Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34224601›Full record

ArticleLasers in surgery and medicine2022

Improvement in the appearance of cellulite and skin laxity resulting from a single treatment with acoustic subcision: Findings from a multicenter pivotal clinical trial.

Elizabeth L Tanzi, Christopher C Capelli, David W Robertson, Brenda LaTowsky, Carolyn Jacob, Omer Ibrahim, Michael S Kaminer

Open access · hybridAbstract readCase ReportsMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Lasers in surgery and medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Retrospective Review of Skin Laxity Improvement After a Single Acoustic Subcision Treatment for Cellulite Appearance.Dermatologic surgery : official publication for American Society for Dermatologic Surgery [et al.] · 2025
    Article
  4. Cellulite: Current Understanding and Treatment.Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum · 2023
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Elizabeth L TanziCapital Laser and Skin Care, Chevy Chase, Maryland, USA.
Christopher C CapelliResearch, Soliton, Inc, Houston, Texas, USA.
David W RobertsonResearch, Soliton, Inc, Houston, Texas, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0149-0868
Brenda LaTowskyClear Dermatology and Aesthetic Center, North Scottsdale, Arizona, USA.
Carolyn JacobChicago Cosmetic Surgery and Dermatology, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Omer IbrahimChicago Cosmetic Surgery and Dermatology, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Michael S KaminerSkinCare Physicians of Chestnut Hill, Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts, USA.
American Academy of Cosmetic Surgery · USSoliton Ocean Services (United States) · USAesthetic Surgery Center · USChestnut Hill College · USShort and Associates (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

INTRODUCTION AND

objectivesSurface depressions and skin laxity together play a role in the appearance of cellulite. Cellulite depressions can be improved through disruption of the subcutaneous fibrous structures. Some currently utilized approaches accomplish this through invasive techniques requiring local anesthesia and potential down time. Skin laxity can exacerbate the appearance of cellulite, however current invasive approaches do little to improve skin laxity. The objective of this study was to evaluate a noninvasive approach to improving both cellulite depressions and skin laxity through the use of rapid acoustic pulses (acoustic subcision). Safety, efficacy, tolerability, and participant satisfaction results were measured.

methodsWomen (n = 56) with moderate to severe cellulite were treated in a single acoustic subcision treatment session without anesthesia. Posttreatment adverse events (AEs) and tolerability were recorded. At 12-weeks cellulite outcomes were assessed using a 6-point simplified Cellulite Severity Scale (CSS), Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS), and a participant satisfaction questionnaire. Additionally, laxity improvement was measured using a 4-point Laxity Score (LS) and GAIS.

resultsImprovement in cellulite appearance measured at 12-weeks showed that participants (n = 56) had a mean CSS reduction of 1.01 (a 29.5% reduction from baseline). The posttreatment photograph was correctly identified by blinded independent reviewers from randomized pairs of pre/posttreatment photographs for 96.4% of participants. Cellulite was graded as improved, much improved or very much improved using the GAIS at 90.9% of treated locations. Finally, 92.9% of participants reported positive satisfaction responses. Scoring for improvement in skin laxity appearance at 12-weeks showed a mean LS reduction of 0.57 (a 27.9% reduction from baseline). GAIS for laxity was graded as improved, much improved or very much improved in 67.3% of treated areas. No unexpected or serious AEs were noted at treatment or follow-up. Overall average pain score during treatment was 2.4 (0-10 pain scale) and 0.3 immediately posttreatment.

conclusionA single noninvasive acoustic subcision session can safely provide meaningful improvement in the appearance of cellulite in terms of depressions, as well as skin laxity, with minimal treatment pain and no posttreatment down time. Further improvement in appearance is expected with multiple treatments over time. Additional trials to verify this are planned.

Indexed as

CelluliteCosmetic TechniquesAcousticsButtocksFemaleHumansPatient SatisfactionThighTreatment Outcomeacoustic subcisioncelluliteimprovement in appearancelaxitynoninvasiverapid acoustic pulse

Identifiers

PMID34224601
PMCPMC9292379
OpenAlexW3177571369

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.