Background: Cryolipolysis—a popular noninvasive technique for body contouring—has fewer side effects compared with liposuction; however, its effectiveness in terms of reducing local adipose tissue is also lower. This study is, to the authors’ knowledge, the first prospective, controlled, investigator-blinded split-body trial to evaluate whether postcryolipolytic heating can increase the efficacy. Methods: Twenty-five subjects were treated with one session of cryolipolysis on the lower abdomen and a subsequent heating with a mud pack of a randomized side of the treated region (left or right). Epidemiologic, temperature, edema, erythema, hypesthesia, and pain level data were obtained. Photographs, fat layer thickness (on ultrasound, caliper, and abdominal girth), satisfaction, and side effects were documented over a follow-up period of 12 weeks. Results: The side effects—edema, erythema, and hypesthesia—faded almost completely with heating, whereas they remained on the nonheated site. However, the mean sonographic reduction of local adipose tissue after 12 weeks was significantly lower on the heated sites than on the control sites (9.6% versus 14.1%; P = 0.0003). The overall satisfaction was high (9.2 of 10 points), even though only 44% of participants had a subjective recognition of fat loss without difference between the sites. Conclusions: Active heating following cryolipolysis increases bodily well-being by reducing common side effects, but it reduces the effectiveness of cryolipolysis significantly and should therefore be avoided. Further improvements are necessary to enhance the efficacy of cryolipolysis. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, I.

Background: There is considerable interest in the possibility of offering an alternative and less invasive method of treatment for osteoarthritis that will preserve the joint. This article presents for the first time the long-term results of a prospective study following autologous fat transfer to arthritic finger joints. Methods: The authors report on 28 finger joints with osteoarthritis that they treated by injecting fatty tissue into the joints. The degree of pain, force of pinch grip, and fist closure were assessed and hand function was determined using the German version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire. Results: The average follow-up period during the study was 44 months. The median force of pinch grip rose highly significantly from 2.00 kg (range, 0.00 to 11.00 kg) to 4.30 kg (range, 2.00 to 12.00 kg) (p < 0.001). The median force of fist closure rose from 15.00 kg (range, 2.00 to 44.00 kg) to 18.00 kg (range, 3.78 to 42.00 kg) (p = 0.082). The median Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand value improved nonsignificantly from 50 (range, 3 to 72) to 25 (range, 0 to 85) (p = 0.129). The median level of pain experienced showed a highly significant improvement from 6.0 (range, 1.0 to 10.0) to 0.5 (range, 0.0 to 6.5) (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Even over a long-term study period, the transfer of fatty tissue to arthritic finger joints has shown itself to be a minimally invasive, safe and promising alternative treatment to conventional surgical procedures that offers significant improvements in terms of osteoarthritis symptoms. Because this method preserves the joint, conventional resection surgery still remains a later option. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, IV.