Cargando…

Clinical Study Demonstrates that Electromagnetic Muscle Stimulation Does Not Cause Injury to Fat Cells

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: A previous pre‐clinical study on electromagnetic muscle stimulation (EMMS) suggested that fat cell apoptosis occurs following treatment in a porcine model. While EMMS can induce changes in muscle, the effect on fat tissue is not established. This clinical study sought to a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zachary, Christopher B., Burns, A. Jay, Pham, Linda D., Jimenez Lozano, Joel N.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7891655/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32383824
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/lsm.23259
_version_ 1783652745482338304
author Zachary, Christopher B.
Burns, A. Jay
Pham, Linda D.
Jimenez Lozano, Joel N.
author_facet Zachary, Christopher B.
Burns, A. Jay
Pham, Linda D.
Jimenez Lozano, Joel N.
author_sort Zachary, Christopher B.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: A previous pre‐clinical study on electromagnetic muscle stimulation (EMMS) suggested that fat cell apoptosis occurs following treatment in a porcine model. While EMMS can induce changes in muscle, the effect on fat tissue is not established. This clinical study sought to assess adipose tissue response to EMMS in comparison to cryolipolysis treatment. STUDY DESIGN/MATERIALS AND METHODS: Study subjects were recruited prior to abdominoplasty to receive body contouring treatments and subsequently to obtain tissue for histological analysis. Non‐invasive abdominal treatments were delivered using a commercially available (n = 6) or prototype (n = 3) EMMS system or a cryolipolysis system (n = 2). Subjects received a single EMMS treatment (100% intensity for 30 minutes) or a single cryolipolysis treatment (−11°C for 35 minutes) to the abdomen. Superficial and deep (i.e., adjacent to muscle layer) subcutaneous adipose tissue was harvested at set timepoints post‐treatment. The presence or absence of an inflammatory response was evaluated using standard hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) staining. As adipocytes that are destined to become apoptotic cannot be distinguished by traditional H&E staining during the early phases of injury, irreversible fat cell injury was assessed using perilipin immunofluorescence. RESULTS: Following H&E histological analysis at 3, 10, 11, and 17 days post‐treatment, no EMMS‐treated samples showed an inflammatory response in either the superficial or deep subcutaneous adipose tissue. For the cryolipolysis‐treated adipose tissue, however, the H&E staining revealed a marked inflammatory response with an influx of neutrophils, lymphocytes, and macrophages at timepoints consistent with previous histological studies. Further, loss of perilipin staining provided clear visual evidence of irreversible fat cell injury in the cryolipolysis‐treated adipose tissue. In contrast, the electromagnetic muscle stimulation‐treated samples showed persistence of perilipin staining of adipose tissue indicating that all fat cells were viable. CONCLUSION: This study failed to demonstrate either fat cell injury or inflammatory response following EMMS treatment. While electromagnetic muscle stimulation may non‐invasively induce muscle changes, this clinical study found no evidence of an impact injurious or otherwise on subcutaneous fat. © 2020 The Authors. Lasers in Surgery and Medicine published by Wiley Periodicals LLC
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7891655
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-78916552021-03-02 Clinical Study Demonstrates that Electromagnetic Muscle Stimulation Does Not Cause Injury to Fat Cells Zachary, Christopher B. Burns, A. Jay Pham, Linda D. Jimenez Lozano, Joel N. Lasers Surg Med Clinical Reports BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: A previous pre‐clinical study on electromagnetic muscle stimulation (EMMS) suggested that fat cell apoptosis occurs following treatment in a porcine model. While EMMS can induce changes in muscle, the effect on fat tissue is not established. This clinical study sought to assess adipose tissue response to EMMS in comparison to cryolipolysis treatment. STUDY DESIGN/MATERIALS AND METHODS: Study subjects were recruited prior to abdominoplasty to receive body contouring treatments and subsequently to obtain tissue for histological analysis. Non‐invasive abdominal treatments were delivered using a commercially available (n = 6) or prototype (n = 3) EMMS system or a cryolipolysis system (n = 2). Subjects received a single EMMS treatment (100% intensity for 30 minutes) or a single cryolipolysis treatment (−11°C for 35 minutes) to the abdomen. Superficial and deep (i.e., adjacent to muscle layer) subcutaneous adipose tissue was harvested at set timepoints post‐treatment. The presence or absence of an inflammatory response was evaluated using standard hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) staining. As adipocytes that are destined to become apoptotic cannot be distinguished by traditional H&E staining during the early phases of injury, irreversible fat cell injury was assessed using perilipin immunofluorescence. RESULTS: Following H&E histological analysis at 3, 10, 11, and 17 days post‐treatment, no EMMS‐treated samples showed an inflammatory response in either the superficial or deep subcutaneous adipose tissue. For the cryolipolysis‐treated adipose tissue, however, the H&E staining revealed a marked inflammatory response with an influx of neutrophils, lymphocytes, and macrophages at timepoints consistent with previous histological studies. Further, loss of perilipin staining provided clear visual evidence of irreversible fat cell injury in the cryolipolysis‐treated adipose tissue. In contrast, the electromagnetic muscle stimulation‐treated samples showed persistence of perilipin staining of adipose tissue indicating that all fat cells were viable. CONCLUSION: This study failed to demonstrate either fat cell injury or inflammatory response following EMMS treatment. While electromagnetic muscle stimulation may non‐invasively induce muscle changes, this clinical study found no evidence of an impact injurious or otherwise on subcutaneous fat. © 2020 The Authors. Lasers in Surgery and Medicine published by Wiley Periodicals LLC John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020-05-08 2021-01 /pmc/articles/PMC7891655/ /pubmed/32383824 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/lsm.23259 Text en © 2020 The Authors. Lasers in Surgery and Medicine published by Wiley Periodicals LLC This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
spellingShingle Clinical Reports
Zachary, Christopher B.
Burns, A. Jay
Pham, Linda D.
Jimenez Lozano, Joel N.
Clinical Study Demonstrates that Electromagnetic Muscle Stimulation Does Not Cause Injury to Fat Cells
title Clinical Study Demonstrates that Electromagnetic Muscle Stimulation Does Not Cause Injury to Fat Cells
title_full Clinical Study Demonstrates that Electromagnetic Muscle Stimulation Does Not Cause Injury to Fat Cells
title_fullStr Clinical Study Demonstrates that Electromagnetic Muscle Stimulation Does Not Cause Injury to Fat Cells
title_full_unstemmed Clinical Study Demonstrates that Electromagnetic Muscle Stimulation Does Not Cause Injury to Fat Cells
title_short Clinical Study Demonstrates that Electromagnetic Muscle Stimulation Does Not Cause Injury to Fat Cells
title_sort clinical study demonstrates that electromagnetic muscle stimulation does not cause injury to fat cells
topic Clinical Reports
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7891655/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32383824
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/lsm.23259
work_keys_str_mv AT zacharychristopherb clinicalstudydemonstratesthatelectromagneticmusclestimulationdoesnotcauseinjurytofatcells
AT burnsajay clinicalstudydemonstratesthatelectromagneticmusclestimulationdoesnotcauseinjurytofatcells
AT phamlindad clinicalstudydemonstratesthatelectromagneticmusclestimulationdoesnotcauseinjurytofatcells
AT jimenezlozanojoeln clinicalstudydemonstratesthatelectromagneticmusclestimulationdoesnotcauseinjurytofatcells