| Literature DB >> 26099028 |
Lilit Garibyan1, Laura Cornelissen2, William Sipprell3, Joachim Pruessner3, Sarina Elmariah4, Tuan Luo4, Ethan A Lerner4, Yookyung Jung3, Conor Evans3, David Zurakowski2, Charles B Berde2, R Rox Anderson3.
Abstract
Cryolipolysis is a noninvasive, skin cooling treatment for local fat reduction that causes prolonged hypoesthesia over the treated area. We tested the hypothesis that cryolipolysis can attenuate nociception of a range of sensory stimuli, including stimuli that evoke itch. The effects of cryolipolysis on sensory phenomena were evaluated by quantitative sensory testing (QST) in 11 healthy subjects over a period of 56 days. Mechanical and thermal pain thresholds were measured on treated and contralateral untreated (control) flanks. Itch duration was evaluated following histamine iontophoresis. Unmyelinated epidermal nerve fiber and myelinated dermal nerve fiber densities were quantified in skin biopsies from six subjects. Cryolipolysis produced a marked decrease in mechanical and thermal pain sensitivity. Hyposensitivity started between two to seven days after cryolipolysis and persisted for at least thirty-five days post treatment. Skin biopsies revealed that cryolipolysis decreased epidermal nerve fiber density, as well as dermal myelinated nerve fiber density, which persisted throughout the study. In conclusion, cryolipolysis causes significant and prolonged decreases in cutaneous sensitivity. Our data suggest that controlled skin cooling to specifically target cutaneous nerve fibers has the potential to be useful for prolonged relief of cutaneous pain and might have a use as a research tool to isolate and study cutaneous itch-sensing nerves in human skin.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26099028 PMCID: PMC4640987 DOI: 10.1038/jid.2015.233
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Invest Dermatol ISSN: 0022-202X Impact factor: 8.551
Figure 1Experimental time line
Experiments were performed in the test-order listed. Arrows indicate time-point each experiment was performed.
Mechanical and thermal pain thresholds over the control and cryolipolysis treated areas, and pairwise comparisons for (1) side tested and (2) post-treatment time A.
| Pairwise Comparisons | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
| QST | Time | Control | Treatment | Tx vs. Control | Control: vs BL | Tx: vs. BL |
|
| ||||||
| 36 (11-57) | 13 (7-44) | 0.11 (Z:-1.60) | - | - | ||
| 26 (9-73) | 56 (14-127) | 0.68 (Z:-0.42) | ||||
| 30 (9-46) | 32 (9-103) | 0.09 (Z:-1.68) | 0.59 (Z:-0.53) | |||
| 22 (7-73) | 26 (11-180) | 0.88 (Z:-0.15) | ||||
| 34 (10-73) | 45 (8-180) | 0.06 (Z:-1.89) | 0.51 (Z:-0.66) | |||
| 37 (12-100) | 49 (17-127) | 0.31 (Z:-1.00) | 0.21 (Z:-1.25) | |||
| 30 (13-87) | 45 (17-60) | 0.80 (Z:-0.26) | 0.37 (Z:-0.89) | |||
|
| ||||||
| 22.9 (20.1-25.8) | 24.1 (21.3-26.9) | 0.27 | - | - | ||
| 22.1 (19.3-25.0) | 18.3 (15.5-21.1) | 0.46 | ||||
| 23 (20.1-25.8) | 20.5 (17.6-23.3) | 0.97 | ||||
| 21.8 (19.0-24.6) | 18.2 (15.3-21.0) | 0.30 | ||||
| 21.8 (19.0-24.6) | 17.4 (14.6-20.3) | 0.30 | ||||
| 22 (19.1-24.8) | 21.5 (18.7-24.3) | 0.68 | 0.37 | |||
| 22.1(19.2-24.9) | 22.9 (20.1-25.8) | 0.43 | 0.43 | 0.27 | ||
|
| ||||||
| 40.9 (39.4-42.4) | 42.1 (40.6-43.6) | - | - | |||
| 42.1 (40.6-43.5) | 43 (41.5-44.5) | 0.10 | 0.12 | |||
| 41.6 (40.1-43.1) | 43 (41.5-44.5) | 0.26 | 0.12 | |||
| 42 (40.5-43.4) | 43.5 (42.0-45.0) | 0.07 | ||||
| 42.8 (41.3-44.3) | 44 (42.5-45.5) | |||||
| 41.9 (40.4-43.4) | 42.1(40.6-43.6) | 0.71 | 0.08 | 0.98 | ||
| 42.3 (40.8-43.8) | 42.8 (41.3-44.3) | 0.46 | 0.23 | |||
Abbreviations: BL – Baseline; CPT- Cold Pain Threshold; HPT- Heat Pain Threshold; MPT- Mechanical Pain Threshold; QST – Quantitative Sensory Testing; Tx – Treatment.
Mechanical, cold and heat pain are transmitted by myelinated Aδ and unmyelinated C fibers (Backonja )
Median (25th to 75th percentile); p-values determined from Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test
Mean (95% Confidence Interval); p values determined from mixed model repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni correction (assuming significance at p<0.05). We observed that for some QST measures, the differences were very small (i.e. <2°C) despite showing statistical significance.
Indicates statistically significant differences
Figure 2Cryolipolysis reduces cutaneous sensitivity to mechanical and thermal stimuli following cryolipolysis
Sensory threshold for Control side shown in white bars and Treatment side shown in grey bars. (a and b) Mechanical pain threshold (MPT); (c and d) Cold detection threshold (CDT); (e and f) Vibration detection threshold (VDT); (g and h) Warmth detection threshold (WDT). Data for each side is compared to baseline sensory threshold. MPT data: bars represent median; whiskers represent LQ to UQ; p-values determined from Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test. VDT, WDT, and CDT data: bars represent mean; whiskers represent 95% CI; p values determined from Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANOVA with Bonferroni correction (assuming significance at p<0.05). Asterisks indicate level of significance compared to Treatment baseline: *, p<0.05; **, p<0.01, ***, p<0.005. Crosses (+) indicate level of significance compared to Control baseline (+ p=<0.05, +++p=<0.001). BL, Baseline.
Mechanical and thermal sensory detection thresholds over the control and cryolipolyis treated areas, with pairwise comparisons for (1) side tested and (2) post-treatment timeA.
| Pairwise Comparisons | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
| QST | Time | Control | Treatment | Tx vs. Control | Control: vs BL | Tx: vs. BL |
|
| ||||||
| | 0.43 (0.26-0.52) | 0.40 (0.24-0.66) | 0.35 (Z:-0.94) | - | - | |
| | 0.40 (0.21-0.93) | 0.87 (0.40-1.27) | 0.18 (Z:-1.33) | 0.65 (Z:-0.46) | 0.07 (Z:-1.84) | |
| | 0.35 (0.20-0.67) | 0.83 (0.45-1.30) | 0.36 (Z:-0.92) | 0.1 (Z:-1.63) | ||
| | 0.33 (0.21-0.53) | 0.47 (0.40-1.60) | 0.15 (Z:-1.43) | 0.42 (Z:-0.80) | 0.33 (Z:-0.98) | |
| | 0.39 (0.24-0.60) | 1.00 (0.40-1.13) | 0.53 (Z:-0.62) | 0.06 (Z:-1.91) | ||
| | 0.32 (0.24-0.47) | 0.47 (0.47-0.80) | 0.18 (Z:-1.33) | 0.36 (Z:-0.92) | 0.24 (Z:-1.17) | |
| | 0.40 (0.24-0.47) | 0.47 (0.32-0.47) | 0.44 (Z:-0.77) | 0.26 (Z:-1.13) | 0.93 (Z:-0.09) | |
|
| ||||||
| | 17.6 (12.2-23.1) | 17.8 (12.4-23.2) | 0.93 | - | - | |
| | 19.0 (13.6-24.4) | 26.3 (20.9-31.7) | 0.42 | |||
| | 19.8 (14.4-25.3) | 34.7 (29.3-40.2) | 0.2 | |||
| | 21.6 (16.2-27.0) | 33.9 (28.5-39.4) | ||||
| | 18.9 (14.5-25.3) | 26.8 (21.4-32.3) | 0.18 | |||
| | 18.6 (13.2-24.0) | 23.1 (17.7-28.5) | 0.57 | |||
| | 20.4 (15.0-25.9) | 19.3 (13.8-24.7) | 0.48 | 0.09 | 0.37 | |
|
| ||||||
| | 29.0 (27.6-30.3) | 29.5 (28.1-30.8) | 0.36 | - | - | |
| | 29.6 (28.2-31.0) | 26.2 (24.8-27.5) | 0.249 | |||
| | 29.2 (27.8-30.6) | 28.6 (27.2-30.0) | 0.23 | 0.63 | 0.1 | |
| | 29.5 (28.1-30.1) | 29.1 (27.7-30.5) | 0.44 | 0.302 | 0.51 | |
| | 29.8 (28.4-31.1) | 28.7 (27.3-30.1) | 0.05 | 0.137 | 0.16 | |
| | 29.8 (28.4-31.2) | 29.4 (28.0-30.8) | 0.46 | 0.119 | 0.93 | |
| | 29.7 (28.3-31.0) | 29.9 (28.5-31.2) | 0.69 | 0.193 | 0.44 | |
|
| ||||||
| | 34.5 (33.5-35.4) | 34.7 (33.7-35.6) | 0.365 | - | - | |
| | 34.5 (33.5-35.4) | 35.2 (34.3-36.2) | 0.98 | |||
| | 34.7 (33.8-35.7) | 35.6 (34.6-36.5) | 0.24 | |||
| | 34.6 (33.7-35.5) | 35.3 (34.4-36.2) | 0.62 | |||
| | 34.5 (33.6-35.4) | 35.3 (34.3-36.2) | 0.92 | |||
| | 34.4 (33.4-35.2) | 34.6 (33.7-35.5) | 0.22 | 0.45 | 0.66 | |
| | 34.1 (33.2-35.0) | 34.6 (33.7-35.5) | 0.02 | 0.08 | 0.67 | |
Abbreviations: BL – Baseline; CDT- Cool Detection Threshold; MDT- Mechanical Detection Threshold; QST – Quantitative Sensory Testing; Tx – Treatment; VDT- Vibration Detection Threshold; WDT- Warmth Detection Threshold.
Mechanical detection using von Frey hairs and vibration is transmitted by myelinated Aβ afferent fibers; cool detection is transmitted by myelinated Aδ and unmyelinated C-fibers; warmth detection is primarily transmitted by unmyelinated C-fibers. (Backonja )
Median (25th to 75th percentile); p-values determined from Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test
Mean (95% Confidence Interval); p values determined from Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANOVA with Bonferroni correction (assuming significance at p<0.05). We observed that for some QST measures, the differences were very small (i.e. <1°C) despite showing statistical significance
Indicates statistically significant differences
Histopathologic analysis of the cryolipolysis treated area over a 56 day period A.
| Time | Myelinated Fibers/mm2 | p-value | ENF/mm2 | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| | 5.57 (4.12-7.02) | - | 8.96 (7.44-10.47) | - |
| | 5.33 (3.88-6.78) | 1 | 7.43 (5.91-8.94) | |
| | 2.43 (0.98-3.88) | 6.45 (4.93-7.97) | ||
| | 2.74 (1.29-4.19) | 6.1 (4.59-7.62) | ||
Abbreviations: ENF-number of Epidermal Nerve Fibers.
Mean (95% Confidence Interval). Pairwise comparison of post-treatment time-point vs. baseline values determined from Repeated Measures ANOVA.
Figure 3Cryolipolysis reduces epidermal nerve fiber density and myelinated dermal fiber density
(a) Density of epidermal nerve fibers (ENF), (b) Density of myelinated dermal nerve fibers. Data shown as mean (SD). P-values determined using mixed model repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni correction. Asterisks indicate level of significant compared to baseline. *, p<0.05.
Figure 4Confocal microscopy imaging of biopsy samples
(a) A single biopsy sample demonstrating the confocal imaging technique. The entire 3 mm skin biopsy specimen with 70 μm thickness was imaged every 2 μm. Frames were stacked to create a 3D projection of each confocal image. Thirty-five frames per biopsy were generated and then stitched together using custom-built routines in ImageJ/Fiji. (b) 3D projection of confocal image. The green channel representing fibers stained with anti-PGP9.5 was used to quantify epidermal nerve fibers, and the red channel representing fibers stained with anti-MBP antibody was used to quantify the dermal myelinated fibers. Scale bar = 250 μm