[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]
Invited Commentary
Sept/Oct 2017

A Cautious but Optimistic Opinion of Submental Cryolipolysis

Author Affiliations
  • 1Lam Facial Plastics, Plano, Texas
JAMA Facial Plast Surg. 2017;19(5):358-359. doi:10.1001/jamafacial.2017.0112

The increasing consumer demand for minimally invasive or noninvasive procedures has driven a burgeoning industry of technological advances that cater to this desire. Neck adiposity is an emerging area of interest, driven in large part by the US Food and Drug Administration’s clearance of injectable deoxycholic acid in April 2015, along with a juggernaut of related marketing endeavors. As surgeons, we must always be wary of noninvasive methods that might make bold claims, using surgical methods of cervical fat reduction as the criterion standard by which to judge any new entrants into the competitive field. However, we must also embrace methods that may undoubtedly serve as adjuncts, alternatives, or replacements for surgical techniques when they are truly viable. With that spirit, I commend the article in this issue of JAMA Facial Plastic Surgery on submental cryolipolysis by Bernstein and Bloom,1 who have sought to quantifiably evaluate both the aesthetic improvement and the patients’ subjective perception of their results and the nature of their experience. The article serves to expand the current limited body of literature exploring this new application of cryolipolysis.2