Search

Background: Cellulite is a highly prevalent and aesthetically distressing skin condition. Whilst there are a variety of treatment modalities, none are definitively established., Objective: This systematic review aims to assess invasive and noninvasive treatment modalities for cellulite management., Methods: The review protocol was published and registered a priori (PROSPERO CRD42022359334). A comprehensive electronic search for relevant randomised controlled trials, (RCTs) was performed in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science databases. Study quality and risk of bias were assessed using Cochrane's risk of bias tool, respectively., Results: Overall, 753 studies were initially identified, of which 24 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) satisfied the eligibility criteria with a total of 2084 patients with a mean follow-up of 3.33 ± 13.4 weeks. Evaluated interventions included mechanical stimulation, topical therapy, shock wave therapy (SWT), laser and light-based devices, radiofrequency therapy, subcutaneous injectables, and ultrasound. SWT emerged as a standout intervention, demonstrating a consistent cellulite reduction score of 2.07 ± 0.39 across four studies. Radiofrequency therapy exhibited a statistically significant reduction of thigh circumference (- 2.09 cm, p < 0.001) and subcutaneous tissue thickness (- 2.23 cm, p < 0.001). Subcutaneous injectables, specifically collagenase Clostridium histolyticum-aaes, demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in the clinician-reported photonumeric cellulite severity scale (17.0%) and patient-reported photonumeric cellulite severity scale (25.7%) (p < 0.001). The overall quality of the studies using the grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluation approach was moderate., Conclusion: This is the first methodologically robust systematic review evaluating interventions for cellulite. SWT, radiofrequency therapy, and subcutaneous injectables have shown promising findings in cellulite treatment., Level of Evidence I: The journal asks authors to assign a level of evidence to each article. For a complete description of Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, see the Table of Contents or the online Instructions for Authors at www.springer.com/00266 ., Competing Interests: Declarations Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. Human Participants This article contains no studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors., (© 2024. Crown.)