Evidence without advertising makeup
“Doctor, show me real results from real patients.”
This request comes weekly. Understandable after decades of exaggerated promises in aesthetic medicine.
Here is the complete evidence from 300 patients treated at ALMO Clinic. Without cherry-picking. Without edited testimonials. With rigorous follow-up over 36 months.
Rigorous scientific methodology
Photographic documentation protocol
Standardized pre and post-treatment photographs. Same professional lighting, exact angles, controlled focal distance.
Follow-up at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months. No digital filters beyond protecting patient identity.
Photographs lie when there’s no protocol. That’s why we apply real clinical research standards.
Objective measurement system
Validated satisfaction scale 1-10. Automatic digital surveys sent independently.
Specific questions: result naturalness, expectation fulfillment, treatment comfort, likelihood to repeat.
No “courtesy” calls that bias responses. Anonymous system protects honesty.
Statistical analysis of 300 patients
General satisfaction at 6 months
Average: 8.7/10
Rating distribution: 76% excellent (9-10), 19% very good (7-8), 4% acceptable (5-6), 1% dissatisfied.
Age factor in results
30-35 years prevention: 9.1/10 average 36-42 years early correction: 8.9/10 average 43-50 years moderate correction: 8.4/10 average
Age doesn’t disqualify. It does modify realistic expectations of final results.
Best responding areas
Jawline contour: 91% high satisfaction. Mid facial third: 87% high satisfaction. Forehead and eyebrows: 84% high satisfaction.
Neck and double chin: 79% high satisfaction.
Authenticated testimonials by groups
Group 30-35 years: smart prevention
María José R., 32 years, communicator
“Expected terrible pain from friends’ comments about Ultherapy. Liftera was super tolerable. I ended up watching Netflix during the procedure.”
“Result exactly what I wanted: I look rested, not overdone. My husband says I look radiant but doesn’t know why.”
Rating: 9/10. Best: absolute naturalness. Could improve: anxiety about slow results.
Andrea C., 34 years, architect
“Did it preventively, not correctively. At 6 months I do see different firmness in forehead and eyelids.”
“Could work normally the next day. Zero drama in my work routine.”
Rating: 8/10. Best: zero work interference. Could improve: high cost for my age.
Group 36-42 years: discreet correction
Patricia M., 38 years, banking executive
“Nasolabial lines and incipient double chin bothered me. At 6 months notable but natural improvement.”
“Dr. Barón honest about expectations. Delivered exactly what promised. One year later maintaining results.”
Rating: 10/10. Best: total medical honesty. Could improve: personal impatience with process.
Diana L., 41 years, journalist
“First aesthetic medicine experience. Super calm. Like a reset for my skin.”
“I look like I did 5 years ago but natural. Nobody asks what I did.”
Rating: 9/10. Best: credible progressive result. Could improve: evolution time.
Group 43-50 years: effective correction
Carmen S., 45 years, working mother
“After 2 children and stressful work, my face reflected tiredness I didn’t feel.”
“Liftera gave me back the face I feel inside. Renewed energy in my expression.”
Rating: 9/10. Best: face-internal energy congruence. Could improve: wish it lasted longer.
Lucía H., 47 years, consultant
“Tried thread lifts before. Liftera more natural and durable comparatively.”
“The difference is that nobody asks if I did something. With threads it was obvious.”
Rating: 8/10. Best: subtlety versus other treatments. Could improve: cost compared to threads.
Group 51+ years: realistic improvement
Mercedes T., 54 years, accountant
“At my age I don’t expect miracles. Wanted improvement without artificial exaggeration.”
“Achieved exactly that. Recovered firmness without artificiality. Very satisfied with decision.”
Rating: 8/10. Best: completely fulfilled expectations. Could improve: needed 2 sessions.
Cases with limited results
Honest testimony: unrealistic expectations
Alejandra P., 43 years, lawyer
“Expected results equal to surgical facelift. Liftera is subtle, not dramatic like surgery.”
“My fault for unrealistic expectations. The result exists but gradual and natural.”
Rating: 6/10. Learning: previous expectation evaluation crucial for satisfaction.
Low response case
Isabel R., 49 years, teacher
“Less response than personally expected. Maybe my skin produces little collagen naturally.”
“Comfortable and professional treatment. Minimal result for my expectations.”
Rating: 5/10. Medical note: 8% patients show low response. Prediction impossible pre-treatment.
Documented photographic analysis
Measurable objective changes
Eyebrow elevation: 2-4mm average in 78% patients Jawline definition: visible improvement 84% patients Double chin reduction: 15-30% decrease in 71% patients
Skin texture: objective improvement 89% patients measured by elastometer.
Typical temporal evolution
1 month: mild immediate tightening effect 3 months: 60% final result visible 6 months: 90% final result established
12 months: stable maintenance without significant deterioration.
Factors predicting better results
Ideal Liftera profile
Age 30-45 years. Mild to moderate sagging. Skin with good residual elasticity.
Realistic expectations. No history of chronic smoking.
Signs of suboptimal result risk
Severe sagging (surgical candidate). Expectations of surgical facelift. Very sun-damaged skin.
Active smoking during treatment.
Real duration of results
Long-term follow-up
12 months: 89% maintain satisfactory result 18 months: 76% maintain satisfactory result 24 months: 61% maintain satisfactory result
Annual touch-up recommended for optimal continuous maintenance.
Factors shortening duration
Sun exposure without protection. Dramatic weight loss or gain. Severe prolonged stress.
Smoking accelerates result deterioration.
Testimonial comparison with alternatives
Liftera versus Ultherapy
Comfort during treatment: Liftera: 9.1/10 patient average Ultherapy: 6.2/10 average (referred by patients)
Result naturalness: Liftera: 8.9/10 average Ultherapy: 8.1/10 average referred
Liftera versus thread lifts
Satisfaction at 6 months: Liftera: 8.7/10 average Threads: 6.8/10 average (referred by patients)
Result naturalness: Liftera: “Nobody asks what I did” Threads: “You can tell I did something”
Most satisfied patient profile
Common identified characteristics
Researched alternatives available beforehand. Consulted multiple specialists before deciding.
Understood result chronology. Had clear and realistic established expectations.
Recurrent positive comments
“Exactly what I expected”. “More comfortable process than other HIFUs”.
“Natural result, not artificial”. “Worth the investment made”.
Recommendation rate by age
30-35 years: 94% would recommend 36-42 years: 91% would recommend 43-50 years: 87% would recommend
51+ years: 82% would recommend Liftera.
Main recommendation reasons
Exceptional comfort of procedure. Naturalness of obtained result.
Professionalism of follow-up. Fulfillment of expectations created initially.
Numbers don’t lie
Liftera produces high satisfaction in 9 out of 10 patients properly treated.
Testimonials reveal consistent pattern: natural, progressive and credible result without artificiality.
The key lies in realistic expectations and appropriate candidate selection.
A personalized medical evaluation determines if your profile matches documented highest success cases.
