The Aesthetic Guide is part of the Informa Markets Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them. Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

truSculpt 3D vs CoolSculpting

Article-truSculpt 3D vs CoolSculpting

Dr. TaubIn May, Cutera announced it launched truSculpt 3D, an enhancement to its truSculpt nonsurgical body sculpting platform. The controlled, monopolar radiofrequency truSculpt 3D offers up to 24% fat reduction in one treatment, according to a Cutera press release.

Something else that might be important to cosmetic surgeons, truSculpt 3D offers advantages over rival CoolSculpting (Allergan), according to Amy Forman Taub, M.D., truSculpt 3D clinical investigator and director of Chicago-based Advanced Dermatology.

“truSculpt 3D can benefit patients both too large and too small for the specific applicators used with CoolSculpting. In addition, we believe the improvement in skin quality is superior to [CoolSculpting’s], although there is no study to prove that,” Dr. Taub tells The Aesthetic Channel in an email.

Dr. Taub conducted a study treating patients with a single truSculpt 3D treatment. She and colleagues objectively measured fat thickness reduction change using controlled ultrasound imaging and photography. And they found results from the ultrasound measurements and photography were in line with other noninvasive body sculpting technologies, according to the release.

There is no head-to-head study comparing CoolSculpting to truSculpt 3D, but Dr. Taub who has both devices at her practice and conducted research on Cutera’s technology, offers a few observations.

While CoolSculpting treatment doesn't make laxity worse in the treated area, truSculpt 3D improves skin tone in the treatment area and could be considered a treatment for fat and laxity, according to Dr. Taub.

“Radiofrequency treatments for fat have failed in the past due to patient discomfort,” she writes.

NEXT: How truSculpt Is Different


How truSculpt Is Different

But this technology is different in two ways. One is that it features a different frequency, which penetrates more deeply and heats fat more effectively than skin, so skin stays at a lower temperature. The other is the device’s internal temperature monitoring, which keeps the temperature uniform and automatically reduces the temperature if the skin gets too hot.

“These things allow the treatment to take place without much discomfort and, yet, get an effective response. More than 80% of patients saw more than a 20% reduction in size of the fat thickness as measured by ultrasound,” Dr. Taub says. 

truSculpt also differs in cost, compared to CoolSculpting, according to Dr. Taub.

“The disposables are less for truSculpt 3D than for CoolSculpting,” she says. “One area for truSculpt 3D is $25 for a comparable area to a CoolSculpting cycle, which usually costs about $150.”

The time it takes to perform a truSculpt treatment is also less, at 15 minutes, as opposed to CoolSculpting’s 35 minutes, according to Dr. Taub.

However, truSculpt 3D is hands on, she says.

“The operator must be in the room and cannot leave the room,” Dr. Taub says. “So, if you are doing say the lower abdomen and the flanks, this would be four cycles of CoolSculpting and require 35 min, times two — if you had up-to-date equipment and DualSculpting.”

For those CoolSculpting practices who aren’t up to date on upgrading the device, the same procedure could take up to four hours with a single machine at a cost of $600 for disposables. 

With truSculpt 3D, that same area would take one hour of hands-on treatment, with a disposable cost of $100, she says.

Cutera launched the truSculpt 3D body sculpting system in all critical markets, including the U.S., during the second quarter of 2017 and says it will do a full global launch by the end of the year.

Disclosures for Dr. Taub: Consultant (Medical Advisory Board):  DUSA/Sun, Medicell Technologies, Sterilis Medical Corporation, Suneva, Alastin, Allergan, Swiss American, Almirall, and Exeltis. Honoraria: Allergan, DUSA, Syneron/Candela, Coolsculpting, Medicell Technology, Alastin, Merz, and Zimmer. Speaker: DUSA/Sun, Allergan, Suneva, Syneron/Candela. Ownership: MediCell Technologies LLC (MCT), CARLSBAD, CA; Sterilis Medical Corporation, Boxborough, MA; Skinfo. Derm related research for practice: DUSA/Sun, Medicell Technologies/Revance Therapeutics/Cutera.

Hide comments


  • Allowed HTML tags: <em> <strong> <blockquote> <br> <p>

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.