A Systematic Review of Electromagnetic Treatments for Body Contouring

Energy-based treatments include ultrasound, lasers, cryolipolysis, and radiofrequency. The most recent energy treatment for noninvasive body contouring is electromagnetic treatments-a hot topic in plastic surgery today. A systematic review to assess efficacy and safety has not been published.

An electronic search was performed using PubMed to identify the literature describing electromagnetic treatments. Measurements from imaging studies were tabulated and compared.

Fourteen clinical studies were evaluated. Two studies included simultaneous radiofrequency treatments. In 11 studies, the Emsculpt device was used; in 2 studies, the Emsculpt-Neo device was used. One study included a sham group of patients. The usual protocol was 4 treatments given over a 2-week period. No complications were reported. Eight studies included abdominal measurement data obtained using magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography, or ultrasound. Photographic results were typically modest. Photographs showing more dramatic results also showed unexplained reductions in untreated areas.Measurement variances were high. The mean reduction in fat thickness was 5.5 mm. The mean increment in muscle thickness was 2.2 mm. The mean decrease in muscle separation was 2.9 mm (P = 0.19). Early posttreatment ultrasound images in 1 study showed an echolucent muscle layer, compared with a more echodense layer at the baseline, consistent with tissue swelling after exercise. Almost all studies were authored by medical advisors for the device manufacturer.

Measurement data show small reductions in fat thickness, occurring almost immediately after the treatments. Adipocyte removal without tissue swelling would be unique among energy-based treatments. Similarly, muscle hypertrophy is not known to occur acutely after exercise; muscle swelling likely accounts for an early increment in muscle thickness. Any improvement in the diastasis recti is likely fictitious.

Electromagnetic treatments, either administered alone or in combination with radiofrequency, are safe. However, the evidence for efficacy is tenuous. Measured treatment effects are very small (<5 mm). Conflict of interest and publication bias are major factors in studies evaluating energy-based alternatives. The evidence-based physician may not be satisfied that an equivocal treatment benefit justifies the time and expense for patients.