Non-Ablative lasers, light Systems, and radio frequency

Intense pulsed light (IPL) is a consideration in the treatment of cellulite. The rationale for the use of IPL is based on the idea that it builds collagen, creating a thicker dermis, like that more typically seen in men—and men have less cellulite than women. Lasers may very well be the next generation in the world of cellulite therapies, but a lot more research is needed before this evolving treatment proves itself to be effective and worth the money. Ever since the FDA approved TriActive Laserdermology (Cynosure Inc, Chelmsford, MA) as a Class II medical device that “temporarily reduces the appearance of cellulite,” lots of companies have wanted in on the action. TriActive combines a diode laser (at a wavelength of 810 nanometers) with localized cooling, suction, and mechanical massage (sort of a cross between a laser and an endermologie machine). In fact, much of the published research has been paid for or conducted by the companies manufacturing or selling these lasers (Source: Journal of Drugs in Dermatology, April 2008, pages 341-345).

Treatment protocols vary, but generally the process is done three times a week for two weeks followed by biweekly treatments for five weeks. A Class II medical device status indi­cates this laser can be sold and used without physician supervision, which means a growing number of salons and spas are advertising its success and changing the FDA classification of “temporarily reduces” to a more alluring “reduces” cellulite. (Sources: www. fda. gov/cdrh/ pdf3/k030876.pdf; Securities and Exchange Commission Information, www. secinfo. com/ dsvRx. z4y6.htm; and Journal of Cosmetic and Laser Therapy, June 2005, pages 81-85, and June 2004, pages 181-185.)

Another device approved by the FDA is the VelaSmooth system (Syneron Inc., Richmond Hill, Ontario, Canada), also called LipoLite. It combines near-infrared light at a wavelength of700 nanometers, continuous wave radiofrequency, and mechanical suction. Twice-weekly treatments for a total of eight to ten sessions have been recommended. Each session usually costs around $200 or more. One of the only studies demonstrating this machine’s efficacy included 20 women, and 18 of the 20 personally thought they saw improvement, yet the actual measurements only showed a 0.3-inch reduction in thigh circumference. Other re­search has been even more lackluster, or the studies were all questionable based on extreme bias, small panels, and no histological evaluation. These are hardly sweeping results by any standard, making it clear that larger-scale, more professional studies are needed, especially before you decide to spend $1,000 or more to see if these kinds of machines can get you what you want, namely smoother thighs, not a lighter wallet. (Sources: Journal of Cosmetic Laser Therapy, March 2007, pages 15-20, and December 2004, pages 187-190.)

Which to choose? Great question—but there’s really no answer. Physicians always attest to the superiority of the machines they are using (but that changes as soon as they buy or rent a new one). In actuality, studies show most of these medical procedures have fairly equal results with no single machine having an edge over the other. (Source: Lasers in Surgery and Medicine, December 2006, pages 908-912.)

Updated: September 26, 2015 — 9:00 am