Comparação dos efeitos clínicos da criolipólise dinâmica versus a estática na gordura localizada no abdômen

Abstract

Cryolipolysis has emerged as one of the most widely used non-invasive techniques in Dermatofunctional Physical Therapy for the treatment of localized fat, due to its ability to promote selective apoptosis of adipocytes through controlled cooling while preserving adjacent structures. This process results in a gradual reduction of adipose thickness and progressive tissue remodeling, with safety and good clinical acceptance. With technological advances, different application modalities have been developed, the most commonly used being static cryolipolysis, in which the applicator remains fixed throughout the procedure, and dynamic cryolipolysis, which uses continuous applicator movement to expand the cooling area and promote greater thermal uniformity. Although both techniques demonstrate recognized effectiveness, there is a lack of direct comparative studies to guide the selection of the most appropriate clinical protocol. Thus, this study aimed to compare the clinical effects of static and dynamic

techniques in the reduction of localized abdominal fat. This is a controlled, non- randomized, quantitative clinical trial conducted at the School Clinic of Physical

Therapy at Centro Universitário Dom Bosco (UNDB). The final sample consisted of 39 women aged 22 to 60 years, divided into two groups: the Static Group, which underwent a single 30-minute session, and the Dynamic Group, treated with six weekly sessions of 20 minutes. Participants were evaluated at baseline and at 30 and 45 days after the start of the protocol. Assessments included bioimpedance, abdominal perimetry, adipometry, ultrasound, and standardized photographic records. To complement the analysis, the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS) and a subjective perception questionnaire were applied. Data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics, with a significance level of 5%. The results showed that both techniques promoted a reduction in abdominal fat, with progressive improvement observed across all evaluation methods. There was a decrease in

abdominal circumference, reduction of skinfold thickness, and a decline in ultrasound- measured adipose thickness across the three assessment time points. Dynamic

cryolipolysis showed slightly superior performance, with more homogeneous reductions and greater stability of values among participants. Photographic evaluations also demonstrated better contour uniformity in the dynamic group. Subjective perception reinforced these findings, with a higher percentage of ratings classified as “improved” or “much improved.” No significant adverse effects were observed.

It is concluded that both modalities are effective and safe for the treatment of abdominal fat; however, dynamic cryolipolysis demonstrated greater uniformity of results, better thermal distribution, and higher satisfaction levels. These findings contribute to evidence-based clinical practice, reinforcing the importance of choosing the appropriate technique and the qualified role of the dermatofunctional physical therapist.