ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2024
Comparing Collagenase and Tissue Subcision for Cellulite Treatment of the Buttock and Thigh Regions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- An Innovative Injection Technique for Treating Edematous Fibrosclerotic Panniculopathy (Cellulite): A Prospective Multicenter Clinical Investigation.Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In this systematic review, we assessed the therapeutic efficacy and safety of Methods: A systematic review was performed following PRISMA guidelines for CCH and TS treatment to the thigh and gluteal regions. A proportion meta-analysis was then conducted using Stata statistical software. Results: A total of 14 studies were incorporated into the final analysis. Nine focused on TS and five on CCH injection, collectively reporting outcomes for 1254 patients. Of these, 465 received CCH injection and 789 underwent subcision. For bruising, rates were 89% [95% confidence interval (CI), 71%-96%] with CCH injection and 99% (95% CI, 85%-99%) for subcision; pain requiring analgesic was reported at 74% (95% CI, 55%-87%) for CCH and 60% (95% CI, 43%-76%) for subcision; both showed induration at 7% (95% CI, 5%-11% for CCH, 95% CI, 2%-25% for subcision), whereas skin discoloration was higher post-CCH injection at 16% (95% CI, 10%-26%) compared with 7% (95% CI, 5%-10%) postsubcision. Conclusions: Both CCH and TS seem effective treatments for cellulite. However, upon evaluating the adverse outcomes between the two modalities, subcision demonstrated a higher incidence of bruising, albeit similar rates of induration compared with CCH injection. Conversely, the CCH injection group manifested a higher propensity for pain requiring analgesia and notably exhibited increased instances of skin discoloration compared with their subcision patient group. Further standardized research is crucial for more informed cellulite treatment decisions and for comparing efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness between TS and CCH.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.