Display options
Cite
Schlaudraff KU, Kiessling MC, Császár NB, et al. Predictability of the individual clinical outcome of extracorporeal shock wave therapy for cellulite. Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol. 2014;7:171-83doi: 10.2147/CCID.S59851.
Schlaudraff, K. U., Kiessling, M. C., Császár, N. B., & Schmitz, C. (2014). Predictability of the individual clinical outcome of extracorporeal shock wave therapy for cellulite. Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology, 7171-83. https://doi.org/10.2147/CCID.S59851
Schlaudraff, Kai-Uwe, et al. "Predictability of the individual clinical outcome of extracorporeal shock wave therapy for cellulite." Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology vol. 7 (2014): 171-83. doi: https://doi.org/10.2147/CCID.S59851
Schlaudraff KU, Kiessling MC, Császár NB, Schmitz C. Predictability of the individual clinical outcome of extracorporeal shock wave therapy for cellulite. Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol. 2014 May 23;7:171-83. doi: 10.2147/CCID.S59851. eCollection 2014. PMID: 24920933; PMCID: PMC4043818.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol. 2014 May 23;7:171-83. doi: 10.2147/CCID.S59851. eCollection 2014.

Predictability of the individual clinical outcome of extracorporeal shock wave therapy for cellulite.

Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology

Kai-Uwe Schlaudraff, Maren C Kiessling, Nikolaus Bm Császár, Christoph Schmitz

Affiliations

  1. Concept Clinic, Geneva, Switzerland.
  2. Department of Anatomy II, Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich, Munich, Germany.

PMID: 24920933 PMCID: PMC4043818 DOI: 10.2147/CCID.S59851

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Extracorporeal shock wave therapy has been successfully introduced for the treatment of cellulite in recent years. However, it is still unknown whether the individual clinical outcome of cellulite treatment with extracorporeal shock wave therapy can be predicted by the patient's individual cellulite grade at baseline, individual patient age, body mass index (BMI), weight, and/or height.

METHODS: Fourteen Caucasian females with cellulite were enrolled in a prospective, single-center, randomized, open-label Phase II study. The mean (± standard error of the mean) cellulite grade at baseline was 2.5±0.09 and mean BMI was 22.8±1.17. All patients were treated with radial extracorporeal shock waves using the Swiss DolorClast(®) device (Electro Medical Systems, S.A., Nyon, Switzerland). Patients were treated unilaterally with 2 weekly treatments for 4 weeks on a randomly selected side (left or right), totaling eight treatments on the selected side. Treatment was performed at 3.5-4.0 bar, with 15,000 impulses per session applied at 15 Hz. Impulses were homogeneously distributed over the posterior thigh and buttock area (resulting in 7,500 impulses per area). Treatment success was evaluated after the last treatment and 4 weeks later by clinical examination, photographic documentation, contact thermography, and patient satisfaction questionnaires.

RESULTS: The mean cellulite grade improved from 2.5±0.09 at baseline to 1.57±0.18 after the last treatment (ie, mean δ-1 was 0.93 cellulite grades) and 1.68±0.16 at follow-up (ie, mean δ-2 was 0.82 cellulite grades). Compared with baseline, no patient's condition worsened, the treatment was well tolerated, and no unwanted side effects were observed. No statistically significant (ie, P<0.05) correlation was found between individual values for δ-1 and δ-2 and cellulite grade at baseline, BMI, weight, height, or age.

CONCLUSION: Radial shock wave therapy is a safe and effective treatment option for cellulite. The individual clinical outcome cannot be predicted by the patient's individual cellulite grade at baseline, BMI, weight, height, or age.

Keywords: AWT; EPAT; RSWT; acoustic wave therapy; extracorporeal pulse activation therapy; radial shock wave therapy

References

  1. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2007 Aug;33(8):1327-35 - PubMed
  2. Int J Dermatol. 2000 Jul;39(7):539-44 - PubMed
  3. J Acoust Soc Am. 2013 Aug;134(2):1663-74 - PubMed
  4. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2000 Jul;14(4):251-62 - PubMed
  5. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2011 May-Jun;50(3):315-9 - PubMed
  6. J Cosmet Laser Ther. 2004 Dec;6(4):181-5 - PubMed
  7. Ann Chir Plast Esthet. 2011 Apr;56(2):112-9 - PubMed
  8. Dermatol Surg. 2008 Feb;34(2):204-9; discussion 209 - PubMed
  9. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1999 Sep;104(4):1110-4; discussion 1115-7 - PubMed
  10. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2011 Sep;25(9):1116-7 - PubMed
  11. Biofactors. 2005;24(1-4):275-82 - PubMed
  12. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 1998 Mar-Apr;22(2):145-53 - PubMed
  13. Can Med Assoc J. 1979 Nov 3;121(9):1193-254 - PubMed
  14. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006 Aug;118(2):510-6 - PubMed
  15. J Cosmet Laser Ther. 2007 Mar;9(1):15-20 - PubMed
  16. Int J Cosmet Sci. 2006 Jun;28(3):157-67 - PubMed
  17. Dermatol Surg. 2004 Jul;30(7):1001-8 - PubMed
  18. J Orthop Surg Res. 2013 Jul 17;8:22 - PubMed
  19. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006 Sep 15;118(4):1032-1045 - PubMed
  20. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2010 Mar;62(3):373-84; quiz 385-6 - PubMed
  21. Aesthet Surg J. 2008 Sep-Oct;28(5):538-44 - PubMed
  22. Lasers Surg Med. 2008 Nov;40(9):595-604 - PubMed
  23. Lasers Surg Med. 2006 Dec;38(10):908-12 - PubMed
  24. Lasers Surg Med. 2007 Apr;39(4):315-23 - PubMed
  25. J Dermatol Surg Oncol. 1978 Mar;4(3):221-9 - PubMed
  26. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2004 Jul-Aug;28(4):222-5 - PubMed
  27. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2012 Jun;36(3):666-79 - PubMed
  28. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003 Jan;(406):237-45 - PubMed
  29. J Cutan Pathol. 2009 Jan;36(1):39-43 - PubMed
  30. J Cosmet Laser Ther. 2010 Aug;12(4):176-82 - PubMed
  31. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2012 Jun;26(6):696-703 - PubMed
  32. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1998 Jun;101(7):1934-9 - PubMed
  33. J Cosmet Laser Ther. 2007 Jun;9(2):87-96 - PubMed
  34. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2005 Oct;53(4):663-70 - PubMed
  35. Br Med Bull. 2007;81-82:183-208 - PubMed
  36. J Orthop Surg Res. 2013 Sep 03;8:31 - PubMed
  37. Dermatol Ther. 2007 Nov-Dec;20(6):448-51 - PubMed
  38. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012 Apr;129(4):681e-689e - PubMed
  39. J Lipid Res. 1999 Sep;40(9):1559-71 - PubMed
  40. Phytother Res. 1999 Nov;13(7):627-9 - PubMed
  41. Pain Med. 2011 Oct;12(10):1532-7 - PubMed
  42. Dermatol Clin. 2014 Jan;32(1):51-9 - PubMed
  43. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2010 Mar;62(3):361-70; quiz 371-2 - PubMed
  44. Dermatol Ther (Heidelb). 2013 Dec;3(2):143-55 - PubMed
  45. Eur Urol. 2011 May;59(5):784-96 - PubMed
  46. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2013 Mar;27(3):273-8 - PubMed
  47. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2011 Nov-Dec;50(6):783; author reply 783-4 - PubMed
  48. J Cosmet Laser Ther. 2004 Dec;6(4):187-90 - PubMed
  49. Eur J Pain. 2000;4(2):121-35 - PubMed
  50. J Cosmet Sci. 2005 Mar-Apr;56(2):105-20 - PubMed
  51. Orthopade. 2002 Jul;31(7):610-7 - PubMed
  52. J Cosmet Laser Ther. 2013 Jun;15(3):155-62 - PubMed
  53. Clin Interv Aging. 2007;2(4):623-30 - PubMed
  54. Int J Dermatol. 1990 May;29(4):272-4 - PubMed
  55. Dermatol Surg. 2006 Feb;32(2):241-48; discussion 247 - PubMed
  56. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2010 Aug;24(8):930-5 - PubMed
  57. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2001 May-Jun;25(3):170-4 - PubMed
  58. Clin Interv Aging. 2008;3(1):201-10 - PubMed
  59. J Drugs Dermatol. 2003 Oct;2(5):511-8 - PubMed
  60. Fed Proc. 1985 Jun;44(9):2531-4 - PubMed
  61. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001 Jun;(387):8-17 - PubMed

Publication Types