Write a review

What a Waste - Ultherapy - Barrington, IL

Very painful treatment + NO results after 2.5...

Very painful treatment + NO results after 2.5 months + $3500 = a huge waste. My neck still hurts. I'll give it a few more month and if still no photographable results I'll be reporting to the Better Business Bureau, AMA, etc. Also worry about the effects of the inflammation on overall health. A clinical trial (by Ultherapy not an unbiased third party) on efficacy was completed a year ago but no results yet published.

3.5 Month Mark Ultheraphy - Still NO results except damage

Had my second follow-up post-Ultherapy. My practitioner could not document any positive results from my Ultherapy treatment nearly 4 months ago. I still have burning pain and red marks on either side of my neck, numbness in my jaw area and occasional, sharp "pin-prick" feelings on both sides of my face. I'm in the process of obtaining my before and after photos from my doctor's office. They're mine, right? Just like x-rays?
Dr. David Van Dam

I was told by Dr. Van Dam and by his "associate" whom I later found does not even have a medical degree--that I was the "perfect candidate" for Ultherapy. I signed up, paid my $3500. It was an extremely painful procedure which was NOT performed by the doctor as I had been lead to believe. After 7 months, I've had no results but lingering numbness and pain. The practice's response to this was pretty much "tough luck - nothing we can do". I do not recommend wasting your money on Ulthera or Dr. Van Dam's practice.

1 out of 5 stars Overall rating
2 out of 5 stars Doctor's bedside manner
2 out of 5 stars Answered my questions
1 out of 5 stars After care follow-up
2 out of 5 stars Time spent with me
3 out of 5 stars Phone or email responsiveness
3 out of 5 stars Staff professionalism & courtesy
1 out of 5 stars Payment process
3 out of 5 stars Wait tmes
Was this review helpful? 2 others found this helpful

Comments (16)

Sort by

Not a "high" number compared to the number of total treatments delivered sights like this are used by people to mainly complain.
  • Reply
yet if there are so many people looking for a place to voice their anger, their outrage, and their disgust at being robbed. . . .
  • Reply
Once again an emotional response. Being "robbed"? If they "robbed" you it sounds like you have a legal revenue to pursue them.
  • Reply
for most people, having their face mangled evokes an "emotional" response. I got every penny back.
  • Reply
my experience was a nightmare too. when you find out that "stimulating collagen" means burning up to 900 holes in layers of the skin that have never been exposed to anything, let alone high heat, it's not surprising there are problems. two things have helped me: 1) castor oil---i lathered it on nightly. it helps tremendously with wound healing and skin generally. 2) a potent herb called gotu kola---i am still taking it 4x/day in liquid form. it helps with wounds, and scarring, and also stimulates collagen production. it's also an anti-anxiety. good luck--
  • Reply
It's not 900 "holes" it's 15,000 TCP's or thermo coagulation points. It is non invasive (understand the term) and there is no downtime. Most issues that arise are a result of operator error and administering the treatment recklessly. Welts, bruises etc ate not the normal outcome. I would look long and hard at the provider before deciding to have any aesthetic treatment. Just because it's being performed by a doctor doesn't mean it's being done correctly. All Ultherapy providers are initially trceive extensive training and them have the option to undergo advanced training. A manufacturer isn't responsible for how it's product gets used after the training. So to say the marketing "buzzwords" are lies is just an emotional response and not one based in any kind of fact.
  • Reply
The first term you use is scientific euphemism for burns in the skin. It is the extensive scarring resulting from the "zaps" or burns that, eventually, in some people, pulls the skin tighter as scar tissue itself is tighter, and less flexible, than normal skin. This was the explanation a plastic surgeon who was trained in the technique gave to me. "Non-invasive" is a technical surgical term that is so widely divergent from the actual experience of the women who undergo the experience that it exposes the term as a carefully chosen marketing tool rather than information. Intense internal pain caused by an external agent is, for the practical purposes of those who purchase the treatment, highly invasive.
  • Reply
What the plastic surgeon failed to explain is that the TCP's are focused and delivered 4.5mm bow the skin not at the surface level on the epidermis but rather in the SMAS. If there are "burns" on the skin they are a result of improper technique.
  • Reply
Surface burns, along with welts and nerve damage are the result of poor technique, which is rampant. Swelling, particularly the edema of the first days, and soreness, sometimes extreme, is the inevitable outcome of such an aggressive procedure. i was informed by the technician, after the fact, that i could expect my neck to "be sore to the touch for 4 to 7 weeks." Even women who have liked the result have been shocked by the healing time because they were told there was no healing time. In terms of the deep heating that is Ultherapy, here' s Dr. Rian Maercks from his post "Ulthera vs. Thermage for Skin Tightening on this site: "these devices are commonly used by practitioners with no formal training in plastic and reconstructive surgery and thus no understanding of what interventions, forces structures and vectors make a beautifully rejuvenated face. Now that Thermage has a long history, people are begining to understand that the patients are nearly universally displeased to enraged with their results. I have seen several difficult reconstructve cases resulting from them paying for aesthetic enhancement with Thermage. Now comes Ulthera the new better thermage and can you guess what is happening. . . the same thing. I personally do not like deep heating of the face. it causes the absorbtion and atrophy of fat which over time makes patients look aged and there is no control of vectors. When a plastic surgeon restores a face with a facelift, there are multiple different vectors created with different forces to create a natural concavity and convexity. The contraction forces created by these technologies are concentric and pull equally in all directions, flattenening the faces- a very undesirable form.
  • Reply
for those who are interested, here's more information from Dr. Rian Maercks on this site about Ulthera: "Understanding Ultherapy. January 25th, 2012 +1 There are several things that must be understood about ulthera and other new technologies. Firstly you must understand that all of the information out there is from a company that wants to sell you on this as the latest and greatest. However if you read the company's statements, this is not intended or purported to replace a facelift. What is the problem? The problem is that no company makes money when someone perfomrs a beautiful facelift so no one is interested in promoting a facelift to the public. Instead there is a nonstop flow of unscientific information pursuading patients to spend money on branded technology. Ulthera is designed to give patients exactly what they want- a promise of rejuvenation with no downtime and no pain. A promise that cannot be fulfilled. Why I would NEVER use ulthera in the face- Ulthera works like the multitude of other problematic tecnologies out there, by creating focused heat to contract tissue. Heat beneath the skin causes destruction of the healthy fatty tissues of the face that are responsible for a youthful appearance. It also creates a concentric contraction around each point of energy deosition - relatively uncontrolled for direction and magnitude. Furthermore there is no feedback or monitoring of effect with Ulthera meaning that you could be heating below threshold for collagen degradation or heating so high it could be dangerous. In this sense it is a blind technique where practitioners 'believe' the company knows what is happening and blindly apply this to patients."
  • Reply
It always amazes me when people threaten to a "report" to various overseeing bodies. Unless you were lied to and deliberately deceived there is really no recourse. I'm sure you signed a consent form listing all of the potential side effects. All are transient. There are currently 15 peer reviewed studies (not sponsored by Ultherapy) supporting the efficacy.
  • Reply
There is always recourse. Especially when the FDA documents 284 adverse events reported. (See link in comment below) It's been 4 months and my side effecst are not yet "transient".
  • Reply
the Ulthera marketing brochure's buzz words---"no downtime" and "non-invasive" are, in fact, lies. the testimonials of welts, burns, swelling, nerve damage, volume loss et al. goes on and on. even if for the lucky those are transient, being in pain for weeks on end is, in fact, downtime. and having welts down the inside of your throat is terribly invasive. and no, i wasn't informed about any of it, but was told that there was no risk at all. See Dr. Maerks on this site about having to put women's faces back together after Ulthera.
  • Reply

I'm so sorry to hear you are feeling like this might have been a waste for you. :( Fingers crossed that doesn't turn out to be the case.

You had mentioned a clinical trial you were aware of, how were you aware of it? I'd love to hear more details.

  • Reply
Those can be accessed via google search. There are nearly 300 adverse events that have been reported to the FDA regarding Ultherapy: http://google2.fda.gov/search?q=ulthera&client=FDAgov&site=FDAgov&lr=&proxystylesheet=FDAgov&output=xml_no_dtd&getfields=*&ie=UTF-8&ulang=en&ip=71.194.62.254&access=p&sort=date:D:L:d1&entqr=3&entqrm=0&oe=UTF-8&ud=1&filter=0&start=10
  • Reply
i think by now there are probably a high number of "adverse events" that have been reported on this sight, no?
  • Reply