Comparing safety and efficacy of acoustic subcision at two different rapid acoustic pulse rates to improve the appearance of cellulite

Background

A recent study showed the safety and efficacy of a noninvasive acoustic subcision device to improve the appearance of cellulite via delivery of rapid acoustic pulses in a single treatment visit.

Objective

To evaluate and compare the safety and efficacy of a single rapid acoustic pulse treatment visit using an equivalent number of rapid acoustic pulses at a pulse rate of 100 or 50 Hz.

Methods

This single-center, prospective study enrolled 15 adult women with moderate to severe cellulite according to the Cellulite Dimple—At Rest Scale. Each participant would receive nominally 72,000 rapid acoustic pulses at a pulse rate of 50 Hz on the left buttock and thigh, and nominally 72,000 rapid acoustic pulses at a pulse rate of 100 Hz on the right buttock and thigh within one treatment visit. Efficacy was assessed by the ability of blinded, independent reviewers to correctly distinguish the pre- and post-treatment photos, participant satisfaction, and the change in Cellulite Dimple—At Rest scores for each treatment side. Safety was monitored throughout the conduct of the study.

Results

For both 100 and 50 Hz pulse rate treated areas, the majority (two out of three) of blinded reviewers correctly identified 100% of the pre/post-treatment photos. For both the 100 and 50 Hz treated areas, 80% of participants agreed/strongly agreed that their cellulite appeared improved at the 12-week follow-up visit. Significant improvements in Cellulite Dimple—At Rest scores were seen for both the 100 and 50 Hz treated areas. All participants thought both the 100 and 50 Hz pulse rate treatments were tolerable, and the pain (mean score ± SD; 2.2 ± 1.2) associated with each was identical. No unexpected or serious adverse events occurred.

Conclusion

Acoustic subcision delivered via rapid acoustic pulses at 100 Hz, compared to 50 Hz, provides equivalent improvement in the appearance of cellulite while maintaining a similar safety and efficacy profile. For both pulse rates, treatment pain was minimal, and participant satisfaction was high.