← Back to site Scientific evidence

The Slimiser clinical study in detail

This page presents the full methodology, quantitative results and limitations of the clinical study and preclinical studies behind the efficacy and safety data communicated elsewhere on this site. We publish this summary so any practitioner can independently assess the evidence level before integrating the device into their practice.

Title: Safety and efficacy evaluation of the Slimiser convergent-ultrasound body-remodeling device
Investigator: Dr Michel Cadot, dermatologist, with Magalie Daniel and Elian Lati
Site: Longjumeau Hospital (Essonne, France); histological and biochemical analyses: BIO-EC Laboratory, France
Sponsor: Laboratoire Synthebio, which also lent the device used for the study — conflict of interest disclosed below
Period: 19 October 2015 to 3 February 2016
Regulatory framework: favorable opinion from the Comité de Protection des Personnes (CPP) Île-de-France II dated 16 October 2015, ID-RCB/EUDRACT 2014-A00474-43. Conducted under Good Clinical Practice, EN ISO 14155, and directive 93/42/EEC (Annex VIII, section 2-2), category 1 under French law (loi Jardé).

Protocol

19 patients, aged 35-55 (mean 45 ± 10), BMI 23.7-35.8, treated on the abdomen. One group received a single session (day-28 follow-up), a second group received two sessions two weeks apart (day-42 follow-up). Identical "medium" setting for all patients (50% of the device's parameters: ultrasound power, working time, electrostimulation, suction speed), not individualised — 5 cycles per session across 6 applications, ~400 cm² treated, 25 minutes of active treatment time. 900 suction+ultrasound cycles were performed across the study in total.

Safety monitored via blood tests at 5 time points (triglycerides, glycerol, total cholesterol, LDL, HDL, β-HCG, lipase, creatinine, urea — 180 analyses in total) and a dermatological exam before/after each session. Efficacy measured via constant-tension tape waist measurements, standardised photographs, and a self-assessment questionnaire.

Safety results

2 / 870adverse events (transient superficial erythema) out of 870 bell applications
0significant change in circulating lipids or pancreatic enzymes
0notable weight variation

One erythema resolved the same evening, the other within a week. No other adverse event reported.

Efficacy results

Waist-circumference reduction varied between patients: some had little or no measurable reduction, others up to 4-5 cm after one to two sessions. A second treatment improved results by around 20% on average vs. a single session. No significant weight variation over the follow-up period.

90%no discomfort during treatment
100%no pain in the following days
70–80%flatter, firmer abdomen, reduced dimpling

100% of patients wanted further sessions (excluding the extra blood draw).

Preclinical studies (BIO-EC)

Five protocols were run on full-thickness human skin explants (epidermis, dermis, subcutaneous fat) from abdominoplasty procedures, to determine optimal ultrasound parameters. Histology: targeted alterations of adipocytes and septa, preserved epidermal/dermal structures. Key quantitative study (13E2738, 38-year-old donor): selected condition → +27% triglycerides, +46% free fatty acids, +18% glycerol released vs. control at day 2 — three concordant markers of adipolytic activity. Independent confirmation (11E2300): +16% triglyceride release.

Study limitations

Individual results may vary depending on the patient, treated area, and tissue characteristics. This information is intended for healthcare professionals and does not constitute medical advice.