Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34412154›Full record

ArticleLasers in surgery and medicine2022

Exploring feedback-controlled versus open-circuit electrochemical lipolysis in ex vivo and in vivo porcine fat: A feasibility study.

Andrew E Heidari, Ellen M Hong, Asher Park, Tiffany T Pham, Earl Steward, Lily Y Chen, Yueqiao Qu, Brandyn S Dunn, Soo H Seo, Urja Patel and 7 more

Open access · greenAbstract readCase Reports
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. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 36% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

17 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Andrew E HeidariBeckman Laser Institute & Medical Clinic, University of California-Irvine, Irvine, California, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3982-128X
Ellen M HongBeckman Laser Institute & Medical Clinic, University of California-Irvine, Irvine, California, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0084-2924
Asher ParkBeckman Laser Institute & Medical Clinic, University of California-Irvine, Irvine, California, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3631-463X
Tiffany T PhamBeckman Laser Institute & Medical Clinic, University of California-Irvine, Irvine, California, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0308-4540
Earl StewardDepartment of Surgery, University of California-Irvine, Orange, California, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3931-267X
Lily Y ChenBeckman Laser Institute & Medical Clinic, University of California-Irvine, Irvine, California, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5041-2132
Yueqiao QuBeckman Laser Institute & Medical Clinic, University of California-Irvine, Irvine, California, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1192-8763
Brandyn S DunnBeckman Laser Institute & Medical Clinic, University of California-Irvine, Irvine, California, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7171-5909
Soo H SeoBeckman Laser Institute & Medical Clinic, University of California-Irvine, Irvine, California, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3836-0445
Urja PatelBeckman Laser Institute & Medical Clinic, University of California-Irvine, Irvine, California, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9313-8161
Katelyn DilleyBeckman Laser Institute & Medical Clinic, University of California-Irvine, Irvine, California, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3034-5662
Amir A HakimiBeckman Laser Institute & Medical Clinic, University of California-Irvine, Irvine, California, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5675-5758
Adeela SyedDepartment of Developmental and Cell Biology, University of California-Irvine, Irvine, California, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3135-0524
Sehwan KimDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Beckman Laser Institute-Korea, Dankook University, Cheonan-si, Chungnam, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-5491-3732
Michael G HillDepartment of Chemistry, Occidental College, Los Angeles, California, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8263-3615
Joon S YouIncipian LLC, Laguna Niguel, California, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2102-9975
Brian J F WongBeckman Laser Institute & Medical Clinic, University of California-Irvine, Irvine, California, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6318-7384
University of California, Irvine · USDankook University · KRKorea University · KROccidental College · USUniversity of Central Florida · US

Funding

Univ.of Calif., Irvine Cancer Center Support GrantP30CA062203 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-IRVINE · PI Melanie Funes · 1994 to 2026
$57.9M
Virtual Photonocs TechnologiesP41EB015890 · NIBIB · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-IRVINE · PI DURKIN, ANTHONY · 2012 to 2017
$7.0M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA062203NIBIB NIH HHS P41 EB015890
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesMinimally invasive fat sculpting techniques are becoming more widespread with the development of office-based devices and therapies. Electrochemical lipolysis (ECLL) is a needle-based technology that uses direct current (DC) to electrolyze tissue water creating acid and base in situ. In turn, fat is saponified and adipocyte cell membrane lysis occurs. The electrolysis of water can be accomplished using a simple open-loop circuit (V-ECLL) or by incorporating a feedback control circuit using a potentiostat (P-ECLL). A potentiostat utilizes an operational amplifier with negative feedback to allow users to precisely control voltage at specific electrodes. To date, the variation between the two approaches has not been studied. The aim of this study was to assess current and charge transfer variation and lipolytic effect created by the two approaches in an in vivo porcine model.

methodsCharge transfer measurements from ex vivo V-ECLL and P-ECLL treated porcine skin and fat were recorded at -1 V P-ECLL, -2 V P-ECLL, -3 V P-ECLL, and -5 V V-ECLL each for 5 min to guide dosimetry parameters for in vivo studies. In follow-up in vivo studies, a sedated female Yorkshire pig was treated with both V-ECLL and P-ECLL across the dorsal surface over a range of dosimetry parameters, including -1.5 V P-ECLL, -2.5 V P-ECLL, -3.5 V P-ECLL, and 5 V V-ECLL each treated for 5 min. Serial biopsies were performed at baseline before treatment, 1, 2, 7, 14, and 28 days after treatment. Tissue was examined using fluorescence microscopy and histology to compare the effects of the two ECLL approaches.

resultsBoth V-ECLL and P-ECLL treatments induced in-vivo fat necrosis evident by adipocyte membrane lysis, adipocyte denuclearization, and an acute inflammatory response across a 28-day longitudinal study. However, -1.5 V P-ECLL produced a smaller spatial necrotic effect compared to 5 V V-ECLL. In addition, 5 V V-ECLL produced a comparable necrotic effect to that of -2.5 V and -3.5 V P-ECLL.

conclusionsV-ECLL and P-ECLL at the aforementioned dosimetry parameters both achieved fat necrosis by adipocyte membrane lysis and denuclearization. The -2.5 V and -3.5 V P-ECLL treatments created spatially similar fat necrotic effects when compared to the 5 V V-ECLL treatment. Quantitatively, total charge transfer between dosimetry parameters suggests that -2.5 V P-ECLL and 5 V V-ECLL produce comparable electrochemical reactions. Such findings suggest that a low-voltage closed-loop potentiostat-based system is capable of inducing fat necrosis to a similar extent compared to that of a higher voltage direct current system.

Indexed as

AdipocytesLipolysisAnimalsFeasibility StudiesFeedbackFemaleLongitudinal StudiesSwinebody contouringelectrochemical lipolysiselectrochemistryfat necrosisfat reductionfat sculptinglipolysisminimally invasive cosmetic procedures

Identifiers

PMID34412154
PMCPMC8770526
OpenAlexW3195477833

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.