Does Ultrasonic Cavitation Work? FDA Status and Evidence

Med spa menus and social media advertisements increasingly promote "ultrasonic cavitation"—frequently marketed under names like "ultrasonic lipo," "lipo cavitation," or "cavitation slimming"—as a painless, walk-in alternative to surgical liposuction. Marketing materials routinely promise instant, permanent localized fat destruction with claims that the procedure is "FDA approved" and yields visible waistline reduction in a single session.

Ultrasonic cavitation machines—unfocused handheld devices that emit low-frequency sound waves (typically 20 kHz to 40 kHz) to create micro-bubbles in interstitial fluid that vibrate and mechanically disrupt fat cell membranes—have never been cleared or approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for non-invasive fat reduction or body contouring. A full-scope query of the FDA's 510(k) premarket notification database confirms zero clearances for non-focused ultrasonic cavitation fat-reduction devices. By contrast, every ultrasound-based body contouring system legally marketed in the United States is a high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) device cleared under FDA product code OHV (21 CFR 878.4590, Class II), such as UltraShape (Syneron) and Liposonix (Solta Medical), which rely on distinct physics, calibrated acoustic energy, and multi-center clinical trials. The published clinical evidence supporting unfocused spa cavitation consists of small, mostly unblinded pilot studies, frequently confounded by concurrent low-calorie diets, aerobic exercise, or multi-modality treatments. In fact, an 8-week randomized comparative trial in 90 women found that adding ultrasound cavitation to cryolipolysis and dietary changes produced no statistically significant benefit over cryolipolysis and diet alone.

Understanding the difference between unregulated spa cavitation and FDA-cleared body contouring modalities requires examining acoustic biophysics, regulatory database classifications, controlled clinical trial results, safety risks, and realistic cost-per-treatment benchmarks.

---

What Ultrasonic Cavitation Is, and How It Differs from the Focused Ultrasound Devices That Are FDA-Cleared

To evaluate the claims made for cavitation treatments, one must first distinguish the acoustic physics of unfocused low-frequency cavitation from high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU).

Acoustic Modality Comparison: Unfocused Cavitation vs Focused Ultrasound (HIFU):
┌──────────────────────────┬─────────────────────────────┬────────────────────────────┐
│ Parameter                │ Unfocused Spa Cavitation    │ Focused Ultrasound (OHV)   │
├──────────────────────────┼─────────────────────────────┼────────────────────────────┤
│ Acoustic Frequency       │ Low Frequency (20–40 kHz)   │ High Frequency (1–3 MHz)   │
├──────────────────────────┼─────────────────────────────┼────────────────────────────┤
│ Beam Geometry            │ Unfocused / Divergent Beam  │ Sharply Convergent Beam    │
├──────────────────────────┼─────────────────────────────┼────────────────────────────┤
│ Target Depth             │ Superficial / Variable      │ Precise Focal Point        │
│                          │ (Non-calibrated absorption) │ (e.g., 0.7 cm to 1.5 cm)   │
├──────────────────────────┼─────────────────────────────┼────────────────────────────┤
│ Primary Tissue Mechanism │ Stable/Transient Cavitation │ Focused Mechanical Shock / │
│                          │ (Micro-bubble oscillation)  │ Coagulative Thermal Lesion │
├──────────────────────────┼─────────────────────────────┼────────────────────────────┤
│ Regulatory Status (US)   │ Zero FDA 510(k) Clearances  │ Class II 510(k) Cleared    │
│                          │ for Non-Invasive Fat Loss   │ (Code OHV, 21 CFR 878.4590)│
├──────────────────────────┼─────────────────────────────┼────────────────────────────┤
│ Benchmark Brand Examples │ Unbranded Spa Handpieces,   │ UltraShape Power, Liposonix│
│                          │ Imported Tabletop Units     │ LIPOcel, SCIZER            │
└──────────────────────────┴─────────────────────────────┴────────────────────────────┘

The Physics of Acoustic Cavitation

Acoustic cavitation occurs when ultrasound waves propagate through a liquid or liquid-rich biological medium. Ultrasound waves consist of alternating cycles of compression (high pressure) and rarefaction (low pressure):

1. Rarefaction (Negative Pressure Cycle): During the low-pressure phase, the local pressure in interstitial fluid drops below the vapor pressure of the liquid, forming microscopic vapor cavities or gas bubbles.
2. Compression (Positive Pressure Cycle): During the high-pressure phase, the acoustic wave compresses these bubbles.
3. Bubble Collapse (Inertial Cavitation): At low frequencies (20 kHz to 40 kHz), these micro-bubbles expand across successive cycles until they reach an unstable size and violently collapse. The resulting micro-jets and localized shock waves create mechanical shear forces intended to rupture the fragile phospholipid membranes of subcutaneous adipocytes (fat cells).
4. Lipid Clearance: Once adipocyte cell membranes are disrupted, intracellular triglycerides are released into the interstitial space, broken down by endogenous lipoprotein lipase into free fatty acids and glycerol, and transported via the lymphatic and vascular systems to the liver for metabolic processing.

While ex vivo and histological studies (such as Palumbo et al., 2011, and Bani et al., 2013) demonstrate that low-frequency ultrasound can release lipids from excised adipose tissue, unfocused acoustic energy rapidly disperses as it passes through the epidermal and dermal layers. Without precise beam convergence, energy density at depth is highly variable and unpredictable.

How Focused Ultrasound (HIFU) Operates Differently

In sharp contrast to unfocused cavitation machines, FDA-cleared focused ultrasound systems (product code OHV) utilize curved transducers or phased-array acoustic lenses operating at high frequencies (1 MHz to 3 MHz).

• Geometric Focusing: The acoustic waves pass through overlying skin and dermis without depositing destructive energy, converging exclusively at a tightly defined focal zone located 0.7 cm to 1.5 cm beneath the skin surface.
• Targeted Destruction: At the focal point, high acoustic energy density creates rapid coagulative thermal necrosis (heating tissue above 56°C) or controlled mechanical acoustic disruption, destroying targeted fat cells while completely sparing overlying skin, nerve bundles, and blood vessels.

---

Is Cavitation FDA Approved? What the 510(k) Database Actually Contains

A frequent sales tactic on med spa websites is displaying an "FDA Approved" or "FDA Cleared" badge on cavitation treatment pages. Consumer health websites have contributed to this misconception; for example, major health portals have previously published statements claiming that "ultrasonic cavitation is a safe FDA approved procedure."

A systematic review of the FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) databases reveals the factual reality:

FDA CDRH Database Audit for Non-Invasive Ultrasound Fat Reduction:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ 1. NON-FOCUSED CAVITATION DEVICES FOR FAT REDUCTION:                        │
│    • Total 510(k) Premarket Clearances: EXACTLY 0                           │
│    • Total De Novo Classifications: EXACTLY 0                               │
│    • Result: No non-focused ultrasonic cavitation device has ever been      │
│      authorized by the FDA for fat reduction or body contouring.            │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ 2. FOCUSED ULTRASOUND (HIFU) DEVICES (Product Code: OHV, Class II):         │
│    • Regulation: 21 CFR 878.4590 (Tissue heat / mechanical cellular disrupt)│
│    • Total Authorizations: 30 Clearances / De Novos                         │
│    • Cleared Non-Invasive Body Contouring Systems:                          │
│      - UltraShape System & UltraShape Power (K161952, K160896, K170370)     │
│      - Liposonix System (K100874, K112626)                                  │
│      - LIPOcel System (K181896)                                             │
│      - SCIZER System (K230100)                                              │
│      - Contour I Focused Ultrasound (K133238)                               │
│      (Also includes ultrasound tissue lifting systems: Ulthera, SofWave)    │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ 3. SURGICAL ULTRASONIC-ASSISTED LIPOSUCTION (Product Code: MUU, Class II):   │
│    • Regulation: 21 CFR 878.4740 (Surgical aspirator / powered lipoplasty)   │
│    • Cleared Surgical Systems: VASER Lipo (K010153), Lysonix 3000 (K983994) │
│    • Note: These are invasive surgical tools used inside an operating room. │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

The Legal Framework: 21 CFR 878.4590

Under the Code of Federal Regulations, the FDA created a dedicated Class II regulatory pathway for ultrasound fat disruption under 21 CFR 878.4590 (Product Code OHV: "Focused ultrasound for tissue heat or mechanical cellular disruption").

The critical regulatory word is "Focused." To receive 510(k) clearance under code OHV, manufacturers must submit extensive preclinical acoustic dosimetry, thermal safety profiles, and multi-center human clinical trials demonstrating safety and statistically significant subcutaneous fat thickness reduction.

Unfocused "cavitation" machines sold to day spas, salons, and at-home consumers bypass this regulatory oversight. Because they are not FDA-cleared medical devices, they are frequently imported under generic electrical apparatus codes or marketed without clearance. When a med spa tells you a cavitation machine is "FDA approved," they are either conflating unfocused cavitation with cleared focused ultrasound systems (like UltraShape or Liposonix) or misrepresenting the regulatory status of their equipment. For a comprehensive overview of how clearance pathways work for consumer and clinical equipment, see our guide to at-home aesthetic device FDA clearances.

---

What the Clinical Trials Show (Small, Unblinded, Usually Combined with Something Else)

To determine whether ultrasonic cavitation actually reduces body fat, researchers examine published human clinical trials. Across the medical literature, the evidence base for unfocused cavitation is characterized by small sample sizes, lack of blinding, short follow-up periods, and significant co-intervention confounding.

Summary of Published Clinical Data on Ultrasound Fat Reduction:
┌─────────────────────────┬──────────────┬──────────────────┬─────────────────────────────────┐
│ Study / Citation        │ Modality     │ Cohort Design    │ Key Clinical Outcome            │
├─────────────────────────┼──────────────┼──────────────────┼─────────────────────────────────┤
│ Teitelbaum et al. (2007)│ Focused US   │ n=164 Multi-Ctr  │ Mean circumference loss ~2.0 cm │
│ Plast Reconstr Surg     │ (Contour I)  │ Controlled Trial │ Mean fat reduction ~2.9 mm at   │
│ PMID: 17700131          │ (Cleared)    │ (137 Tx, 27 Ctrl)│ 12-wk follow-up after 1 session │
├─────────────────────────┼──────────────┼──────────────────┼─────────────────────────────────┤
│ Khedmatgozar et al.     │ Cavitation + │ n=90 Randomized  │ Adding cavitation to cryo + diet│
│ (2020) Diab Metab Syndr │ Cryolipolysis│ 3-Arm Trial      │ yielded NO additional reduction │
│ PMID: 33395779          │ + Low-Calorie│ 8 Weeks Duration │ in weight, BMI, or waist size   │
├─────────────────────────┼──────────────┼──────────────────┼─────────────────────────────────┤
│ Taha et al. (2021)      │ Cavitation + │ n=34 Randomized  │ Both groups improved; cavitation│
│ PLoS One (NCT04161703)  │ Aerobic Ex.  │ Controlled Trial │ showed modest waist decrease    │
│ PMID: 33909662          │ (NAFLD pts)  │ 12 Weeks (3x/wk) │ confounded by exercise protocol │
├─────────────────────────┼──────────────┼──────────────────┼─────────────────────────────────┤
│ Bani et al. (2013)      │ Cavitation   │ Human Adipose    │ 23% smaller adipocyte lipid     │
│ PRS Global Open         │ Ex Vivo /    │ Histological     │ vacuole area; mechanism proof   │
│ PMID: 25289235          │ Biopsy Study │ Analysis         │ but NO long-term clinical data  │
└─────────────────────────┴──────────────┴──────────────────┴─────────────────────────────────┘

1. The Teitelbaum Pivotal Study (FDA-Cleared Focused Ultrasound Benchmark)

The standard for non-invasive ultrasound evidence was established by Teitelbaum and colleagues in a landmark multi-center controlled study of the Contour I focused ultrasound system (n=164).

• Design: 137 subjects received a single focused ultrasound treatment to the abdomen, flanks, or thighs, while 27 subjects served as untreated controls.
• Results: At the 12-week follow-up, treated patients achieved a statistically significant mean abdominal circumference reduction of approximately 2.0 cm and an ultrasound-measured fat layer thickness reduction of approximately 2.9 mm. Adverse events were mild and transient, with no significant changes in serum lipid profiles or liver function tests.

2. The Khedmatgozar Combination Trial: Cavitation Adds Nothing to Cryolipolysis

Proponents often claim that combining cavitation with other modalities enhances fat loss. An 8-week randomized trial published in Diabetes & Metabolic Syndrome: Clinical Research & Reviews directly tested this hypothesis (Khedmatgozar et al., 2020).

• Design: 90 overweight and obese women were randomized into three parallel groups:
  1. Low-calorie diet alone.
  2. Low-calorie diet plus cryolipolysis.
  3. Low-calorie diet plus cryolipolysis plus ultrasonic cavitation.
• The Result: While both device groups lost significantly more weight and abdominal circumference than diet alone, there was no statistically significant difference between Group 2 (cryolipolysis + diet) and Group 3 (cavitation + cryolipolysis + diet) in body weight, body mass index (BMI), fat mass, or abdominal circumference.
• Conclusion: Adding ultrasonic cavitation to an established modality provided zero incremental clinical benefit.

3. The Taha Exercise Combination Trial

A 2021 randomized controlled trial published in PLoS One (Taha et al.) investigated the effects of focused ultrasound cavitation combined with aerobic exercise in 34 patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD).

• Design: Participants performed 40 minutes of supervised aerobic treadmill exercise three times per week for 12 weeks, with one group receiving adjunctive cavitation.
• The Result: Both groups demonstrated significant improvements in liver enzymes, lipid profiles, and body composition. While the cavitation group showed a marginally greater decrease in waist circumference and liver-to-spleen attenuation ratio, the extensive 36-session exercise regimen made isolating the independent contribution of cavitation difficult.

4. Histological vs. Clinical Reality

Histological studies confirm that acoustic cavitation can destabilize adipocyte membranes in laboratory settings. Bani and colleagues (2013) demonstrated that human adipose tissue exposed to low-frequency cavitation exhibited a 23% reduction in mean lipid-vacuole area on electron microscopy. However, translating localized cellular disruption into measurable, permanent circumference reduction in living patients requires calibrated energy delivery that unstandardized spa equipment rarely achieves.

---

Safety and Contraindications: Burns, the FDA Risk Language, and the Reporting Gap

Because ultrasonic cavitation is non-invasive and does not involve incisions, med spas often advertise it as completely risk-free. However, ultrasound energy deposits mechanical and thermal energy into human tissue, carrying real clinical risks when applied improperly.

FDA Safety Profile & Clinical Contraindications for Ultrasound Body Contouring:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ 1. FDA OFFICIAL SAFETY WARNINGS (Content Current October 2025):             │
│    • Tissue Thermal Burns: Friction or stationary transducer placement      │
│      can rapidly overheat epidermis and dermis, causing full-thickness burns│
│    • Coupling Gel Requirement: Continuous acoustic gel interface is strictly│
│      mandatory; dry firing causes acoustic reflection and severe burns      │
│    • Authorized Devices Only: FDA explicitly advises consumers to undergo   │
│      body contouring exclusively with devices authorized for marketing.     │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ 2. ABSOLUTE CLINICAL CONTRAINDICATIONS:                                     │
│    • Pregnancy and Active Lactation (acoustic safety unestablished in fetus)│
│    • Implanted Electrical Devices (pacemakers, ICDs, neurostimulators)      │
│    • Severe Hepatic Dysfunction or Cirrhosis (impaired lipid processing)    │
│    • Chronic Kidney Disease or Renal Failure (cannot clear metabolic load)  │
│    • Active Malignancy or Localized Abdominal Tumors                        │
│    • Metallic Implants / Surgical Mesh in the Treatment Zone                │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ 3. THE ADVERSE EVENT REPORTING GAP (MAUDE Audit):                           │
│    • 510(k)-cleared surgical aspirators (code MUU, e.g., VASER) have        │
│      mandatory medical device reporting (21 adverse events in database).    │
│    • Unregulated spa cavitation machines operate outside mandatory CDRH     │
│      manufacturer reporting, creating a FALSE APPEARANCE of zero complaints.│
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

1. FDA Official Risk Warnings

The FDA's official advisory guidance on non-invasive body contouring technologies (content current as of October 15, 2025) outlines specific safety hazards associated with ultrasound-based energy:

• Thermal Burns and Blistering: Ultrasound energy converts to heat upon encountering tissue interfaces. If an operator moves the handpiece too slowly, holds it stationary, or uses insufficient acoustic coupling gel, surface temperatures can exceed 45°C–50°C, resulting in second-degree epidermal burns, scarring, and post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation.
• Subcutaneous Nodules and Pain: Cavitation can cause localized tissue necrosis, forming tender, palpable subcutaneous nodules or fat necrosis that can take months to resolve.
• Auditory Tinnitus: Because low-frequency ultrasound (20–40 kHz) approaches the upper limit of human hearing, patients frequently experience an intense, high-pitched ringing sensation (tinnitus) conducted through bone during treatment.

2. The MAUDE Adverse Event Reporting Gap

A query of the FDA's Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database shows an interesting pattern: while surgical ultrasonic systems (product code MUU) contain mandatory adverse event reports, non-invasive spa cavitation machines have zero recorded MAUDE entries.

Consumers must not interpret this absence of reports as proof of safety. Under FDA regulations, only manufacturers, importers, and user facilities of cleared or approved medical devices are legally mandated to submit Medical Device Reports (MDRs) when an adverse event occurs. Because unbranded cavitation machines operate outside FDA premarket clearance, injuries occurring in day spas, nail salons, or living rooms are rarely reported to federal databases. For an example of how adverse event tracking works for cleared devices, read our analysis of CoolSculpting adverse-event reports.

3. Metabolic Demands and Hepatic Clearance

When adipose cell membranes rupture, the released triglycerides enter the lymphatic system and are delivered to the liver. For healthy individuals, the liver metabolizes these lipids without incident. However, for patients with compromised liver function (such as non-alcoholic steatohepatitis, viral hepatitis, or cirrhosis) or severe hyperlipidemia (fasting triglycerides > 500 mg/dL), this sudden influx of free fatty acids can exacerbate hepatic steatosis and stress metabolic pathways.

---

Cavitation versus CoolSculpting, Focused Ultrasound, and Liposuction: An Honest Decision Table

To evaluate where ultrasonic cavitation sits in the broader aesthetic landscape, the following decision matrix compares it against FDA-cleared non-invasive modalities and surgical gold standards.

For detailed economic breakdowns of cleared non-invasive treatments, explore our CoolSculpting cost guide. If you are weighing non-invasive treatments against surgical intervention, see our liposuction versus CoolSculpting comparison.

---

Consumer Protection: How to Spot Spa Marketing Red Flags

If you are consulting with a med spa or aesthetic practitioner for body contouring, use this checklist to protect your health and investment:

Med Spa Consultation Red-Flag Checklist:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ 🚩 RED FLAG 1: "The cavitation machine is FDA approved for fat removal."    │
│    • FACT: Zero non-focused cavitation machines hold FDA fat-loss clearance.│
│    • ACTION: Ask for the device's 510(k) K-number. If they cannot provide   │
│      it, the machine is not FDA-cleared for this indication.                │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ 🚩 RED FLAG 2: "Guaranteed 2 to 4 inches lost after your first session."    │
│    • FACT: Immediate post-session circumference loss is almost entirely     │
│      transient lymphatic fluid displacement from the massage wand.          │
│    • ACTION: True adipocyte apoptosis and clearance requires 8 to 12 weeks. │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ 🚩 RED FLAG 3: "Cavitation treats obesity and causes major weight loss."    │
│    • FACT: The FDA explicitly states body contouring devices are NOT        │
│      weight-loss treatments and do not treat obesity.                       │
│    • ACTION: Body contouring addresses stubborn, localized fat deposits in  │
│      individuals at or near their stable baseline body weight.              │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ 🚩 RED FLAG 4: Selling cheap 10-packs with no physician supervision.        │
│    • FACT: Many spas purchase uncalibrated machines online for under $1,000 │
│      and mark up packages with no medical intake or contraindication check. │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

For broader context on federal oversight and regulatory actions against deceptive aesthetic med-spa marketing, see our coverage of FDA enforcement against med-spa products.

---

FAQ

How much does ultrasonic cavitation cost per session?

Individual ultrasonic cavitation sessions typically cost between $75 and $150 per treatment. Med spas frequently bundle treatments into packages of 6 to 12 sessions ranging from $600 to $1,500. While the per-session price appears economical compared to FDA-cleared devices like CoolSculpting ($1,200 to $2,500) or surgical liposuction ($4,000 to $8,000), the lack of proven clinical efficacy means that package costs often represent poor value per millimeter of actual fat reduction.

How many cavitation sessions are needed to see results?

Med spas typically recommend a protocol of 6 to 12 weekly sessions lasting 30 to 60 minutes each, combined with strict hydration protocols (drinking 2 liters of water daily) and low-calorie diets. Immediate circumference reductions measured right after a session usually reflect mechanical lymphatic drainage and temporary fluid redistribution rather than actual fat cell destruction. Independent controlled trials show that long-term fat reduction from cavitation alone is minimal without permanent dietary modifications.

Is ultrasonic cavitation the same as UltraShape or Liposonix?

No. Ultrasonic cavitation refers to uncalibrated, unfocused low-frequency ultrasound (20–40 kHz) delivered via handheld spa devices that have never received FDA 510(k) clearance for fat reduction. UltraShape and Liposonix are high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) medical systems cleared by the FDA under Class II product code OHV (21 CFR 878.4590). HIFU devices use high-frequency acoustic energy (1–3 MHz) focused at precise subcutaneous depths to induce controlled adipocyte destruction, validated by extensive peer-reviewed multi-center clinical trials.

---

Sources

• U.S. Food and Drug Administration. "Non-Invasive Body Contouring Technologies." FDA Medical Devices, content current as of 10/15/2025. https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/aesthetic-cosmetic-devices/non-invasive-body-contouring-technologies
• U.S. Food and Drug Administration. "Product Code OHV: Focused Ultrasound for Tissue Heat or Mechanical Cellular Disruption." CDRH Product Classification, 21 CFR 878.4590. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfPCD/classification.cfm?ID=OHV
• U.S. Food and Drug Administration. "510(k) Premarket Notification Database." CDRH AccessData. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfPMN/pmn.cfm
• Teitelbaum, S.A., et al. "Noninvasive body contouring by focused ultrasound: safety and efficacy of the Contour I device in a multicenter, controlled, clinical study." Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, vol. 120, no. 3, 2007, pp. 779-789. PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17700131/
• Khedmatgozar, H., et al. "Ultrasound cavitation combined with cryolipolysis for abdominal fat: A randomized controlled trial." Diabetes & Metabolic Syndrome: Clinical Research & Reviews, vol. 14, no. 6, 2020, pp. 2185-2189. PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33395779/
• Taha, M.M., et al. "Focused ultrasound cavitation with aerobic exercise in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: A randomized controlled trial." PLoS One, vol. 16, no. 4, 2021, p. e0250337. PMC: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8081198/
• Bani, D., Quattrini Li, A., Freschi, G., and Lo Russo, G. "Histological and Ultrastructural Effects of Ultrasound-induced Cavitation on Human Skin Adipose Tissue." Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Global Open, vol. 1, no. 6, 2013, p. e41. PMC: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4174158/
• Palumbo, P., et al. "Biological effects of low frequency high intensity ultrasound on ex vivo human adipose tissue." International Journal of Immunopathology and Pharmacology, vol. 24, no. 2, 2011, pp. 411-422. PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21658315/