임상 논문

Cryolipolysis has emerged as a promising, non-invasive body contouring technique that employs controlled cooling to selectively eliminate adipocytes without damaging surrounding skin or tissues. As global demand rises for non-surgical aesthetic treatments, cryolipolysis offers an appealing alternative to traditional liposuction for individuals seeking fat reduction with minimal recovery time and fewer complications. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, a comprehensive search of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science was conducted up to November 2024. Studies included were randomized controlled trials and prospective cohort studies evaluating the outcomes of cryolipolysis on body contouring. Statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.4 software, calculating mean differences (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). The use of cryolipolysis was associated with decreased BMI showing MD= -1.71 (95%CI: -2.6, -0.82, P=0.0002). However, no significant difference was observed regarding weight with MD= -1.81 (95%CI: -3.93, 0.31, P=0.09). The use of cryolipolysis was also associated with decreased circumference of different body parts with MD= -3.45 (95%CI: -5.55, -1.34, P=0.001), and I2=92%, P<0.00001 and decreased fat thickness with MD= -3.56 (95CI: -4.63, -2.48, P<0.00001), and I2=95%, P<0.00001. Cryolipolysis is effective in reducing BMI, local circumference, and fat thickness, confirming its utility for non-invasive body contouring. However, it does not significantly affect overall weight. The benefits are more pronounced in short-term follow-up and vary by body region. Further long-term and comparative studies are recommended. Paradoxical adipose hyperplasia (PAH) is a rare complication of cryolipolysis, characterized by an unexpected overgrowth of adipocytes in the treatment area. Emerging literature suggests that PAH may be underrecognized and underreported. Because of the increasing popularity of cryolipolysis for nonsurgical fat reduction, we sought to identify the overall incidence of PAH as well as the incidence by sex and treatment device, time to diagnosis, and any additional complications of cryolipolysis. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus, and CENTRAL) were searched from inception to May 11, 2025, for studies reporting on PAH incidence in cryolipolysis patients. The primary outcome was the literature-pooled PAH incidence, estimated using a nonpairwise generalized linear mixed model for meta-analysis. Secondarily, we descriptively reviewed treatment devices utilized, time to PAH diagnosis, and additional cryolipolysis complications. Twenty-eight studies encompassing 13,078 patients were included in the review. Low-certainty evidence suggested that the pooled incidence of PAH was 0.22% (95% CI, 0.10-0.47), with 29 cases identified (1 in 455 patients). Sex-based risk differences were not statistically significant. Only 4 studies reported sufficient follow-up duration (≥16 weeks). PAH cases were reported with various devices and applicators, and although 10 of the 29 PAH cases (34.5%) involved the CoolCore applicator, insufficient data precluded device-based meta-analysis. Overall, the incidence of PAH following cryolipolysis appears to be higher than manufacturer reports. These findings emphasize the need for comprehensive risk disclosure, improved awareness and adverse event reporting, risk factor identification, and further investigation into the pathogenesis of PAH. Level of Evidence: 3 (Therapeutic). Injectable lipolytic agents have gained popularity as a non-invasive approach to localized fat reduction. While deoxycholic acid (DCA) remains the only FDA-approved agent for submental fat reduction, its application for non-submental regions is an emerging area of interest. This systematic review evaluates existing literature on injectable lipolytic agents beyond the submental region. A systematic review was conducted using PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Studies evaluating the use of injectable lipolytic agents for non-submental fat reduction were included. Extracted data included treatment outcomes, patient satisfaction, adverse events, and cost considerations. Bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I and RoB 2 tools. Twenty-five studies met inclusion criteria, encompassing 3,178 patients treated with various agents, including DCA, phosphatidylcholine (PC), and emerging formulations such as CBL-514 and caffeine-hyaluronic acid. Significant reductions in localized adiposity were reported in 93.75% of studies, with 37.5% achieving statistical significance. Adverse events were generally mild and transient. Patient satisfaction varied from 57.1% to 86%. Cost comparisons indicated injectable treatments require multiple sessions, making them costlier than single-session surgical liposuction but competitive with non-invasive modalities like cryolipolysis. Injectable lipolytic agents offer a promising, minimally invasive alternative for fat reduction in non-submental regions. However, further clinical trials are needed to standardize treatment protocols, evaluate long-term efficacy, and assess the cost-effectiveness of combining injectables with other weight management strategies. Expanding FDA approval for additional indications remains a potential future direction.

Cryolipolysis has emerged as a promising, non-invasive body contouring technique that employs controlled cooling to selectively eliminate adipocytes without damaging surrounding skin or tissues. As global demand rises for non-surgical aesthetic treatments, cryolipolysis offers an appealing alternative to traditional liposuction for individuals seeking fat reduction with minimal recovery time and fewer complications. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, a comprehensive search of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science was conducted up to November 2024. Studies included were randomized controlled trials and prospective cohort studies evaluating the outcomes of cryolipolysis on body contouring. Statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.4 software, calculating mean differences (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). The use of cryolipolysis was associated with decreased BMI showing MD= -1.71 (95%CI: -2.6, -0.82, P=0.0002). However, no significant difference was observed regarding weight with MD= -1.81 (95%CI: -3.93, 0.31, P=0.09). The use of cryolipolysis was also associated with decreased circumference of different body parts with MD= -3.45 (95%CI: -5.55, -1.34, P=0.001), and I2=92%, P<0.00001 and decreased fat thickness with MD= -3.56 (95CI: -4.63, -2.48, P<0.00001), and I2=95%, P<0.00001. Cryolipolysis is effective in reducing BMI, local circumference, and fat thickness, confirming its utility for non-invasive body contouring. However, it does not significantly affect overall weight. The benefits are more pronounced in short-term follow-up and vary by body region. Further long-term and comparative studies are recommended. Paradoxical adipose hyperplasia (PAH) is a rare complication of cryolipolysis, characterized by an unexpected overgrowth of adipocytes in the treatment area. Emerging literature suggests that PAH may be underrecognized and underreported. Because of the increasing popularity of cryolipolysis for nonsurgical fat reduction, we sought to identify the overall incidence of PAH as well as the incidence by sex and treatment device, time to diagnosis, and any additional complications of cryolipolysis. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus, and CENTRAL) were searched from inception to May 11, 2025, for studies reporting on PAH incidence in cryolipolysis patients. The primary outcome was the literature-pooled PAH incidence, estimated using a nonpairwise generalized linear mixed model for meta-analysis. Secondarily, we descriptively reviewed treatment devices utilized, time to PAH diagnosis, and additional cryolipolysis complications. Twenty-eight studies encompassing 13,078 patients were included in the review. Low-certainty evidence suggested that the pooled incidence of PAH was 0.22% (95% CI, 0.10-0.47), with 29 cases identified (1 in 455 patients). Sex-based risk differences were not statistically significant. Only 4 studies reported sufficient follow-up duration (≥16 weeks). PAH cases were reported with various devices and applicators, and although 10 of the 29 PAH cases (34.5%) involved the CoolCore applicator, insufficient data precluded device-based meta-analysis. Overall, the incidence of PAH following cryolipolysis appears to be higher than manufacturer reports. These findings emphasize the need for comprehensive risk disclosure, improved awareness and adverse event reporting, risk factor identification, and further investigation into the pathogenesis of PAH. Level of Evidence: 3 (Therapeutic). Injectable lipolytic agents have gained popularity as a non-invasive approach to localized fat reduction. While deoxycholic acid (DCA) remains the only FDA-approved agent for submental fat reduction, its application for non-submental regions is an emerging area of interest. This systematic review evaluates existing literature on injectable lipolytic agents beyond the submental region. A systematic review was conducted using PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Studies evaluating the use of injectable lipolytic agents for non-submental fat reduction were included. Extracted data included treatment outcomes, patient satisfaction, adverse events, and cost considerations. Bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I and RoB 2 tools. Twenty-five studies met inclusion criteria, encompassing 3,178 patients treated with various agents, including DCA, phosphatidylcholine (PC), and emerging formulations such as CBL-514 and caffeine-hyaluronic acid. Significant reductions in localized adiposity were reported in 93.75% of studies, with 37.5% achieving statistical significance. Adverse events were generally mild and transient. Patient satisfaction varied from 57.1% to 86%. Cost comparisons indicated injectable treatments require multiple sessions, making them costlier than single-session surgical liposuction but competitive with non-invasive modalities like cryolipolysis. Injectable lipolytic agents offer a promising, minimally invasive alternative for fat reduction in non-submental regions. However, further clinical trials are needed to standardize treatment protocols, evaluate long-term efficacy, and assess the cost-effectiveness of combining injectables with other weight management strategies. Expanding FDA approval for additional indications remains a potential future direction.

Cryolipolysis has emerged as a promising, non-invasive body contouring technique that employs controlled cooling to selectively eliminate adipocytes without damaging surrounding skin or tissues. As global demand rises for non-surgical aesthetic treatments, cryolipolysis offers an appealing alternative to traditional liposuction for individuals seeking fat reduction with minimal recovery time and fewer complications. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, a comprehensive search of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science was conducted up to November 2024. Studies included were randomized controlled trials and prospective cohort studies evaluating the outcomes of cryolipolysis on body contouring. Statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.4 software, calculating mean differences (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). The use of cryolipolysis was associated with decreased BMI showing MD= -1.71 (95%CI: -2.6, -0.82, P=0.0002). However, no significant difference was observed regarding weight with MD= -1.81 (95%CI: -3.93, 0.31, P=0.09). The use of cryolipolysis was also associated with decreased circumference of different body parts with MD= -3.45 (95%CI: -5.55, -1.34, P=0.001), and I2=92%, P<0.00001 and decreased fat thickness with MD= -3.56 (95CI: -4.63, -2.48, P<0.00001), and I2=95%, P<0.00001. Cryolipolysis is effective in reducing BMI, local circumference, and fat thickness, confirming its utility for non-invasive body contouring. However, it does not significantly affect overall weight. The benefits are more pronounced in short-term follow-up and vary by body region. Further long-term and comparative studies are recommended. Paradoxical adipose hyperplasia (PAH) is a rare complication of cryolipolysis, characterized by an unexpected overgrowth of adipocytes in the treatment area. Emerging literature suggests that PAH may be underrecognized and underreported. Because of the increasing popularity of cryolipolysis for nonsurgical fat reduction, we sought to identify the overall incidence of PAH as well as the incidence by sex and treatment device, time to diagnosis, and any additional complications of cryolipolysis. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus, and CENTRAL) were searched from inception to May 11, 2025, for studies reporting on PAH incidence in cryolipolysis patients. The primary outcome was the literature-pooled PAH incidence, estimated using a nonpairwise generalized linear mixed model for meta-analysis. Secondarily, we descriptively reviewed treatment devices utilized, time to PAH diagnosis, and additional cryolipolysis complications. Twenty-eight studies encompassing 13,078 patients were included in the review. Low-certainty evidence suggested that the pooled incidence of PAH was 0.22% (95% CI, 0.10-0.47), with 29 cases identified (1 in 455 patients). Sex-based risk differences were not statistically significant. Only 4 studies reported sufficient follow-up duration (≥16 weeks). PAH cases were reported with various devices and applicators, and although 10 of the 29 PAH cases (34.5%) involved the CoolCore applicator, insufficient data precluded device-based meta-analysis. Overall, the incidence of PAH following cryolipolysis appears to be higher than manufacturer reports. These findings emphasize the need for comprehensive risk disclosure, improved awareness and adverse event reporting, risk factor identification, and further investigation into the pathogenesis of PAH. Level of Evidence: 3 (Therapeutic). Injectable lipolytic agents have gained popularity as a non-invasive approach to localized fat reduction. While deoxycholic acid (DCA) remains the only FDA-approved agent for submental fat reduction, its application for non-submental regions is an emerging area of interest. This systematic review evaluates existing literature on injectable lipolytic agents beyond the submental region. A systematic review was conducted using PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Studies evaluating the use of injectable lipolytic agents for non-submental fat reduction were included. Extracted data included treatment outcomes, patient satisfaction, adverse events, and cost considerations. Bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I and RoB 2 tools. Twenty-five studies met inclusion criteria, encompassing 3,178 patients treated with various agents, including DCA, phosphatidylcholine (PC), and emerging formulations such as CBL-514 and caffeine-hyaluronic acid. Significant reductions in localized adiposity were reported in 93.75% of studies, with 37.5% achieving statistical significance. Adverse events were generally mild and transient. Patient satisfaction varied from 57.1% to 86%. Cost comparisons indicated injectable treatments require multiple sessions, making them costlier than single-session surgical liposuction but competitive with non-invasive modalities like cryolipolysis. Injectable lipolytic agents offer a promising, minimally invasive alternative for fat reduction in non-submental regions. However, further clinical trials are needed to standardize treatment protocols, evaluate long-term efficacy, and assess the cost-effectiveness of combining injectables with other weight management strategies. Expanding FDA approval for additional indications remains a potential future direction.