scale—is recommended to comprehensively evaluate physical recovery, psychological stability, and improvements in quality of life.

In addition, the integration of complementary approaches, such as aromatherapy and scalp therapy, may further enhance systemic circulation, autonomic balance, stress reduction, and sleep quality, thereby reinforcing emotional and holistic recovery. These multimodal strategies extend beyond superficial skin healing, contributing to psychophysiological balance and comprehensive postoperative rehabilitation.

In conclusion, this study empirically demonstrated that postoperative recovery programs integrating oxygen or ultrasound therapy with lymphatic drainage effectively enhance short-term recovery after facial cosmetic surgery. These findings provide a scientific foundation for the development of sustainable, patient-centered, and evidence-based recovery protocols that holistically promote physiological restoration and emotional resilience.

NOTES

Author's contribution

H.J.K. and H.S.J. contributed equally to this work. H.J.K. designed all experimental investigations and developed the methods for the facial treatment study.

H.J.K. conducted the experiments, analyzed the data, and wrote the manuscript. H.S.J. supervised the project, provided guidance, and contributed to the final revision of the manuscript.

Author details

Hyeon-Ji Kim (Doctoral Candidate), Department of Beauty Arts Care, Dongguk University, Pildong-ro 1 gil 30, Jung-gu, Seoul 04620, Korea & (Chief Director), Psyche Aesthetic, 11 Bongeunsa-ro 7-gil, Gangnam-gu, Seoul 06120, Republic of Korea; Han-Sung Jeon (Assistant Professor), Department of Korean Language Education, College of Education, Dongguk University, Seoul 04620, Korea & (Collaborative Professor), Department of Beauty Arts Care, Dongguk University, Pildong-ro 1 gil 30, Jung-gu, Seoul 04620, Korea.

Figure 1.

Facial structure measurement items.

[1] Face length (FL); [2] Face width (FW); [3] Ear helix width (EH W); [4] Tragus width (TW); [5] Jaw width (JW); [6] Glabella to Fore head Length (GFL); [7] Suborbital vertical length (SVL); [8] Subn asal to chin vertical length (SCVL).

Table 1.

Changes in total, middle, and lower facial width (Unit: cm)

Ingredients	Time point	OLG (n=8)	ULG (n=8)	F (p)
FW	T0	14.49±0.87	14.84±1.06
	T1	14.35±0.75	14.73±1.12
	T2	14.24±0.74	14.59±1.09	Group: 0.21 (0.651)
	T3	14.15±0.72	14.31±1.28	Time: 11.38^** (0.002)
	T4	14.09±0.75	14.18±1.26	G × T: 0.73 (0.444)
	T5	13.97±0.67	14.11±1.22
	T6	13.82±0.68	13.81±1.06
EHW	T0	13.76±0.94	13.55±1.35
	T1	13.47±0.85	13.54±1.29
	T2	13.40±0.83	13.32±1.28	Group: 0.03 (0.870)
	T3	13.34±0.82	13.16±1.39	Time: 9.96^** (0.001)
	T4	13.21±0.84	13.13±1.50	G × T: 0.35 (0.680)
	T5	13.18±0.70	13.15±1.64
	T6	12.94±0.74	12.78±1.65
JW	T0	11.01±0.98	11.25±1.61
	T1	10.53±0.83	10.97±1.57
	T2	10.48±0.83	11.02±1.68	Group: 0.26 (0.616)
	T3	10.52±0.78	10.77±1.62	Time: 15.46^*** (<0.001)
	T4	10.35±0.87	10.74±1.68	G × T: 0.84 (0.431)
	T5	10.22±0.80	10.48±1.48
	T6	10.06±0.85	10.16±1.47

^** p <0.01;

^*** p <0.001.

OLG, oxygen therapy plus manual lymphatic drainage group; ULG, ultrasound therapy plus manual lymphatic drainage group; FW, facial width; EHW, midface width; JW, jaw width.

Time points: T0, baseline (before intervention); T1–T6, after each of the six sessions (three sessions per week for two weeks).

Table 2.

Changes in vertical dimensions of the entire face, forehead, midface, and lower face (Unit: cm)

Ingredients	Time point	OLG (n=8)	ULG (n=8)	F (p)
FL	T0	21.68±1.13	21.29±1.89
	T1	21.29±0.95	21.14±1.85
	T2	21.18±0.93	21.03±1.62	Group: 0.18 (0.681)
	T3	21.14±0.90	20.71±1.81	Time: 11.48^*** (<0.001)
	T4	21.01±0.89	20.58±1.76	G × T: 0.45 (0.637)
	T5	20.89±0.91	20.64±2.02
	T6	20.70±0.86	20.42±1.91
GFL	T0	6.84±0.47	7.03±0.75
	T1	6.82±0.45	6.91±0.75
	T2	6.71±0.47	6.81±0.67	Group: 0.05 (0.830)
	T3	6.60±0.42	6.69±0.72	Time: 24.12^*** (<0.001)
	T4	6.48±0.43	6.53±0.59	G × T: 0.87 (0.444)
	T5	6.48±0.38	6.42±0.63
	T6	6.35±0.47	6.31±0.66
SVL	T0	8.50±0.56	8.38±0.89
	T1	8.46±0.51	8.28±0.86
	T2	8.42±0.55	8.13±0.79	Group: 0.64 (0.435)
	T3	8.37±0.57	8.04±0.79	Time: 16.17^*** (<0.001)
	T4	8.27±0.42	8.00±0.75	G × T: 0.78 (0.470)
	T5	8.20±0.40	7.85±0.73
	T6	8.04±0.49	7.77±0.72
SCVL	T0	6.79±0.59	6.56±0.85
	T1	6.65±0.62	6.49±0.88
	T2	6.41±0.56	6.33±0.91	Group: 0.51 (0.488)
	T3	6.50±0.56	6.15±0.87	Time: 25.83^*** (<0.001)
	T4	6.36±0.53	6.03±0.87	G × T: 0.98 (0.376)
	T5	6.20±0.57	5.93±0.82
	T6	6.15±0.55	5.81±0.81

^*** p <0.001.

FL, facial length; GFL, forehead length; SVL, midface vertical length; SCVL, lower face vertical length.

Table 3.

Changes in pores, wrinkles, elasticity, pigmentation, and sebum

Ingredients	Time point	OLG (n=8)	ULG (n=8)	F (p)
PS	T0	30.13±5.96	33.63±8.93
	T1	29.50±6.46	33.38±9.05
	T2	29.25±4.77	32.88±9.01	Group: 1.04 (0.326)
	T3	28.38±5.73	32.25±8.99	Time: 20.41^*** (<0.001)
	T4	28.13±5.49	32.00±8.98	G × T: 0.14 (0.948)
	T5	27.63±5.40	31.25±9.02
	T6	26.75±5.18	30.75±8.56
WR	T0	28.63±6.19	31.75±7.30
	T1	27.88±5.11	29.88±7.16
	T2	26.88±5.51	30.13±7.14	Group: 0.79 (0.389)
	T3	26.88±5.51	29.50±7.13	Time: 13.41^*** (<0.001)
	T4	26.25±4.86	29.38±7.21	G × T: 0.66 (0.535)
	T5	26.00±5.48	28.88±7.41
	T6	26.13±5.06	28.75±7.32
SE	T0	31.38±6.52	34.75±9.13
	T1	30.38±5.76	33.38±9.59
	T2	29.88±6.58	32.63±9.53	Group: 0.79 (0.388)
	T3	29.00±5.78	31.50±9.15	Time: 24.43^*** (<0.001)
	T4	28.13±4.79	31.25±9.15	G × T: 1.02 (0.378)
	T5	27.00±4.84	31.00±8.55
	T6	26.25±4.43	30.63±8.18
PI	T0	31.25±5.15	31.38±7.65
	T1	30.38±5.42	30.50±6.95
	T2	29.50±4.87	30.25±6.82	Group: 0.07 (0.789)
	T3	29.25±5.09	29.75±7.15	Time: 16.87^*** (<0.001)
	T4	28.38±5.29	29.75±7.25	G × T: 1.81 (0.177)
	T5	27.88±5.08	29.50±7.56
	T6	27.88±5.72	29.38±7.63
SS	T0	102.00±92.35	189.75±62.50
	T1	86.88±66.28	162.63±49.95
	T2	71.13±52.98	146.50±31.14	Group: 10.03^** (0.007)
	T3	60.63±49.75	118.38±25.38	Time: 25.75^*** (<0.001)
	T4	49.25±47.15	108.50±26.08	G × T: 0.96 (0.387)
	T5	39.00±36.27	97.38±22.01
	T6	29.63±34.76	86.63±25.46

^** p <0.01;

^*** p <0.001.

PS, pore size; WR, wrinkle depth; SE, skin elasticity; PI, pigmentation index; SS, sebum secretion.

Table 4.

Specific effect and satisfaction with postoperative care

Variable	Category	ALL (n=16)	OLG (n=8)	ULG (n=8)	χ²/t	p
Improved aspects through postoperative care (multiple responses)	Reduction of swelling	14 (87.5)	7 (87.5)	7 (87.5)	0.00	1.000
	Alleviation of bruising	3 (18.8)	3 (37.5)	0 (0.0)	3.69	0.055
	Relief of surgical site pain	2 (12.5)	1 (12.5)	1 (12.5)	0.00	1.000
	Improvement in overall recovery speed	7 (43.8)	5 (62.5)	2 (25.0)	2.29	0.131
	Others	5 (31.3)	1 (12.5)	4 (50.0)	2.62	0.106
Required weekly sessions		3.56±1.31	3.63±1.19	3.50±1.51	0.18	0.857
Total recommended sessions		9.06±3.80	8.88±2.10	9.25±5.15	0.19	0.851
Satisfactory aspects of postoperative care (multiple responses)	Effect of reducing swelling	15 (93.8)	7 (87.5)	8 (100.0)	1.07	0.302
	Effect of reducing bruising	1 (6.3)	1 (12.5)	0 (0.0)	1.07	0.302
	Faster recovery speed	3 (18.8)	3 (37.5)	0 (0.0)	3.69	0.055
	Provision of psychological stability	1 (6.3)	1 (12.5)	0 (0.0)	1.07	0.302
	Meticulous care by professionals	7 (43.8)	2 (25.0)	5 (62.5)	2.29	0.131
	Advanced equipment and diverse treatment methods	7 (43.8)	5 (62.5)	2 (25.0)	2.29	0.131
	Others	1 (6.3)	1 (12.5)	0 (0.0)	1.07	0.302

References

Barysch MJ, Läuchli S. Oxygen therapy in wound healing. In: Local wound care for dermatologists. In: Alavi A, Maibach H, eds. Springer. Cham. pp113-120. 2020.

Dumestre DO, Redwood J, Webb CE, Temple-Oberle C. Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol enables safe same-day discharge after alloplastic breast reconstruction. Plastic Surgery 25: 249-254. 2017.

Foster L, Foppiani J, Patel A, Brady K, Adams AJ, Choudry U, Lin SJ. The use of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols in plastic surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery 103: 273-281. 2025.

Kwon SH, Lao WWK, Lee CH, Hsu ATW, Koide S, Chen HY, Chang TNJ. Experiences and attitudes toward aesthetic procedures in East Asia: a cross-sectional survey of five geographical regions. Archives of Plastic Surgery 48: 660-669. 2021.

Kim HJ, Jeon HS. Effects of tool shape on facial contour reduction in middle-aged women in their 50s and 60s. Asian Journal of Beauty and Cosmetology 22: 463-475. 2024.

Kim KW, Doh EJ, Jang JH. The influence of lymph massage upon sensitive skin. Asian Journal of Beauty and Cosmetology 8: 83-95. 2010.

Klassen AF, Cano SJ, Scott A, Snell L, Pusic AL. Measuring patient-reported outcomes in facial aesthetic patients: development and validation of the FACE-Q scales. Facial Plastic Surgery 26: 303-309. 2010.

Lee MY, Oh YK. Effects of bamboo neck lymph drainage on facial edema and skin condition. Asian Journal of Beauty and Cosmetology 18: 209-220. 2020.

Lee SK. Effects of ultrasound on skin regeneration. Journal of Health and Medical Life Science 7: 27-30. 2019.

Li HY, Cheng FC, Chiang CP. The manual lymphatic drainage of physical therapy for care of the facial swelling and pain after oral and maxillofacial surgery. Journal of Dental Sciences 20: 1934-1936. 2025.

Offodile AC 2nd, Gu C, Boukovalas S, Coroneos CJ, Chatterjee A, Largo RD, Butler C. Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways in breast reconstruction: systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 173: 65-77. 2019.

Pan R, Gu D, Zhang Y, Meng X, Liu T, Zhong H, Xu Y. Efficacy and safety of intense focused ultrasound for skin rejuvenation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Archives of Dermatological Research 316: 513. 2024.

Stahl S, Santos Stahl A, Feng YS, Estler A, Buiculescu F, Jorge ACSRG. Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways for aesthetic breast surgery: a prospective cohort study on patient-reported outcomes. Aesthetic Plastic Surgery 48: 84-94. 2024.

Thom SR. Hyperbaric oxygen: its mechanisms and efficacy. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 127: 131S-141S. 2011.

Triana L, Palacios Huatuco RM, Campilgio G, Liscano E. Trends in surgical and nonsurgical aesthetic procedures: a 14-year analysis of the International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery—ISAPS. Aesthetic Plastic Surgery 48: 4217-4227. 2024.

Uhlman K, Behroozian T, Lewandowski N, Yuan M, Kim P, Hatchell A, Voineskos S, Temple-Oberle C, Thoma A. Quality of plastic surgery Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) studies: a systematic review. Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery 101: 106-118. 2025.

Van de Velde FEG, Ortega-Castrillon A, Thierens LAM, Claes P, De Pauw GAM. The effect of manual lymphatic drainage on patient recovery after orthognathic surgery: a qualitative and 3-dimensional facial analysis. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology and Oral Radiology 130: 125-133. 2020.

Wong A, Lowery AS, Bloom JD. Ultrasound therapy for the skin. Facial Plastic Surgery Clinics of North America 31: 503-510. 2023.

Yaedú RYF, Mello MAB, Tucunduva RA, da Silveira JSZ, Takahashi MPMS, Valente ACB. Postoperative orthognathic surgery edema assessment with manual lymphatic drainage: a randomized double-blind clinical trial. The Journal of Craniofacial Surgery 28: 1816-1820. 2017.