Home · ARUNA 2026: dr. Jesslyn Presents Dual-Frequenc
From Bali to ARUNA International Summit 2026: dr. Jesslyn Amelia Shares Clinical Experience With Dual-Frequency RF
A conference presentation is not proof that a treatment works. It is something else, and arguably more useful: a clinic putting its own cases in front of specialists who can question them.
Short answer. At the ARUNA International Summit 2026, held at Raffles Hotel Jakarta from 4 to 6 September 2026, dr. Jesslyn Amelia, Sp.D.V.E gave an oral presentation from the podium on Elea Clinic’s early clinical experience with dual-frequency monopolar radiofrequency at 6.78 and 2 MHz for facial tightening and lifting: a serial case report in three patients. A case report is not a clinical trial, and three patients photographed immediately after a single session cannot establish that a treatment works. Its value is different: it puts real treatment decisions in front of other specialists, who are free to disagree.
What is the ARUNA International Summit?
ARUNA — Aesthetic and Regenerative Unity through Network and Alliances — is an international scientific meeting on aesthetic and regenerative dermatology. The 2026 edition ran at Raffles Jakarta from 4 to 6 September 2026 and is listed by PERDOSKI, the Indonesian Society of Dermatology and Venereology (arunasummit.id, PERDOSKI). Meetings like this are where dermatologists compare techniques, challenge each other’s reasoning and learn from outcomes outside their own practice.
What dr. Jesslyn presented
“Immediate Clinical Outcomes of Dual-Frequency Noninvasive Monopolar Radiofrequency at 6.78 MHz and 2 MHz for Facial Skin Tightening and Lifting: A Serial Case Report”
The report described three adult patients treated at Elea Clinic in Denpasar with the XERF system (Cynosure Lutronic), a monopolar radiofrequency device the abstract describes as operating sequentially at 6.78 MHz and 2 MHz to deliver heat across dermal and subdermal planes. Here is what was reported, in full.
| What was studied | What the abstract states |
|---|---|
| Patients | Three adults, all female, aged 33–47 |
| Skin types | Fitzpatrick II and IV |
| Presenting problem | Mild to moderate facial laxity |
| Treatment | A single session with the dual-frequency device |
| How outcomes were assessed | Standardised frontal, oblique and lateral photography, taken immediately before and immediately after treatment |
| What was observed | A clinically observed immediate tightening and lifting effect in all three cases; visible improvement in jawline definition, lower-facial laxity appearance and cheek firmness |
| Comfort | 2 to 3 out of 10 on the Numeric Rating Scale — mild to moderate procedural discomfort |
| Adverse events | Transient mild erythema only, resolving within 60 minutes. No oedema, bruising, thermal injury or downtime recorded |
| The authors’ own conclusion | That prospective controlled studies with objective outcome measures and extended follow-up are warranted |
Reading those findings honestly
Three patients. No comparison group. No blinded assessor. No objective measurement instrument — the outcome was clinical observation of photographs. And the “after” images were taken immediately after treatment, in the same sitting as the “before” ones.
That design cannot separate a real tissue effect from posture, expression, lighting or the observer’s expectation. It is not evidence that XERF lifts a face. It is a documented description of what three faces looked like on the day, put in front of a room of specialists. The abstract says as much itself.
Why “immediate” outcomes?
XERF launched at Elea at the end of June 2026, so by early September no patient had reached the three-to-six month point at which radiofrequency results are usually judged (O’Connor 2021). Reporting immediate outcomes was the honest scope: what happens in the tissue and on the face on the day of treatment, without claiming to know what happens later.
What a serial case report can — and cannot — show
A serial case report, or case series, describes a group of patients who received the same kind of treatment, without a comparison group. In the widely used Oxford hierarchy, case series sit at level 4 for questions about whether a treatment works; only mechanism-based reasoning ranks lower (Oxford CEBM levels of evidence). Methodologists describe case series as uncontrolled designs with an increased risk of bias (Murad 2018).
| Serial case report | Randomised controlled trial | |
|---|---|---|
| Comparison group | None | Yes: placebo, sham or another treatment |
| Who chooses the patients | The treating clinic | Random allocation |
| Blinded assessors | Usually not | Ideally yes |
| What it can show | What was done, what was seen, safety signals, questions worth testing | Whether the treatment caused the effect, and by how much |
| What it cannot show | Cause, durability, how it compares with alternatives | Anything outside the trial’s population and time frame |
This matters to patients. A clinic that says “we presented our results at a conference, so the treatment is proven” is overstating what a presentation means. We make no such claim.
Then why present at all?
Because private treatment rooms are otherwise invisible. When a clinic shows its cases to peers, other dermatologists can ask the questions a patient cannot: how were patients selected, how were outcomes assessed, what energy was used and where, and what went less well. It is a form of accountability, and it feeds a wider professional conversation that eventually produces better studies.
For a new device that matters more than usual. The published XERF literature consists of two manufacturer-affiliated animal and modelling studies (Hong 2024, Ko 2025), one 39-person uncontrolled multicentre study (Cureus 2026) and one 16-person retrospective study (Erlich 2026). Real-world reports from clinics treating patients of different ages, ethnicities and skin types add to that picture, and Indonesian and Southeast Asian skin is under-represented in it.
What the experience has changed in our own practice
Patient selection
Treating a large number of patients in a short period made the importance of selection very visible. The clearest immediate responses were in early-to-moderate laxity with reasonable skin thickness, consistent with what is published for monopolar radiofrequency generally (O’Connor 2021).
Facial anatomy
The lower face ages through several processes at once: fat compartments shift (Rohrich & Pessa 2007), the mandible remodels (Shaw 2010) and ligament-related laxity develops (Minelli 2023). Energy-based tightening addresses some of these and not others.
Energy delivery and treatment depth
The two frequencies behave differently in tissue. In modelling and animal work, 2 MHz produced broader, deeper heating in fatty tissue while 6.78 MHz heated more locally along the fibrous septa (Ko 2025). That is laboratory evidence rather than a human outcome, but it is the rationale for planning depth by region instead of treating a whole face uniformly.
Immediate versus progressive results
Monopolar radiofrequency causes immediate collagen contraction and then stimulates new collagen over months (Zelickson 2004, Fitzpatrick 2003). The presentation separated the two deliberately: what is visible on day zero is fibril shortening, and what develops over weeks to months is new collagen. Only the first of those was reported.
An immediate result includes some swelling as well as real tightening. That is exactly why an immediate-outcome report should be read as a starting point rather than an end point.
Why outcomes differ between patients
Age, skin thickness, fat beneath the jaw, bone structure, sun damage, smoking, previous treatments and the energy delivered all influence the response.
Why operator knowledge matters
An energy-based device does not decide its own settings. Depth, energy, pulse count and where to hold back are clinical judgements, particularly over areas previously treated with filler, toxin, HIFU or liposuction — a central theme of the advanced XERF programme dr. Jesslyn attended in Korea in August 2026 (the Seoul article).
Continuing education is part of the treatment
Patients rarely see this part of aesthetic medicine: the training programmes, the conferences, the reading, the case reviews. dr. Jesslyn completed her specialist training in dermatology, venereology and aesthetics at Universitas Gadjah Mada, and her registration can be checked publicly (registration details). Presenting at ARUNA and training with the manufacturer in Korea are part of the same commitment: being able to explain why a face was treated the way it was.
The immediate-outcome report is a first step. Every XERF patient here is photographed to the same standard before treatment and at review, which is what makes a longer follow-up possible — and worth reporting, including where results were modest.
Wondering whether dual-frequency RF suits your face?
Send a photo and a short description. You will get a dermatologist’s honest opinion, including if the answer is no.
Ask dr. Jesslyn on WhatsAppSources
- arunasummit.id; PERDOSKI — summit dates, organiser and programme.
- Oxford CEBM levels of evidence; Murad 2018 — where case series sit in the evidence hierarchy.
- Hong 2024; Ko 2025; Cureus 2026; Erlich 2026 — the published XERF literature.
- Zelickson 2004; Fitzpatrick 2003; O’Connor 2021 — monopolar RF mechanism and time course.
- Rohrich & Pessa 2007; Shaw 2010; Minelli 2023 — lower-face anatomy.
- FDA 510(k) summary K251327 — FDA 510(k) K251327.
Questions we are asked
Did the ARUNA presentation prove that XERF works?
No. It was a serial case report in three patients, assessed by photographs taken immediately before and immediately after a single session, with no comparison group and no blinded assessor. That design cannot establish cause, the size of an effect or durability. The abstract itself calls for prospective controlled studies with objective outcome measures and extended follow-up.
Was it a poster or an oral presentation?
An oral presentation. The summit’s own announcement lists it under “Oral Presentation” with the full title and dr. Jesslyn Amelia, Sp.D.V.E named as the speaker.
How many patients were in the case report?
Three: all female, aged 33 to 47, Fitzpatrick skin types II and IV, with mild to moderate facial laxity, each treated in a single session. Comfort scored 2 to 3 out of 10, and transient mild erythema resolving within 60 minutes was the only adverse event recorded.
Who organises ARUNA?
The ARUNA International Summit 2026 is listed by PERDOSKI, the Indonesian Society of Dermatology and Venereology, and was held at Raffles Jakarta on 4–6 September 2026.
Is XERF approved by the FDA?
It holds US FDA 510(k) clearance (K251327) for electrocoagulation and hemostasis, based on equivalence to the Thermage FLX. That is clearance rather than approval, and it was not based on clinical trials (FDA 510(k) summary K251327).
Medically reviewed by dr. Jesslyn Amelia, Sp.D.V.E — Dokter Spesialis Dermatologi, Venereologi dan Estetika. Registered with the Indonesian Ministry of Health, STR JT00000382760637. Verify registration. Last reviewed 23 September 2026. Individual results vary; this page is general information and not a substitute for consultation.