الفهرس 
Title : Body lean gel phonophoresis versus radiofrequency in treatment of localized cellulite in females
AbstractOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 170 |  |  |
| | | from | 170 | | |
Abstract
Background:radiofrequency and phonophoresis applications( using compounds containing caffeine and l-carnetine ) are thought to affect in management of cellulite through activating lipolysis process, removing the accumulated fat, toxin and unnecessary substances arising during the lipolysis process and induction of collagen denaturation and neocollagenesis, resulting in tissue tightening Purpose:to investigate which is more effective in treatment of cellulite ,the radiofrequency or the phonophoresis using body lean gel(caffeine and l-carnetine).Materials and methods:30 patients of female sex with abdominal cellulite participated in the study their ages ranged between 20 to 45 years old. They were divided into two groups of equal number, 15 patients for each group. group A (body lean gel phonophoresis group) This group received body lean gel that transmitted through the ultrasound waves. Using Digisonic WM302 Ultrasound Stimulator. The ultrasound delivered for five minutes/25cm2 with a frequency of one MHz, intensity of 1.5W/cm2 and with continuous mode, two sessions per week for two months. group B, had received the radiofrequency energy ,one session every two weeks for two months with a multipolar RF device with a frequency of 40MHz .the duration of each session was about 40 m. Cellulite was investigated before and after the treatment using the measuring tools; skin caliper, tape measurement, and Photonumeric Cellulite Severity Scale.Resultsskin caliper, tape measurement, and Photonumeric Cellulite Severity Scale.Results: the result of the study revealed that a significant reduction occurred in both groups, there was a significant reduction in the cellulite severity scale in group A[with a percentage of improvement was42.49 % and P {u2013}value was (0.000)] and in group B[with a percentage of improvement was 56.52 % and P {u2013}value was (0.000)]. there was a significant reduction of Abdominal circumference in group A[with a percentage of improvement was5.04 % and P {u2013}value was (0.000)] and in group B[with a percentage of improvement was5.65 % and P {u2013}value was (0.000)], there was a significant reduction of Abdominal skin fold in group A[with a percentage of improvement was17.14% and P {u2013}value was (0.000)] and in group B[with a percentage of improvement was17.71 % and P {u2013}value was (0.000)]