Ingredient Beauty BenefitsRoute · Device-based
Acoustic wave therapy: there are two randomised trials, and one of them was not significant
In a 17-person placebo-controlled trial, contour measured by 3D imaging improved in the treated group and showed no significance in the placebo group. But in a 15-person trial with thigh circumference as the endpoint, the results were not statistically significant, and the authors wrote that larger studies are needed.
Last checked Sep 21, 2026
Start here
- What it is
A device treatment that sends acoustic shock waves generated outside the body into skin and the tissue beneath. The technology came from breaking kidney stones and treating tendon pain.
- What it is used for
Cellulite on the thighs and buttocks.
- How it is said to work
It is said that the shock waves mechanically stimulate tissue, prompting responses in blood flow and collagen. What exactly they change in cellulite has not been settled.
There are no numbers and no citations in this box. What has been established, and how far, is below.
At a glance
- Session length
- 20–40 min
- Pain
- Mild
- Downtime
- 0–1 days
- Sessions
- 8 sessionsReported in a trialThe two trials used eight sessions over seven weeks and eight over four.
- How long it lasts
- Not applicable
- Relative cost
- Lower
- How well established
- Early research
“Reported in a trial” means a number a study on this page actually reported. “Typical range” is not a measured value but roughly how it is usually done, and it varies by clinic and by person.
Cost is not an amount but a band: where this procedure falls when the ones on this site are lined up per session, or per area treated. Real prices differ several-fold by clinic and by how much is treated, so they are not given here. Surgery is measured on a different scale and cannot be compared with this band.
This is not how large the effect is but how well confirmed it is. It shows the highest grade among the findings on this page.
Acoustic wave therapy sends shock waves generated outside the body into tissue. The technology came from breaking kidney stones and treating tendon pain; its use on cellulite came later.
This page rests on two trials. And they say different things.
One was placebo-controlled and the treated side improved. The other took thigh circumference as its endpoint and found no significant difference.
Neither reached twenty people.
Other options for the same concern are on the cryolipolysis, collagenase injection and HIFEM pages.
What is established
In a 17-person placebo-controlled trial, only the treated group improved
This is a 2013 trial — placebo-controlled, double-blinded and prospectively randomised, with 17 participants: 11 on treatment and 5 on placebo.
Treatment ran once a week for seven weeks, eight sessions in all. Data were collected at baseline, before the eighth session, and one month and three months after the last. Questionnaires, weight, circumference measurements and standardised photography were used, and the primary endpoint was contour measured by a 3D imaging system.
The treated group's questionnaire reported improvement in the number and depth of dimples, skin firmness and texture, shape and circumference. The overall 3D measurements pointed the same way.
And the placebo group showed no statistically significant change. No side effects were seen.
What to see in this trial.
The placebo group was five people. That no significant change emerged in five people is not surprising in itself — five is too few for even a real change to reach significance. So it is more accurate to read it as 'this trial had no power to judge the placebo side' than as 'placebo did nothing'.
Even so, having a placebo arm at all is rare in this layer. We graded this item 'early research' not because the design is poor but because of its size.
- Randomised controlled trial in people · 17 participants · 7 weeks · Compared with vehicle (same formula minus the active) · Funding not declared · Endpoint instrument measurement PMID 23688206
In a 15-person trial of thigh circumference there was no significant difference
This is a 2015 trial. Acoustic wave therapy was applied to the outer thighs of 15 women, using two handpieces with different properties in the same session (planar and radial), for eight sessions over four weeks. Follow-up visits came one, four and twelve weeks after the last treatment.
Thigh circumference did fall.
But the results were not statistically significant.
The authors' own conclusion, in their words: larger studies will be needed to further assess the effects of acoustic wave therapy on thigh circumference reduction.
That is why this item is graded 'not established'. Something looked like it decreased, but it could not be told apart from chance.
This does not contradict the first trial. The endpoints differ. The first measured surface contour by 3D imaging; this one measured circumference with a tape. Dimpling becoming shallower and a thigh becoming slimmer are different things, and these two trials show that difference plainly.
- Randomised controlled trial in people · 15 participants · 4 weeks · Compared with another active ingredient · Funding not declared · Endpoint instrument measurement PMID 25742559
Known risks
- The 2013 trial reported no side effects. But it had 17 people.
- The general risks of acoustic wave therapy are pain during treatment, and transient redness and bruising.
- Say in advance if you take anything that affects clotting.
- Pregnancy, or a clot, infection or malignancy in the treated area, are things to settle in consultation first.
- We could not confirm its regulatory classification in Korea from primary sources.
What is not established
- Data on how long it lasts are thin. The longest look was three months after the final session.
- How many sessions is right is unsettled. The two trials used eight over seven weeks and eight over four.
- We found no randomised head-to-head against another method.
- The mechanism is unsettled. What the waves actually change in cellulite has not been established.
- Both trials had fewer than twenty people, and one was not significant. The evidence on this page points a direction; it is not a conclusion.
Whether to have it done is a decision to make with a doctor.
What this article relies on
- PubMed — 미국 국립의학도서관 문헌 데이터베이스National Library of Medicine · Checked on 2026-09-16