#1

I know nothing about this, but it seems this is a service from a clinic, not DIY:

First of all:

What is Ultherapy?

Ultherapy is a nonsurgical skin tightening procedure. Using high-focused, intense ultrasound energy, it gently heats the tissue below the surface of your skin, stimulating the body’s natural collagen growth. Most patients need just a single treatment session to achieve natural-looking results that improve over time.

It’s the only device of its kind that is FDA-cleared to lift tissue on the brow, neck (including the jawline), and under the chin, and to improve lines and wrinkles on the décolletage.

Providers also commonly use it off-label on other parts of the body with loose skin, such as on the abdomen and above the elbows or knees.

AI Overview

It is not possible and highly dangerous to create a DIY Ultraformer device for skin tightening

. The Ultraformer is a professional medical device that uses highly controlled, high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) technology to heat and stimulate deep layers of the skin. Attempting to replicate this at home can cause severe, permanent damage.

or are you thinking of something else?

Price Range Overview

You might wonder how much does a HIFU machine cost. Let’s break it down:

  • Budget options: These are perfect if you’re looking for affordability. Brands like Shurink offer machines that are easier on the wallet while still delivering effective results. Prices can start as low as $35.99 for home-use devices.
  • Mid-range options: If you’re willing to spend a bit more, you can find machines with better features and performance. Portable HIFU machines designed for home use typically fall in the $1,299.00 to $1,599.00 range. These provide a balance between cost and capability.

How Much Does HIFU Machine Cost?

The cost of a HIFU machine can vary significantly based on brand and model. For example, professional machines from brands like Ultherapy can exceed $70,000, making them less accessible for individual consumers. On the other hand, more affordable models from brands like PrettyLasers offer competitive pricing without sacrificing too much on quality.

Source: Top 10 Affordable HIFU Machines You Can Buy - Fotromed

did see this device, is it what you are talking about? Or something similar?

And an AI search and summary:

Here’s a current roundup of consumer-oriented at-home HIFU devices I can find, with live pricing where available. (Prices checked Oct 30, 2025; vendors may change/discount frequently.)

Portable/home HIFU brands & models

  • ULTRAISER P1 (home-use) — £799. Product page and specs (4 MHz, 2 mm cartridge, optional 4 mm).
  • ULTRAISER P1 Pro (home/pro portable) — £949. Product page lists both 2 mm & 4 mm cartridges included.
  • Attibe INNOLiF (home-use) — $637 (FibroblastUSA sale; pricing sometimes requires login), HK$5,855 (YOHO HK), or ~$978.55 (eBay). Multiple retail listings below:• FibroblastUSA collection (shows “Sale price $637.00” on INNOLiF card). • YOHO Hong Kong listing (HK$5,855 after discount). • eBay listing (~$978.55). • Femastic HK listing (HK$6,880).
  • Attibe HOMETHERA (home-use) — $1,284 at The Artistry (US-facing). Additional retailer pages (pricing varies/hidden): FibroblastUSA (device page), KoreaBeautyForYou (device page).
  • FREYARA “FacialDefy” series (consumer HIFU/microfocused ultrasound) • FacialDefy 3.0 (HIFU + RF) — $799.99 . • FacialDefy 3.0 Lite (eye & face) — $219.99–$268.99 (promos vary by page). • FacialDefy 1.0 Mini — $129.99 . • Brand collection page with other HIFU variants and price bands.

Marketplace items (often labeled “HIFU,” quality/specs vary)

  • “Mini HIFU Facial Machine” (Walmart) — $29.03–$39.89 depending on seller/listing.
  • Amazon “HIFU machine for face” category — assorted generic devices; specs/pricing vary widely.

Two important notes before you buy

  1. Verify it’s true HIFU/micro-focused ultrasound. Many low-cost listings marketed as “HIFU” are actually RF or plain ultrasound massagers without real focused transducers or depth-stamped cartridges (e.g., 2 mm/3 mm/4.5 mm/SMAS). A professional vendor warns that cheap “home-use HIFU” often doesn’t treat at stated depths and may be ineffective or unsafe.
  2. Evidence at home is limited. There’s some lab/animal data (e.g., a mouse model with a home-used device) but rigorous human trials for consumer HIFU units are sparse; clinic HIFU (e.g., Ultherapy/Shurink) has better documentation.
Dermo-electroporation for Aging Skin Health and Rejuvenation
#2

@RapAdmin I have not CREATED an ultraformer / hifu device, wouldn’t know how, and can’t recommend it. What I meant was USING it at home, to self-administer. The Fotona 4d laser is something that can’t be got even from China for under $20k, so it’s out of the question to self administer because access to the device is out of range. The ultraformer can be bought for a reasonable amount and the treatment is easy to be self administered.

#3

I’m still a little unclear on what you’re saying. Are you saying you can buy a used Ultaformer for a reasonable price? Or are you talking about Chinese knockoffs again?

Here is the info I get from CGPT5:

Ultraformer Series — Key Details & Pricing

Overview

The Ultraformer series — specifically the models Ultraformer III and Ultraformer MPT (both by CLASSYS, Korea) — are high‐intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) systems designed for clinic/professional use (face + body). They are nottypical consumer-at-home devices; instead they are professional aesthetic machines.

  • The Ultraformer III uses Micro & Macro Focused Ultrasound (MMFU) technology: multi‐depth cartridges (e.g., 1.5 mm, 3.0 mm, 4.5 mm; body depths such as 6mm, 9mm, 13mm) are cited.
  • The Ultraformer MPT is a newer evolution with micro-pulsed technology and further modular cartridges.
  • The official specs brochure for Ultraformer III lists: Energy type: HIFU (High Intensity Focused Ultrasound); Power: 0.1 to 3.0 J (0.1 J steps); Spacing: 1-2 mm (0.1 mm steps); Length: 0.5 to 25 mm (5mm steps).
  • According to a blog analysis of HIFU machines: “The Ultraformer III costs between $25,000 and $40,000.”

Pricing (Purchase of Device)

Because these are professional aesthetic machines, pricing spans widely depending on region/import, condition (new vs used), configuration, included cartridges, shipping, service contract, etc. Some reported pricing:

Model Reported Price Range / Example Notes
Ultraformer III ~$25,000 – $40,000 USD (professional estimate) This is for the system, likely new, full configuration for clinic use.
Ultraformer III (listing) US$6,633.00 listing at “Universal Global Device” for “Classys Ultraformer III HIFU” This may be a lower-cost listing (perhaps import, lesser warranty, or used) and should be verified.
Ultraformer MPT Minimum ~$6,091 USD; Max ~$10,891 USD on used marketplace listing The MPT is newer but still professional grade.
Ultraformer MPT / Ultraformer “Machine” (unclear variant) Some “Ultraformer machine price range from $899 to $3,399” on one trading site for possibly non-genuine/distributed units. This likely reflects lower-cost imports, not necessarily full certified devices with all cartridges or full support.

Supply / Cartridge Details

  • The Ultraformer III site lists cartridges for various depths: L7-1.5 (7 MHz/1.5mm), L7-3.0 (7 MHz/3.0mm), L4-4.5 (4 MHz/4.5mm), MF2 (5.5 MHz/2.0mm), MF6 (2 MHz/6.0mm), MF9 (2 MHz/9.0mm), MF13 (2 MHz/13.0mm).
  • One listing of “Ultraformer HIFU Product Specifications” (which may be a promotional import version) indicates: Cartridges 1.5mm, 2mm, 3mm, 4.5mm (face), and 6mm, 9mm, 13mm (body); Shots per cartridge ~20,000; Two handles; Voltage 110V/220V.

Links

Key Takeaways for Your Use Case

Given your interest (which tends to be detailed, data-driven, high-spec devices) and the fact that you mostly focus on advanced skincare/aesthetic tech, here are some implications:

  • The Ultraformer devices are clinic-grade rather than simple home-use. If you were exploring an at-home variant, you’d need to verify safety, certification, warranty, cartridge cost, etc.
  • The purchase cost of a “genuine” Ultraformer III or MPT is quite high (tens of thousands USD in many cases) and you’ll need to budget for consumables (cartridges), training, service/support, etc.
  • If you see very low-price listings (e.g., <$5,000 USD) you’d want to carefully check authenticity, certification (e.g., CE mark, FDA clearance if relevant), and whether all cartridges/depths are included.
  • If you are equating “consumer-oriented high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) device” for at-home or self-use, this device likely sits outside that category (it’s designed for professional clinic operation).
  • For your interest in technical specs (e.g., depth, shot count, energy parameters), Ultraformer III gives detailed spec sheets (as above) which can feed into your equipment/modality comparison frameworks.
#4

The ultraformer is made by Classys Inc. in South Korea but also duped in China. This is an exact replica of the product, version MPT:

Now if you look at your AI generated chart you’ll notice something curious: latest models (e.g., MPT) are cheaper than the older ones (e.g., the III). That’s been the technology just getting cheaper and cheaper to produce thanks to yearly advances. So yes even the official MPT by Classys is a very reasonable cost but get it made in China and it’s downright affordable, costing about the same as the treatment itself (a series of 3-4 uses of the machine).

Now I don’t have the exact replica because I was interested in a more compact version with the same underlying tech. The official model is a space hogging mammoth designed primarily to look expensive and impressive to the end client. I overlook even the model names (Ultraformer III vs MPT etc.) and look at the underlying tech. Same as speaking of GLP1-RA’s vs SGLT2i’s as opposed to empagliflozin vs ozempic.

The ultraformer MPT “dupe” I own, which I’d more appropriately refer to as “equivalent model” is a piece of equipment based on HIFU, same as Ulthera, but more advanced. It has cartridges that deliver HIFU at all the depths I need: most of them for the body but a few for the face and neck. The product is as effective as the original. That’s an assertion I can make because I can test it. There’s strips of a certain clear, dense composite material that come with it, for you to test your “shots” on. There you can visually inspect the mark made by the cartridge — at what depth it penetrates and whether the spacing intervals between shots correspond to the settings chosen. There’s no way to fake these tests. Also the sensation on the various parts of the face 100% agrees with what the Korean manufacturer describes in its official webinars. It there’s one aspect I can’t directly test it’s the power of the shot, whether it corresponds exactly to the energy settings chosen (exact number of Joules). Perhaps the device is underpowered compared to the original? I wouldn’t know, but I haven’t even come close to the max energy settings in my usage. I’m very conservative and stick to the Classys recommended settings. I might slowly bump up the energy in subsequent treatments though as I find myself highly tolerant and my skin not quite as responsive as I’ve seen in their materials (I get really good results but not as wow’ing as their published case studies, so I might need a higher energy treatment).

The reason why I consider this treatment superior to any other energy based devices out there (perhaps excepting the Fotona) is because it can treat at a sufficient depth (3mm, 4.5mm) to reach the SMAS layer and tighten THAT. It’s the same layer plastic surgeons manipulate during face lifts. It is NOT for dabblers but requires careful study of the original manufacturer materials and guidelines, both printed and video. I have whole playlists dedicated to technique and bookmarked documents with traced facial grid patterns for ready reference. For example (and this is just for the face):

IMG_4871
IMG_48711320×2868 124 KB

IMG_4872
IMG_48721320×2868 137 KB

IMG_4874
IMG_48741320×2868 142 KB

IMG_4876
IMG_48761320×2868 126 KB

IMG_4879
IMG_48791320×2868 142 KB

Once you know what you’re doing it’s pretty easy to use but it takes time. It’s a good 90 min to 2 hours for face and neck if you’re really being careful and taking your time. I can understand and respect why a trained aesthetician needs to charge an arm and a leg for it, especially if they’ve bought the original device from Korea.

I think anyone who wants a facelift alternative could do way worse than use this machine. It only needs to be done every quarter or even less frequently, so it’s worth the trouble for the long sessions. At least worth MY trouble.

5 Likes
#5

You are truly the ultimate female biohacker here!

1 Like
#6

Ha! That is the ultimate compliment. This is my sub speciality. I’ve learned so much from others in their sub specialties that I hope I can give back in this one area.

2 Likes
#7

Can you share what device you ultimately decided upon?

Also, you mentioned:

It is NOT for dabblers but requires careful study of the original manufacturer materials and guidelines, both printed and video.

For other people interested in doing this, how much time (hours) would you estimate it takes to get up on the “careful study” of all the materials and videos before you felt comfortable doing it? Is this a 20 hour investment of time, or a 60 hour investment in time?

Ultrasound skin therapy (called "Ultherapy) has generally gotten pretty good reviews from people:

Screenshot 2025-10-30 at 9.02.35 PM
Screenshot 2025-10-30 at 9.02.35 PM1902×776 33.9 KB

https://www.realself.com/nonsurgical/ultherapy

I just searched on Alibaba for “HIFU Ultrasound” devices (which seems to be the general class of products) and found numerous ones that seem to do what you’ve been talking about:

1 Like
#8

The longest part of the research was figuring out WHAT to research, what the options are of these devices, which one to settle on, etc. If you come with those things already settled for you and you just learning what the answers are, it’s a lot easier. There’s PDF manuals I have access to from SCRIBD from which I pulled those screenshots, with reference ranges of all the settings for each face and body area so that part is paint by numbers. The videos are for technique and an overview of which areas to avoid. The technique isn’t rocket science — you want to go flush against the skin, as perfectly perpendicular as possible, and as close as possible pointing down to the floor. This is a little tricky when you self administer so the best solution I have found is to have a long full body mirror face down, supported by two stools as pillars, so I can lie down under it and see myself looking up. It’s a bit cumbersome but if I am to use a ~$1800 device and spend 2 hours on a treatment, I want to do everything right for the best effect at each shot I administer.

You draw on your face with eyeliner to have a treatment grid to guide your cartridge placement. How that’s done is shown on certain very clear videos. Again it’s not artistic or free style drawing, merely separating your face into specific areas via a grid. Your cartridge can be used as a ruler.

Then you slather on ultrasound gel and begin treatment, holding the probe nice and steady and perpendicular so the cartridge can make good contact at every shot.

So it took me the longest to figure out WHAT I needed to figure out. Once I had the materials ready, I’d say the time to watch the videos or read the manuals is no more than 5-10 hours total. That’s how long it would take anyone here if they had my cliff notes.

About which device to use…

Yes HIFU is the underlying technology. But there are key variables.

First there’s the depth of penetration, with the original Ulthera having only a few options (though more or less sufficient for the face) and the new models having many, which gives you ultimate control. Each cartridge is for a different depth of penetration and in Chinese manufacturer jargon they call each a “dimension,” hence the 12D or 22D meaning that many levels of penetration.

Then there’s a question as to how small and close apart each point of thermocoagulation can be delivered. With Ulthera every point was big and far apart, and that was a function of processor sophistication and power. It was only possible to drop big bombs every so often so it was painful and caused a lot of heat damage at every shot, so not very efficient at collagen regeneration and remodeling. With the newer models it’s possible to deliver many smaller micro focused micro wounds at controllable distance from each other. They can be very close together. In fact it’s possible to deliver them so close together that what would be a dotted line of impact turns into a continuous line. That’s the “mpt” mode of treatment, and it produces superior lift.

The last variable which is actually only available in the latest Chinese “dupe” models and in none of the ultrafomers themselves (though I bet it’s coming next year) is the ability to deliver not just a line, but a series of parallel lines at a precisely set distance from each other. If I could go back in time I would buy such a model, but I didn’t. It would make the application much much much easier. Right now I deliver a line (solid or dotted depending on the need) and then slowly drag my hand keeping the probe as parallel as I can, just a millimeter or two, before issuing the second line of shots. It’s not hard but requires excellent fine motor control and still can’t be 100% precise. If I’d gone with a different model it would have issued 5-6 lines or more for me in parallel, as far apart as I could have wished them.

Another piece of the official ultra former is the “booster” cartridge but that’s not very important, it’s a middle frequency ultrasound for more diffuse energy. My dupe doesn’t have it because I chose a different “add on” instead but you can purchase dupes that feature it.

So then it becomes a question of knowing which depths to use at which areas of the face, and what direction to go, exactly where not to go, etc. A few videos and the manual for reference make it all clear.

This is the machine I would recommend — watch the product video to see how it can shoot in a grid, and it even features radiofrequency output as well as HIFU:

5 Likes
#9

Great summary. Thanks.

I know nothing about his area so wanted to look into it a bit…

My Prompt:

Summarize all the scientific and clinical evidence, and provide effect size information, for HIFU ultrasound therapy for skin and fat modification or improvement. Provide links to research sources.

Response from CGPT5:

Got it—here’s a refreshed, evidence-first summary with live links to the underlying papers and reports.

HIFU / MFU-V for skin tightening and fat reduction — evidence and effect sizes (with links)

Modalities (what’s what)

  • Skin tightening/lifting: microfocused ultrasound, typically with visualization (MFU-V; e.g., Ultherapy) targeting deep dermis/SMAS to create thermal coagulation points → neocollagenesis/neoelastogenesis. Good recent syntheses: a 42-study meta-analysis (Amiri/Casabona/Muka/Fabi 2024 / PubMed entry here) and a systematic review (Contini 2023 / open-access PDF via PubMed Central here).
  • Fat reduction/body contouring: macro-focused HIFU for subcutaneous adipose (e.g., LipoSonix), supported by randomized, sham-controlled trials showing small-to-moderate waist circumference (WC) loss (Jewell 2011 RCT; PubMed summary) with 24-week safety follow-up (Jewell 2012; PubMed summary).

Skin tightening / lifting

Best available syntheses

  • Meta-analysis (42 studies): Investigator-rated global improvement in 89% (95% CI 81–94%), patient-reported 84% (73–91%). Heterogeneity moderate; most studies single-arm. (Amiri et al., 2024; PubMed 39540440)
  • Systematic review: Effective for mild–moderate laxity; calls for more objective measures and diverse cohorts. (Contini et al., 2023; PMC 9861614)

Representative objective effect sizes

Mechanism (histology)

  • Beyond collagen remodeling, elastin neogenesis after MFU-V has now been documented. (Marquardt 2024–2025 / Wiley abstract 2025)

Skin quality beyond “lift”

  • Narrative review summarizing firmness/texture gains and broader “skin quality” metrics (“EPCs”). (Pavičić 2025, PMC / PubMed entry 40847904)

Strength of evidence (skin)

  • Overall moderate: many prospective single-arm studies with blinded photo grading; fewer randomized split-face trials vs other energies (e.g., RF), but consistent signals. (Contini 2023; Pavičić 2025)

Fat reduction / body contouring

Randomized, sham-controlled data

  • Jewell 2011 RCT (abdomen/flanks): At 12 weeks, active HIFU reduced WC ~2.0–2.5 cm vs ~1.2–1.4 cm in sham; energy–response relationship noted. (Journal site; PubMed 21701341)
  • Jewell 2012 (24-week follow-up): Reductions sustained; labs/imaging without clinically significant concerns. (Aesthetic Surgery Journal; PubMed 22942114)

Additional clinical data

  • Prospective cohort: mean WC −3.43 cm, with cumulative improvement across follow-ups; transient pain that declines by 1 week. (Hong 2020, PubMed)
  • Recent summaries: consistent modest circumference loss across series; typically one session ≈ ≤1 inch (≤2.5 cm), more with multiple sessions/energy. (Overview PDF with compiled data points: Geremia 2025; umbrella commentary: ResearchGate review summary)

Strength of evidence (fat)

  • Moderate for WC change: includes Level II RCT evidence with sham control. Long-term metabolic outcomes remain under-studied. (Jewell 2011, 2012)

Safety profile

Common, transient: erythema, edema, tenderness, dysesthesia, bruising—resolving within days to weeks. (Summarized across Contini 2023, Pavičić 2025)

Rare but notable: temporary neuropraxia (e.g., marginal mandibular branch), focal numbness/ptosis, subcutaneous lipoatrophy/strip depressions from off-target energy or wrong depth. Literature + device-event surveillance highlight proper visualization and parameter selection. (Systematic review of MFU-V adverse events: Humphrey 2025, PubMed; illustrative MAUDE entries: report 5080787, report 5774853)

Practical effect sizes at a glance

Target Typical measurable change Timing Source(s)
Brow height ~0.47–1.7 mm ↑ ~90 days Contini 2023 / PMC
Submental area ~26–45 mm² ↓ ~90 days Contini 2023
Global improvement (clinician) ~89% improved (95% CI 81–94) 3–6 mo Amiri/Casabona/Muka/Fabi 2024 / PubMed
Global improvement (patient) ~84% improved (95% CI 73–91) 3–6 mo same meta-analysis above
Waist circumference ~2.0–2.5 cm ↓ (active) vs ~1.2–1.4 cm ↓ (sham) 12 weeks Jewell 2011 RCT / PubMed
Waist circumference (prospective) −3.43 cm mean 4–12 weeks Hong 2020
Durability (skin lift) 6–12+ months in many protocols 6–12 mo JCAD 1-year study

How to interpret (clinician / buyer / operator)

  • Skin tightening (MFU-V): Expect small but objective anatomic lifts (sub-mm to ~1–2 mm in the brow; measurable submental area reductions) with high proportions of perceived improvement. Effects typically last 6–12 months; technique (depths 1.5/3.0/4.5 mm, pass density, vectoring) matters. (Meta-analysis 2024; Contini 2023)
  • Fat reduction (macro-HIFU): Modest circumference loss—often ≤ ~1 inch after one session, with RCT-level support; multiple sessions and careful energy/overlap planning can increase response. Not a weight-loss therapy. (Jewell 2011, 2012, Hong 2020)
  • Safety: Generally favorable with visualization and correct depth; mis-targeting risks fat atrophy or transient nerve effects—train on anatomy, keep to validated parameters. (Humphrey 2025; MAUDE examples 1, 2)

If you want, I can also build a treatment-planner table (by anatomic zone) with depths, pass counts, energy ranges, expected magnitude, downtime, and risk flags, with links to the protocol sources.

Awesome — here’s a practical treatment-planner you can use to scope MFU-V (skin tightening) and macro-HIFU (fat reduction). Numbers are typical ranges from peer-reviewed protocols/consensus; tailor by skin thickness, laxity grade, and patient tolerance.

HIFU / MFU-V Treatment Planner (by anatomic zone)

Zone Typical targets & depths Pass pattern / energy range Expected magnitude (objective or pooled) Downtime Risk flags (avoid / be cautious) Key sources
Brow / Forehead MFU-V at 4.5 mm (SMAS) + 3.0 mm; optional 1.5 mm for dermal quality 1–2 passes per vector; imaging-guided vectoring supero-lateral; line density moderate-high Brow lift ~0.47–1.7 mm at ~90 days; high clinician/patient improvement rates Erythema/tenderness 1–3 days Temporal branch → keep vectors above zygomatic arch; avoid orbital rim Systematic review (brow mm effect sizes): Contini 2023. Vectoring method & device depths: JCAD vectoring, MFU-V depths.
Periorbital (upper/lower lids, crow’s feet) 1.5 mm (dermis), 3.0 mm (deep dermis) with narrow transducers 1–2 passes; conservative line density; avoid globe; cool gel Fine-line/texture improvement; modest lift (qualitative) Erythema/edema 1–3 days, rare bruising Protect globe; stay 5–10 mm off orbital rim; avoid thin bony ridges Device options & depths: Park 2021; shortened single-depth peri-orbital protocol outcomes: Lowe 2021.
Midface / Cheek 4.5 mm (SMAS) + 3.0 mm; optional 1.5 mmfor texture 1–2 passes per vector (zygomatic vectors); imaging to avoid malar fat Lower-face/cheek tightening (3D/photo grading; non-randomized) 1–3 days tenderness Zygomatic/facial artery zones; avoid malar fat over-treatment(atrophy risk) Device capabilities & customization: Park 2021; global improvement rates (meta-analysis): Amiri/Casabona/Muka/Fabi 2024.
Jawline / Jowl (Lower face) 4.5 mm + 3.0 mm ; selective 1.5 mm Vectoring along mandibular line; 1–2 passes Visible jawline definition; clinician global improvement common 1–5 days tenderness Marginal mandibular branch—stay above mandibular notch; avoid direct nerve paths Vectoring approach & device depths: JCAD vectoring, MFU-V depths.
Submental / Upper neck 4.5 mm(platysma/SMAS) + 3.0 mm 1–2 passes; vectors toward mastoid Submental area ↓ ~26–45 mm² at ~90 days; visible lift 1–5 days; occasional nodularity Great auricular nerve; anterior jugular; avoid midline cartilage Objective effects & mm² data: Contini 2023.
Full neck (laxity) 3.0 mm + 1.5 mm; cautious 4.5 mm laterally only 1 pass each depth; lower energy near larynx Modest tightening; texture/crepe improvement 1–3 days Avoid thyroid cartilage/trachea; lower energy near carotid triangle Consensus pearls & algorithms: Fabi et al. 2019 consensus PDF.
Décolletage / Chest 3.0 mm + 1.5 mm 1 pass each; low-to-moderate line density Texture, rhytids, and “skin quality (EPCs)” improvements 1–3 days Mammary tissue—stay superficial; avoid areolar complex Skin quality synthesis: Pavičić 2025.
Upper arm (“batwing”) 3.0 mm ± 1.5 mm (skin quality focus) 1 pass per depth; spacing wider than face Mild tightening/quality gains (qualitative) 1–3 days Ulnar nerve posteriorly; avoid neurovascular bundles Consensus/algorithms: Fabi 2019.
Above-knee skin laxity 3.0 mm ± 1.5 mm 1–2 passes; grid vectoring Mild-to-moderate tightening; texture gains 1–3 days Superficial nerves; low settings initially Consensus/algorithms: Fabi 2019.
Pan-facial (staged series) Mix of 4.5/3.0/1.5 mmvectors **Hi-5 protocol:**short, intense sessions in a series; non-inferior to single marathon session Improved brow height & submental lift, high satisfaction; better tolerance/access Minimal per session Same as zones; staging improves comfort & accessibility Hi5 protocol: PRS-GO article / open-access PDF mirror here / PubMed 37583398.
Abdomen / flanks (fat reduction) Macro-HIFU to subcutaneous fat layer (not MFU-V) 3 passes at ~47–59 J/cm²(typical RCT protocol); overlapping grids Waist circ. ↓ ~2.0–2.5 cm active vs ~1.2–1.4 cm sham at 12 wk; sustained to 24 wk; some cohorts report −3.4 cm Tenderness 1–7 days; nodularity 1–2 wks Avoid visceral zones; monitor for pain/heat; adhere to energy limits RCT parameters & outcomes: Jewell 2011 / journal page with details here; 24-wk safety (3 passes; 0/47/59 J/cm²): Jewell 2012 PDF; additional cohort (−3.43 cm): Hong 2020.

Notes on energy & lines (MFU-V): MFU-V systems deliver coagulation points at fixed focal depths (commonly 1.5 / 3.0 / 4.5 mm) with ultrasound visualization to confirm correct tissue layer before firing. Line counts and precise Joules per TCP vary by device/software; use imaging, vectoring, and laxity grading to set density. See device-agnostic depth/physics and imaging overview: Werschler 2016 and manufacturer overview of depths/temps (60–70 °C): Ultherapy page.

Quick guardrails

  • Imaging first, then fire: Visualization to confirm 1.5/3.0/4.5 mm targets is central to efficacy and safety (JCAD vectoring overview, Werschler 2016).
  • Magnitude expectations: MFU-V = small but objective lifts (sub-mm to ~1–2 mm brow; submental area reductions), with ~84–89% global improvement rates in pooled analyses (Amiri/Casabona/Muka/Fabi 2024; Contini 2023). Macro-HIFU = modest inch-loss; not weight-loss (Jewell 2011/2012, PDF).
  • Adverse events to discuss: transient erythema/tenderness; rare neuropraxia (e.g., marginal mandibular) and fat atrophy with mis-targeting; emphasize operator training and imaging (Consensus/pearls 2019).

If you’d like, I can export this as a printable one-pager (PDF/Word) or a spreadsheet with editable line-count cells per zone.

#10

And to provide some costing for comparison sake: DIY vs. service provider:

Here are typical U.S. cost ranges for Ultherapy® (focused ultrasound skin-tightening) by treatment area and major city context, along with the key factors that influence pricing.

:bar_chart: Typical Cost Ranges

  • National U.S. averages: ~$1,000 to ~$4,500 per session.
  • Full face + neck in major metro (e.g., NYC): ~$4,000-$5,500.
  • Smaller zones (e.g., brow) often ~$750-$1,000.
  • Example city-based ranges:
    • New York, NY: ~$1,500 to ~$5,000.
    • Chicago, IL: ~$1,200 to ~$4,500.
    • Los Angeles, CA: ~$1,400 to ~$4,800.
    • Austin, TX: ~$1,000 to ~$4,000.

:dart: Typical Pricing by Treatment Area (U.S.)

Treatment Area Typical Price Range*
Brow / small zone ~$500-$1,000.
Lower face / jawline ~$1,500-$2,500 (varies).
Full face ~$2,500-$4,500.
Full face + neck ~$3,000-$5,500 (especially in high‐cost cities).
Neck alone / décolletage larger area Often $4,000-$5,000+.

*Single session pricing; multiple sessions, provider level, and areas treated will raise cost.

:brain: Factors Influencing Cost

  • Geographic location & cost of living: Higher in major metros (NYC, LA) vs smaller cities.
  • Treatment area size & complexity: Larger zones (face + neck) cost more; small zones (brow only) cost less.
  • Provider expertise & clinic reputation: More experienced providers/clinics may charge premium rates.
  • Device version/technology: Newer or branded platforms may incur higher pricing.
  • Session count & intensity: Some plans may require multiple treatments or deeper targeting → higher cost.
  • Additional services: Pre-treatment anesthesia/numbing, imaging, aftercare may add cost.

If you like, I can pull city-specific pricing tables (10-15 major US metros with recent real-world pricing) so you can benchmark exactly for your region.

#11

One thought that this statement of yours provoked… if people only need to use this every 4 or 6 months, it would seem that a group of friends could buy one of these and share it among themselves. Rotate it every month between 2, 4 or 6 friends. Split the cost between everyone, and it’s almost free.

3 Likes
#12

YESSSSS

And frankly, I’ve already considered paying Medaura to just go to her house :slight_smile:

3 Likes
#13

This would be the most scientific way to go about it but I don’t have the visualization probe. Certain older models do (the original Ulthera) and they basically have visual ultrasound to guide the treatment. But with Ulthera there were higher odds of side effects because the energy was higher and the area of damage per shot larger, hence the need for more safety rails.

With the Ultraformer MPT you can’t mess up unless you’re really ignorant of facial anatomy and disregard the manual with the grid zones. It also depends on the face type a bit. My face skews larger with thick skin and dense soft tissue. I’m far less likely to overshoot in depth or energy settings. A very thin faced person should be more careful and more conservative with the energy settings, staying or at least starting off on the lower end of the range, to rule out fat loss or nerve damage. About nerve damage though, if you hit even remotely close to the wrong area, you start to feel it via tingling and pain. So just don’t do it again, skip that area and review the manual. It takes continuous operation over an area to do serious damage if you’re hitting a nerve. So it just takes some common sense and listening to one’s body.

Having a group of friends to do this with would be great not just for cost but to have someone else do it ON you as it’s a PITA to self administer. But I have no friends who believe in the DIY aspect as much as I practice it. And none close enough to me that I’m close enough to do this to or have it done to by.

3 Likes
#14

I would be remiss to not mention that the cartridges are consumable though. They come preprogrammed with 10-20 thousand shots, depending on the model, and once you run that many shots, they go poof! — won’t work anymore. They cost about $65 though so not the end of the world.

#15

So that number… 20,000, sounds like it would last forever. But in reality how many sessions does that translate to? Any idea?

#16

So actually MY dupe’s cartridges have 10k shots each, not 20. The official ultrafomer’s run at 20k but are also much more expensive. How many treatments that gets you depends on the usage and cartridge type. For example I’ve used mine mainly on the face — only once on the body so far — and on the face you use the 2 mm middle frequency cartridge EVERYWHERE but the 4.5 mm is only used in the lower face. The 3 mm is used everywhere the 4.5 mm one is used and also in a few extra places. So basically the lower the depth of penetration, the more you’ll use that cartridge and the sooner you’ll run out. I still haven’t used up any cartridge but my 2mm is about halfway through its lifespan. I’ve done about 4 treatments so far, so you do the math.

1 Like
#17

And I must have been a bit trigger happy now that I think about it. :joy:

2 Likes
#18

Perhaps some groups of similarly-minded people could self-assemble here and do something like this. I could see it would be easy to get a group of a few people in each of the major cities in the US who might want to do this. It would seem like there would be a few biohacker oriented people here from each city (like NY, LA, SF, Dallas, Miami, etc.) that may want to come together to try this?

Perhaps there is a longer term need for “Longevity clubs” around the world that do this sort of thing?

3 Likes