Advertisement

Non-invasive Fat Reduction

  • Neil SadickEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

The field of cosmetic medicine has evolved rapidly in the recent years offering patients and their treating physicians a plethora of non-invasive options for body rejuvenation. Particularly for indications such as fat reduction, innovations in technology and scientific breakthroughs have led to non-invasive strategies validated for their safety and efficacy through several high-evidence-level peer-reviewed studies. Four main types of energy-based devices have dominated the field of fat reduction: radiofrequency, laser, ultrasound, and cryolipolysis. In addition, injectable biologics have been developed with the goal to target localized pockets of fat. In this chapter, our goal is to provide an unbiased overview of the scientific evidence regarding procedure selection, effectiveness, and safety for non-invasive fat reduction.

Keywords

Ultrasound Radiofrequency Low-level laser Cryolipolysis Injectable biologics 

References

  1. 1.
    Surgery ASoP. 2015 Complete plastic surgery statistics report. 2016. https://d2wirczt3b6wjm.cloudfront.net/News/Statistics/2015/plastic-surgery-statistics-full-report-2015.pdf. Accessed 02 Dec 2016.
  2. 2.
    Crerand CE, Phillips KA, Menard W, Fay C. Nonpsychiatric medical treatment of body dysmorphic disorder. Psychosomatics. 2005;46(6):549–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sarwer DB, Spitzer JC. Body image dysmorphic disorder in persons who undergo aesthetic medical treatments. Aesthet Surg J. 2012;32(8):999–1009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sadick NS, Malerich SA, Nassar AH, Dorizas AS. Radiofrequency: an update on latest innovations. J Drugs Dermatol. 2014;13(11):1331–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sadick NS, Nassar AH, Dorizas AS, Alexiades-Armenakas M. Bipolar and multipolar radiofrequency. Dermatol Surg. 2014;40(Suppl 12):S174–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sadick N, Rothaus KO. Minimally invasive radiofrequency devices. Clin Plast Surg. 2016;43(3):567–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sadick N, Rothaus KO. Aesthetic applications of radiofrequency devices. Clin Plast Surg. 2016;43(3):557–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brightman L, Weiss E, Chapas AM, et al. Improvement in arm and post-partum abdominal and flank subcutaneous fat deposits and skin laxity using a bipolar radiofrequency, infrared, vacuum and mechanical massage device. Lasers Surg Med. 2009;41(10):791–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Boisnic S, Divaris M, Nelson AA, Gharavi NM, Lask GP. A clinical and biological evaluation of a novel, noninvasive radiofrequency device for the long-term reduction of adipose tissue. Lasers Surg Med. 2014;46(2):94–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Downie J, Kaspar M. Contactless abdominal fat reduction with selective RF evaluated by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI): case study. J Drugs Dermatol. 2016;15(4):491–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fajkosova K, Machovcova A, Onder M, Fritz K. Selective radiofrequency therapy as a non-invasive approach for contactless body contouring and circumferential reduction. J Drugs Dermatol. 2014;13(3):291–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    McDaniel D, Samkova P. Evaluation of the safety and efficacy of a non-contact radiofrequency device for the improvement in contour and circumferential reduction of the inner and outer thigh. J Drugs Dermatol. 2015;14(12):1422–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Moradi A, Palm M. Selective non-contact field radiofrequency extended treatment protocol: evaluation of safety and efficacy. J Drugs Dermatol. 2015;14(9):982–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Park JH, Kim JI, Park HJ, Kim WS. Evaluation of safety and efficacy of noninvasive radiofrequency technology for submental rejuvenation. Lasers Med Sci. 2016;31(8):1599–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Caruso-Davis MK, Guillot TS, Podichetty VK, et al. Efficacy of low-level laser therapy for body contouring and spot fat reduction. Obes Surg. 2011;21(6):722–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jackson RF, Dedo DD, Roche GC, Turok DI, Maloney RJ. Low-level laser therapy as a non-invasive approach for body contouring: a randomized, controlled study. Lasers Surg Med. 2009;41(10):799–809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Neira R, Arroyave J, Ramirez H, et al. Fat liquefaction: effect of low-level laser energy on adipose tissue. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2002;110(3):912–22; discussion 923–915.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Katz B, Doherty S. A multicenter study of the safety and efficacy of a non-invasive 1060 nm diode laser for fat reduction of the flanks. In: 2015 Annual American society for laser medicine and surgery conference. Kissimmee; 2015.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ferraro GA, De Francesco F, Nicoletti G, Rossano F, D'Andrea F. Histologic effects of external ultrasound-assisted lipectomy on adipose tissue. Aesthet Plast Surg. 2008;32(1):111–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jewell ML, Solish NJ, Desilets CS. Noninvasive body sculpting technologies with an emphasis on high-intensity focused ultrasound. Aesthet Plast Surg. 2011;35(5):901–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jewell ML, Baxter RA, Cox SE, et al. 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(1):253–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Robinson DM, Kaminer MS, Baumann L, et al. High-intensity focused ultrasound for the reduction of subcutaneous adipose tissue using multiple treatment techniques. Dermatol Surg. 2014;40(6):641–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Klein KB, Zelickson B, Riopelle JG, et al. Non-invasive cryolipolysis for subcutaneous fat reduction does not affect serum lipid levels or liver function tests. Lasers Surg Med. 2009;41(10):785–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zelickson B, Egbert BM, Preciado J, et al. Cryolipolysis for noninvasive fat cell destruction: initial results from a pig model. Dermatol Surg. 2009;35(10):1462–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Avram MM, Harry RS. Cryolipolysis for subcutaneous fat layer reduction. Lasers Surg Med. 2009;41(10):703–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kilmer SL. Prototype CoolCup cryolipolysis applicator with over 40% reduced treatment time demonstrates equivalent safety and efficacy with greater patient preference. Lasers Surg Med. 2016;1:63–8.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Coleman SR, Sachdeva K, Egbert BM, Preciado J, Allison J. Clinical efficacy of noninvasive cryolipolysis and its effects on peripheral nerves. Aesthet Plast Surg. 2009;33(4):482–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Seaman SA, Tannan SC, Cao Y, Peirce SM, Gampper TJ. Paradoxical adipose hyperplasia and cellular effects after cryolipolysis: a case report. Aesthet Surg J. 2016;36(1):NP6–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Jalian HR, Avram MM, Garibyan L, Mihm MC, Anderson RR. Paradoxical adipose hyperplasia after cryolipolysis. JAMA Dermatol. 2014;150(3):317–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Keaney TC, Naga LI. Men at risk for paradoxical adipose hyperplasia after cryolipolysis. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2016;15:575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kelly E, Rodriguez-Feliz J, Kelly ME. Paradoxical adipose hyperplasia after cryolipolysis: a report on incidence and common factors identified in 510 patients. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;137(3):639e–40e.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kilmer SL, Burns AJ, Zelickson BD. Safety and efficacy of cryolipolysis for non-invasive reduction of submental fat. Lasers Surg Med. 2016;48(1):3–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wu WT, Liew S, Chan HH, et al. Consensus on current injectable treatment strategies in the Asian face. Aesthet Plast Surg. 2016;40(2):202–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Dierickx CC, Mazer JM, Sand M, Koenig S, Arigon V. Safety, tolerance, and patient satisfaction with noninvasive cryolipolysis. Dermatol Surg. 2013;39(8):1209–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Bernstein EF. Long-term efficacy follow-up on two cryolipolysis case studies: 6 and 9 years post-treatment. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2016;15:561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Dayan SH, Humphrey S, Jones DH, et al. Overview of ATX-101 (deoxycholic acid injection): a nonsurgical approach for reduction of submental fat. Dermatol Surg. 2016;42(Suppl 1):S263–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of DermatologyWeill Medical College of Cornell UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations