Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32383824›Full record

ArticleLasers in surgery and medicine2021

Clinical Study Demonstrates that Electromagnetic Muscle Stimulation Does Not Cause Injury to Fat Cells.

Christopher B Zachary, A Jay Burns, Linda D Pham, Joel N Jimenez Lozano

Open access · hybridAbstract readCase Reports
In one paragraph

Article in Lasers in surgery and medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Christopher B ZacharyDepartment of Dermatology, School of Medicine, University of California, Irvine, California, 92697.ORCID 0000-0002-5883-5188
A Jay BurnsPrivate Practice Surgical and Non-Surgical Cosmetic Plastic Surgery, Dallas, Texas, 75225.
Linda D PhamZELTIQ Aesthetics, an affiliate of Allergan, plc., Pleasanton, California, 94588.ORCID 0000-0001-5866-1336
Joel N Jimenez LozanoZELTIQ Aesthetics, an affiliate of Allergan, plc., Pleasanton, California, 94588.
Allergan (Ireland) · IEDallas Surgical Group · USUniversity of California, Irvine · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectivesA previous pre-clinical study on electromagnetic muscle stimulation (EMMS) suggested that fat cell apoptosis occurs following treatment in a porcine model. While EMMS can induce changes in muscle, the effect on fat tissue is not established. This clinical study sought to assess adipose tissue response to EMMS in comparison to cryolipolysis treatment. STUDY DESIGN/MATERIALS AND

methodsStudy subjects were recruited prior to abdominoplasty to receive body contouring treatments and subsequently to obtain tissue for histological analysis. Non-invasive abdominal treatments were delivered using a commercially available (n = 6) or prototype (n = 3) EMMS system or a cryolipolysis system (n = 2). Subjects received a single EMMS treatment (100% intensity for 30 minutes) or a single cryolipolysis treatment (-11°C for 35 minutes) to the abdomen. Superficial and deep (i.e., adjacent to muscle layer) subcutaneous adipose tissue was harvested at set timepoints post-treatment. The presence or absence of an inflammatory response was evaluated using standard hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) staining. As adipocytes that are destined to become apoptotic cannot be distinguished by traditional H&E staining during the early phases of injury, irreversible fat cell injury was assessed using perilipin immunofluorescence.

resultsFollowing H&E histological analysis at 3, 10, 11, and 17 days post-treatment, no EMMS-treated samples showed an inflammatory response in either the superficial or deep subcutaneous adipose tissue. For the cryolipolysis-treated adipose tissue, however, the H&E staining revealed a marked inflammatory response with an influx of neutrophils, lymphocytes, and macrophages at timepoints consistent with previous histological studies. Further, loss of perilipin staining provided clear visual evidence of irreversible fat cell injury in the cryolipolysis-treated adipose tissue. In contrast, the electromagnetic muscle stimulation-treated samples showed persistence of perilipin staining of adipose tissue indicating that all fat cells were viable.

conclusionThis study failed to demonstrate either fat cell injury or inflammatory response following EMMS treatment. While electromagnetic muscle stimulation may non-invasively induce muscle changes, this clinical study found no evidence of an impact injurious or otherwise on subcutaneous fat. © 2020 The Authors. Lasers in Surgery and Medicine published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.

Indexed as

LipectomySubcutaneous FatAdipocytesAnimalsElectromagnetic PhenomenaHumansMusclesSwineapoptosiscryolipolysiselectromagnetic muscle stimulationEMMSEMSHIFEMHIMMShistologyMMSmuscle strengtheningmuscle toningNMESnon-invasive body contouringnon-surgical fat reductionperilipinqPCRTUNEL

Identifiers

PMID32383824
PMCPMC7891655
OpenAlexW3023499740

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.