Mohamed Taher Mahmoud ELdesoky1, Enas ELsayed Mohamed Abutaleb1, Gihan Samir Mohamed Mousa2. 1. Department of Basic Science, Faculty of Physical Therapy, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt. 2. Department of Physical Therapy for Cardiovascular/Respiratory Disorder and Geriatrics, Faculty of Physical Therapy, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/ OBJECTIVES: The demand for non-surgical and non-invasive devices is continuous and increasing. Such devices have gradually gained ground in the reduction of localised fat and the improvement of body contouring. The study aimed to compare the effects of ultrasound cavitation and cryolipolysis on localised abdominal fat. METHODS: In total, 60 participants with a body mass index (BMI) over 30 kg/m2 , whose age ranged between 25 and 45 years, were included. The participants were randomly assigned to three groups of 20 each, using ultrasound cavitation and diet, cryolipolysis and diet, and diet only (the control group), respectively. Measures were bodyweight, BMI, waist circumference and suprailiac skinfold were measured at the beginning of the study and 2 months later. RESULTS: The three groups showed significant improvements in all measured variables after 2 months. There was no statistically significant difference in bodyweight or in BMI among the groups after treatment. However, the groups using ultrasound cavitation and cryolipolysis showed better post-treatment improvement than the diet-only group in waist circumference and suprailiac skinfold. There was no statistically significant difference post-treatment between the cavitation and cryolipolysis groups in waist circumference or suprailiac skinfold. CONCLUSION: Both ultrasound cavitation and cryolipolysis are safe and effective for the reduction of abdominal fat thickness and for abdominal contouring.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND/ OBJECTIVES: The demand for non-surgical and non-invasive devices is continuous and increasing. Such devices have gradually gained ground in the reduction of localised fat and the improvement of body contouring. The study aimed to compare the effects of ultrasound cavitation and cryolipolysis on localised abdominal fat. METHODS: In total, 60 participants with a body mass index (BMI) over 30 kg/m2 , whose age ranged between 25 and 45 years, were included. The participants were randomly assigned to three groups of 20 each, using ultrasound cavitation and diet, cryolipolysis and diet, and diet only (the control group), respectively. Measures were bodyweight, BMI, waist circumference and suprailiac skinfold were measured at the beginning of the study and 2 months later. RESULTS: The three groups showed significant improvements in all measured variables after 2 months. There was no statistically significant difference in bodyweight or in BMI among the groups after treatment. However, the groups using ultrasound cavitation and cryolipolysis showed better post-treatment improvement than the diet-only group in waist circumference and suprailiac skinfold. There was no statistically significant difference post-treatment between the cavitation and cryolipolysis groups in waist circumference or suprailiac skinfold. CONCLUSION: Both ultrasound cavitation and cryolipolysis are safe and effective for the reduction of abdominal fat thickness and for abdominal contouring.