Treatment by cryolipolysis with radio-frequency and ultrasound cavitation combination is no more effective in improving indices of adiposity than radio-frequency and ultrasound cavitation alone

Non-invasive Body Contouring Technologies: An Updated Narrative Review

INTRODUCTION

Nowadays, a lot of body contouring devices and methods are introduced all over the world. The object of the present narrative review was to update and classify existing evidence on these methods and devices.

METHODS

We searched databases including PubMed, Cochrane, and Google Scholar for 11 essential keywords, including cryolipolysis, high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU), shock wave, low-level laser therapy (LLLT), radiofrequency (RF), capacitive resistive electrical transfer (TECAR), high-intensity focused electromagnetic (HIFEM), electromyostimulation (EMS), carboxytherapy, mesotherapy, and acupuncture and their abbreviations, in addition to obesity, overweight, cellulite, subcutaneous fat, and body contouring.

RESULTS

Totally 193 references were used in 11 main topics.

CONCLUSION

In order to help physicians with finding the best evidence in different methods, the data were summarised in 11 topics. Furthermore, FDA-approved devices, side effects and common protocols were described in each section.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE I

This journal requires that authors 39 assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full 40 description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, 41 please refer to the Table of Contents or the online 42 Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Cavitation and radiofrequency versus cryolipolysis on leptin regulation in central obese subjects: A randomized controlled study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

To investigate the efficacy of adding ultrasound cavitation and radiofrequency versus cryolipolysis to weight reduction program on leptin, insulin, waist circumference, skinfold, body weight in central obese subjects.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Sixty centrally obese participants were randomly allocated into three equal groups. Subjects in the study group (I) received cavitation and radiofrequency plus dietary regimen, subjects in the second study group (II) received cryolipolysis in conjunction with the same diet program, and subjects in the control group (III) received the same dietary regimen only. Leptin, insulin level, waist circumference, skinfold, body weight, and body mass index were measured shortly before intervention techniques and 3 months afterward.

RESULTS

There were no statistically significant differences between cavitation plus radiofrequency and cryolipolysis on leptin and insulin levels after 3 months of intervention. However, statistically significant differences were found in waist circumference, skinfold, weight reduction, and body mass index in favor of the cavitation group (p < 0.05). In addition, both cavitation-radiofrequency and cryolipolysis were statistically significantly different than the diet alone in favor of the study groups (p < 0.05) in all the outcome measures. Furthermore, there were statistically significant differences in all outcome measures (p < 0.05) when comparing the baseline and postintervention results in each group except for leptin level in the diet group (p = 0.14).

CONCLUSION

Subjects who underwent cavitation plus radiofrequency had better improvement on waist circumference, skinfold, and body mass index than subjects who received cryolipolysis. However, no differences were found between cavitation plus radiofrequency and cryolipolysis on leptin and insulin levels.