Seoul
Chief MD, Gangnam
Duk-ha Kim
The trust our patients have placed in this clinic was built on conviction and principle. We intend to hold to both, unchanged, through the next hundred years.
Thread lift technique and material comparison guide
Spiral Thread Lift
A spiral thread lift places a helically shaped absorbable thread under the skin, a shape description that by itself says nothing about the polymer, the manufacturer, the specification or the insertion technique used. An ex vivo study designed to isolate what determines pull-out strength in barbed PLCL suspension threads found that angled insertion patterns produced significantly higher pull-out force than straight-line insertion (p<0.001), while its own authors describe the finding as a biomechanical proof of concept rather than a way to predict an individual thread’s performance. Because the sources cited here study insertion technique, material evidence and pooled complication rates rather than a shape called "spiral," this page treats material, manufacturer, specification and technique as the questions to compare across quotes.
- Insertion technique
- Ex vivo study: angled insertion (J-stitch, self-locking) produced significantly higher pull-out force than straight-line insertion in barbed PLCL threads (p<0.001)
- Material evidence quality
- FDA-commissioned review rates PCL local-reaction evidence as low quality; zero studies report systemic reactions
- Pooled complications (26 studies)
- Edema 32.9%, dimpling 11.7%, paresthesia 6.8%, infection 3.1%, thread extrusion 3.9%, palpable or visible threads 1.8% — pooled data, not attributable to one product
- Regulatory route
- Sutures generally reach market by showing substantial equivalence to an existing product; cleared wording in this category describes fixation as temporary
What is a spiral (screw) thread lift, and is "spiral" a material or a technique?
A spiral or screw thread lift places a thread with a helical, coil-like structure under the skin, as distinct from a thread with directional barbs cut along a straight core. That description is about geometry only. It does not by itself say what polymer the thread is made of, how thick or long it is, or how the operator inserts it — three separate questions this page treats as the ones that actually decide what the procedure delivers.
Does the word "spiral" tell you the thread material, the manufacturer or the specification?
No, none of those. A shape name describes how a thread is molded or cut, not which polymer it resorbs into, which company manufactures it, or the length and thickness listed on a specification sheet. None of the sources on this page studies a shape called "spiral" by that name, so this page does not compare spiral threads with barbed or cog threads on strength or outcome. It instead covers the two variables the cited evidence does address directly: how a thread is inserted, and what it is made of.
Does the way a thread is inserted change how well it holds tissue?
An ex vivo study designed to identify what determines pull-out strength in barbed PLCL suspension threads tested ten different insertion techniques, each repeated twelve times, in turkey breast tissue. Insertion technique was one of the variables the study set out to isolate, alongside anchoring method and thread orientation, rather than the finished cosmetic result.
What did the study find when it compared angled and straight-line insertion?
Angled insertion patterns — described in the study as J-stitch and self-locking techniques — produced significantly higher pull-out force than a straight-line insertion of the same thread (p<0.001). The comparison was measured as the force needed to pull the thread back out of the tissue, not as a visible lifting result on a person.
Why do the study authors call this a proof of concept rather than a performance guarantee?
The authors describe their own results as a biomechanical proof of concept, not a way to predict the precise performance of an individual thread. The experiment used turkey breast rather than human tissue, tested a single material (PLCL) from a single product, and measured force in a bench setup rather than following patients over time. This page does not extend the pull-out finding to a claim about how long a lift is visible or how the same technique behaves in a different material.
Is thread material a separate question from insertion technique?
Yes. The pull-out study above isolates technique while holding the material constant at PLCL, so its finding describes one polymer, not threads in general. Absorbable thread materials sold for lifting include PDO, PLLA, PCL and PLCL, and they are different polymers rather than interchangeable names for one product. This page cites a review of PCL specifically below and does not extend that review’s findings to the other three materials.
What does the FDA-commissioned review say about the quality of evidence for PCL threads?
A review of polycaprolactone (PCL) as a suture material, commissioned by FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, rates the evidence on local tissue reactions as low quality — studies included a control group but reported inconsistent results. The review also reports zero studies addressing systemic reactions to PCL sutures, and its authors list material-specific research as an area still open for future study.
What do device-surveillance reports on sutures show in that review?
The same review describes 86 device-surveillance reports touching sutures generally, of which 48 concerned suture products, and 42 of those 48 were logged as device failure or malfunction rather than a health-outcome event. That figure describes how a surveillance database category was classified, not the rate of any specific problem in a specific product used at a specific clinic.
How are lifting sutures regulated, and does that route require clinical trials?
Surgical sutures, spiral-shaped or otherwise, are generally handled as a device category where a manufacturer markets a new product by showing substantial equivalence to one already on the market, rather than by running a new clinical trial. FDA guidance for this category asks for data such as a resorption profile, not a clinical-outcome study. One published clearance record in this category is worded as temporarily fixating tissue in an elevated position — the word "temporarily" is part of that wording.
Sources: FDA — surgical sutures Class II special controls guidanceFDA 510(k) K192423 — MINT Product Family (Hans Biomed)
How long does the effect last?
A thread’s material breaking down in tissue and how long a lift reads as visible sit on two different timelines, and none of this page’s sources puts a number of months on the second one. The FDA-commissioned PCL review rates evidence on local tissue reactions as low quality and reports zero studies on systemic reactions — it does not include an absorption-duration figure for the material. Separately, the regulatory pathway used for this suture category asks manufacturers for a resorption profile as supporting data rather than a clinical-outcome study, and the one cleared record quoted above uses the word temporarily for the mechanical fixation itself, again without a stated span. Because the pull-out study above also shows that insertion angle changes fixation force even with material held constant at PLCL, mechanical hold at the time of placement is not decided by material choice alone. Ask the clinic for the resorption-profile documentation behind the specific product and material it plans to use, which insertion technique it uses and why, and what evidence — as distinct from the word temporarily — supports any duration it quotes to you.
Sources: ECRI review commissioned by FDA CDRH (2021) — polycaprolactone material performance and safety profileFDA — surgical sutures Class II special controls guidanceFDA 510(k) K192423 — MINT Product Family (Hans Biomed)Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol 2026 — ex vivo study of parameters determining pull-out strength of barbed PLCL suspension threads
What complication rates are reported for thread lifting in general?
An invited discussion pooling data from a 26-study meta-analysis of thread lifting reports edema in 32.9% of cases, dimpling in 11.7%, paresthesia in 6.8%, infection in 3.1%, thread extrusion in 3.9%, and threads that could be felt or seen in 1.8%.
Can those pooled complication rates be applied to one product or technique?
The authors of that same discussion warn that pooling 26 heterogeneous studies together means the resulting rates cannot be assigned to any one product or insertion technique. Read the two facts together: the numbers above describe the combined literature, and the same authors say that combination is not a label for what one clinic, one material or one technique will produce.
How should you read a quote that just says "spiral lift" or "screw thread"?
A shape name on a quote describes geometry, not the material, the manufacturer, the specification or the technique that will be used on you. None of that is settled by the word "spiral," so a quote naming only the shape leaves the variables this page covers — material, technique and specification — as open questions rather than answered ones.
What should you compare across quotes before booking?
Compare the thread material (whether it is PDO, PLLA, PCL or PLCL), the manufacturer and product name, the number and length of threads planned, the insertion technique the operator plans to use, and the clinic’s procedure for responding if a complication appears. None of the five is answered by a shape name alone, and each is a separate question the sources on this page treat as a distinct variable.
What should you ask at the consultation itself?
Ask which material the planned thread is made of and why, the manufacturer and product name, how many threads are planned and at what length, what insertion technique the operator will use and why, and how the clinic manages each of the complications reported in the literature — edema, dimpling, paresthesia, infection, extrusion and a palpable or visible thread. Agree in advance on a contact route if a problem appears after you have left the clinic.
Sources: Aesthetic Plast Surg 2021 — invited discussion reporting pooled complication rates from a 26-study thread-lift meta-analysisECRI review commissioned by FDA CDRH (2021) — polycaprolactone material performance and safety profile
Why doesn’t this page state how long a spiral thread lift lasts or how much lift to expect?
The sources cited here study pull-out force in an ex vivo model, material evidence quality, and pooled complication rates — none of them measures a duration in months or a size of visible change in patients. The cleared suture wording quoted above describes a mechanical fixation as temporary rather than giving a timeframe. This page does not publish a number for either question because none of its sources supports one.
Sources: Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol 2026 — ex vivo study of parameters determining pull-out strength of barbed PLCL suspension threadsFDA 510(k) K192423 — MINT Product Family (Hans Biomed)
What does this page intentionally leave unanswered?
This page does not rank spiral threads against barbed or cog threads, does not state a resorption timetable by material, does not publish a duration or a volume figure, and does not name the material or manufacturer used at any specific clinic. Those are either outside the sources cited here or decided by the clinic and the product it stocks, not by a shape descriptor.
Which variables actually change what a thread lift delivers — technique, material or the product record?
These are not three strengths of the same choice. Each is a separate variable studied by a separate source, and a shape name on a menu answers none of them.
| Variable | What the evidence says | Useful starting question | Confirm before choosing |
|---|---|---|---|
| Insertion technique | Angled insertion (J-stitch, self-locking) produced significantly higher pull-out force than straight-line insertion in one ex vivo study of a single material (p<0.001) | Which insertion technique does the operator plan to use, and why? | That the finding is described by its own authors as a proof of concept, not a guarantee for an individual thread |
| Thread material | PDO, PLLA, PCL and PLCL are different polymers; an FDA-commissioned review rates PCL local-reaction evidence as low quality and reports zero systemic-reaction studies | Which of the four materials is actually planned for you? | The manufacturer and product name, not just the polymer family |
| Thread count and length | Not a measure covered by the sources on this page — a quantity and length recorded on the invoice | How many threads, at what length, and in which area? | That count and length are compared against the same technique and material, not a different plan |
| Product and regulatory record | Sutures generally reach market by showing substantial equivalence to an existing product, and cleared wording in this category describes fixation as temporary | What product name and clearance record applies to what is used on you? | That the record shown belongs to the actual product, not a different one in the same category |
This table organises variables for a consultation. It is not a ranking of shapes, materials or techniques, and it does not state a duration, a volume figure or an improvement rate.
Sources: Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol 2026 — ex vivo study of parameters determining pull-out strength of barbed PLCL suspension threadsECRI review commissioned by FDA CDRH (2021) — polycaprolactone material performance and safety profileFDA — surgical sutures Class II special controls guidanceFDA 510(k) K192423 — MINT Product Family (Hans Biomed)
Medical care at Abijou
Care is provided by the medical team at the branch you select. These clinicians lead the three branches linked from this guide; confirm the doctor assigned to your visit with that branch.
Chief MD, Myeongdong
Cheol-su Yoon
I want to be thinking about how the patient feels right up to the last moment of the procedure.
Chief MD, Hongdae
Jae-wook Kim
I will give my best with the attentiveness to catch even the smallest change.
Listed branch medical team — not a medical-review byline for this article.
Frequently asked questions
Is a spiral or screw thread lift a different material than a barbed or cog thread lift?
Not necessarily — the shape name describes geometry, not the polymer the thread is made of. Absorbable thread materials include PDO, PLLA, PCL and PLCL, and any of them can in principle be molded or cut into different shapes. None of the sources on this page ties the word "spiral" to one specific material, so material is a separate question to ask the clinic directly.
Does insertion technique really change how well a thread holds tissue?
In one ex vivo study, yes: angled insertion patterns described as J-stitch and self-locking produced significantly higher pull-out force than straight-line insertion of the same thread (p<0.001). The study tested a single material, PLCL, from a single product in turkey breast tissue, and its authors describe the result as a biomechanical proof of concept rather than a prediction of how an individual thread will perform in a person.
Does a higher pull-out force in that study mean the lift lasts longer?
No — the study measured the force needed to pull a thread back out of ex vivo tissue in a bench setup, not how long a visible change lasts in a patient. The authors themselves describe the work as a proof of concept for insertion mechanics, and this page does not convert that force measurement into a duration figure.
What does the FDA-commissioned review say about PCL as a thread material?
It rates the evidence on local tissue reactions to PCL as low quality, meaning studies included a control group but reported inconsistent results, and it reports zero studies addressing systemic reactions. The review also lists material-specific research on PCL as an area still open for future study, and separately describes 86 device-surveillance reports touching sutures, 48 of them suture-related, 42 of those logged as device failure or malfunction.
Does that surveillance figure mean PCL threads fail 42 times out of every 48 uses?
No — the 42-of-48 figure describes how reports already filed in a surveillance database were categorised, not a failure rate across all uses of any product. It describes how existing reports were classified, not the odds of a problem in a given procedure, so this page does not restate it as a usage rate.
Which complications are reported for thread lifting overall?
A pooled analysis of 26 studies reports edema in 32.9% of cases, dimpling in 11.7%, paresthesia in 6.8%, infection in 3.1%, thread extrusion in 3.9%, and threads that could be felt or seen in 1.8%. The same authors warn that pooling 26 different studies together means these numbers cannot be assigned to any one product or technique, so ask the clinic how often it sees each problem and how it manages them.
If those complication rates cannot be applied to one product, why publish them at all?
Because they describe the range of problems reported across the thread-lifting literature, which is a useful starting list for a consultation even though the exact percentage will not transfer to any single clinic or product. Ask the clinic which of these six problems it has managed, how often, and what its response procedure is, rather than treating the pooled percentage as a personal risk figure.
Is a spiral thread lift regulated differently from other lifting sutures?
The sources cited here do not describe a separate regulatory category for a "spiral" shape specifically. Surgical sutures generally reach the market by showing substantial equivalence to an already-marketed product rather than through a new clinical trial, and a published clearance record in this device category describes fixation in an elevated position as temporary — that "temporarily" is part of the wording itself.
Does "temporarily fixate" tell you how many months a lift will be visible?
No — it describes the intended mechanical function of the suture at the time it is placed, not a countdown in months. This page does not publish a duration because none of the sources cited here measures one.
What should I compare across clinics before booking?
Compare the thread material (PDO, PLLA, PCL or PLCL), the manufacturer and product name, the number and length of threads planned, the insertion technique the operator will use, and the clinic’s procedure for a complication if one appears. A shape name such as "spiral" or "screw" answers none of those five on its own.
Why does insertion technique matter enough to ask about by name?
Because it is one of the few variables studied directly: an ex vivo test found angled insertion produced significantly higher pull-out force than straight-line insertion in the same material. Asking which technique the operator plans to use, and why, moves the conversation from a shape name to a documented mechanical variable.
Who should raise something before booking, or hold off?
The sources on this page do not publish a patient-selection list, so suitability is a decision made at the consultation rather than something read off a shape name. Mention anything affecting wound healing, infection risk, bleeding or scarring, prior thread or facial procedures, current medicines, and any dental or facial treatment already planned, and ask the clinic what it treats as a reason to wait.
What happens if a complication appears after I have already left the clinic?
Agree on a contact route before you leave, because problems such as extrusion, dimpling, paresthesia, infection, or a palpable or visible thread are described in the literature without a stated timeline for when they can appear. Ask who assesses a report remotely, what photographs or details they need, and what the process is if a thread needs to be addressed.
Is a spiral thread lift a substitute for a surgical facelift?
The sources cited on this page study insertion mechanics, material evidence and pooled complication rates for thread lifting rather than compare it against surgery, so this page does not make that comparison. If the goal is closer to what a surgical lift addresses, that comparison is better raised directly as a question in a surgical consultation.
How Abijou works
We started in Gangnam in 2006 and the network now runs 17 branches across Korea. The line we work to is skin transformation woven into everyday life — care you can keep up with, rather than one dramatic change.
- Across the 17 branches in Seoul, Gyeonggi, Incheon and Busan: over 1,000 medical professionals and more than 350 certified medical devices
- Authentic products only, in appropriate amounts — the treatment is fitted to the condition, not to a package
- Prices are quoted from each branch’s published price list as it stands
Contact and location
- Phone
- 1544-0377
Free Consultation
Booking happens at the branch
There is no inquiry form on this page. Once you have picked a branch above, open that branch’s site or the official reservation center and choose a time yourself.
- No deposit and no online prepayment — everything is paid at the visit
- Per-treatment prices are published for each branch on the official reservation center
- English, Japanese and Chinese are supported alongside Korean