Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2013-9
A Pilot Prospective Comparative Trial of High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound versus Cryolipolysis for Flank Subcutaneous Adipose Tissue and Review of the Literature
Multiple treatment modalities exist for noninvasive body sculpting and reduction of focal adipose deposits, including high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) and cryolipolysis. The focus of this study was to compare the efficacy of HIFU and cryolipolysis in the reduction of localized subcutaneous adipose tissue in the flank region.
Materials and Methods:
Eight female patients with subcutaneous adipose tissue localized to the bilateral flanks were randomized to a single treatment with either HIFU or cryolipolysis to each flank. Weight and widest-point waist circumference were recorded at baseline and at 4 monthly follow-up visits, with no significant change in weight over the study period. Two blinded investigators graded baseline and 4-month follow-up photographs for improvement using a 5-point global aesthetic improvement scale.
Results and Discussion:
Although both HIFU and cryolipolysis led to modest reductions in localized flank subcutaneous adipose tissue, there was a trend toward greater improvement in the HIFU treatment group.
Ter HaarGCoussiosC. High intensity focused ultrasound: Physical principles and devices. Int J Hyperthermia. 2007;23:89–104.
3.
JewellMLDesiletsCSmollerBR. Evaluation of a novel high-intensity focused ultrasound device: Preclinical studies in a porcine model. Aesthet Surg J. 2011;31:429–434.
4.
GadsdenEAguilarMTSmollerBRJewellML. Evaluation of a novel high-intensity focused ultrasound device for ablating subcutaneous adipose tissue for noninvasive body contouring: Safety studies in human volunteers. Aesthet Surg J. 2011;31:401–410.
5.
FatemiAKaneMA. High-intensity focused ultrasound effectively reduces waist circumference by ablating adipose tissue from the abdomen and flanks: A retrospective case series. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2010;34:577–582.
6.
BrownSAGreenbaumLShtukmasterSZadokYBen-EzraSKushkuleyL. Characterization of non-thermal focused ultrasound for noninvasive selective fat cell disruption (lysis): Technical and preclinical assessment. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;124:92–101.
7.
JewellMLSolishNJDesiletsCS. Noninvasive body sculpting technologies with an emphasis on high-intensity focused ultrasound. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2011;35:901–912.
8.
NelsonAAWassermanDAvramMM. Cryolipolysis for reduction of excess adipose tissue. Semin Cutan Med Surg. 2009;28:244–249.
EpsteinEHJrOrenME. Popsicle panniculitis. N Engl J Med. 1970;282:966–967.
11.
RajkumarSVLaudeTARussoRMGururajVJ. Popsicle panniculitis of the cheeks: A diagnostic entity caused by sucking on cold objects. Clin Pediatr (Phila). 1976;15:619–621.
12.
BeachamBECooperPHBuchananCSWearyPE. Equestrian cold panniculitis in women. Arch Dermatol. 1980;116:1025–1027.
13.
DiamantisSBastekTGrobenPMorrellD. Subcutaneous fat necrosis in a newborn following icebag application for treatment of supraventricular tachycardia. J Perinatol. 2006;26:518–520.
14.
MansteinDLaubachHWatanabeKFarinelliWZurakowskiDAndersonRR. Selective cryolysis: A novel method of non-invasive fat removal. Lasers Surg Med. 2008;40:595–604.
15.
ZelicksonBEgbertBMPreciadoJ. Cryolipolysis for noninvasive fat cell destruction: Initial results from a pig model. Dermatol Surg. 2009;35:1462–1470.
16.
KleinKBZelicksonBRiopelleJG. Non-invasive cryolipolysis for subcutaneous fat reduction does not affect serum lipid levels or liver function tests. Lasers Surg Med. 2009;41:785–790.
17.
ColemanSRSachdevaKEgbertBMPreciadoJAllisonJ. Clinical efficacy of noninvasive cryolipolysis and its effects on peripheral nerves. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2009;33:482–488.
18.
RiopelleJTsaiMYKovackB. Lipid and liver function effects of the cryolipolysis procedure in a study of male love handle reduction [abstract]. Laser Surg Med. 2009;41(S21):82.
19.
TeitelbaumSABurnsJLKubotaJ. Non-invasive body contouring by focused ultrasound: Safety and efficacy of the Contour I device in a multicenter, controlled, clinical study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007;120:779–789.
20.
AscherB. Safety and efficacy of UltraShape Contour I treatments to improve the appearance of body contours: Multiple treatments in shorter intervals. Aesthet Surg J. 2010;30:217–224.
21.
Moreno-MoragaJValero-AltésTRiquelmeAMIsarria-MarcosyMIde la TorreJR. Body contouring by non-invasive transdermal focused ultrasound. Lasers Surg Med. 2007;39:315–323.
22.
ShekSYuCYeungCKKonoTChanHH. The use of focused ultrasound for non-invasive body contouring in Asians. Lasers Surg Med. 2009;41:751–759.
23.
JewellMLBaxterRACoxSE. Randomized sham-controlled trial to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of a high-intensity focused ultrasound device for noninvasive body sculpting. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;128:253–262.
24.
JewellMLWeissRABaxterRA. Safety and tolerability of high-intensity focused ultrasonography for noninvasive body sculpting: 24-week data from a randomized, sham-controlled study. Aesthet Surg J. 2012;32:868–876.
25.
SolishNLinXAxford-GatleyRAStrangmanNMKaneM. A randomized, single-blind, postmarketing study of multiple energy levels of high-intensity focused ultrasound for noninvasive body sculpting. Dermatol Surg. 2012;38:58–67.
26.
KaminerMWeissRNewmanJ. Visible cosmetic improvement with cryolipolysis: Photographic evidence [abstract]. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery; October 1–4, 2009; Phoenix, AZ. Available at: http://coolsculptingu.com/pdfs/aminer%20ABSTRACT_2009.pdf.
27.
DoverJBurnsJColemanS. A prospective clinical study of noninvasive cryolipolysis for subcutaneous fat layer reduction: Interim report of available subject data. Lasers Surg Med. 2009;41(S21):45.
28.
ShekSYChanNPChanHH. Non-invasive cryolipolysis for body contouring in Chinese—a first commercial experience. Lasers Surg Med. 2012;44:125–130.
