Hair removal with a novel, low fluence, home-use intense pulsed light device

Emerson, Russell; Town, Godfrey

doi:10.1080/14764170902792199

Cited by 29 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These seven prospective studies were evaluated for efficacy and adverse effects and are summarized in Table 2. One study was categorized as a CT 7 and six as UCTs 8–13 . A total of 24 studies were excluded because they did not assess the efficacy of light‐based home use devices according to our a priori methodological criteria.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…All included trials evaluated short‐term (<6 months) hair reduction and one UCT 12 assessed long‐term hair reduction up to 12 months after treatment. Four of six short‐term studies 9–11,13 assessed the outcome at 3 months and two short‐term studies 7–8 evaluated outcome at 6 months after the final treatment. From Table 2 it is seen that the short‐term efficacy at 3 month follow‐up varied substantially, from 6% to 72% hair reduction (six studies), whereas more homogenous outcomes from 41% to 44% were reported at 6 month follow‐up (three studies).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…From Table 2 it is seen that the short‐term efficacy at 3 month follow‐up varied substantially, from 6% to 72% hair reduction (six studies), whereas more homogenous outcomes from 41% to 44% were reported at 6 month follow‐up (three studies). Evaluation of hair removal efficacy was based on manual hair counts, either by on‐site clinical assessments 12 or by photo evaluations 7–13 . Postoperative hair counts compared with baseline hair counts calculated the percentage of hair reduction.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Numerous potential explanations may account for the varying outcome measures, some of which may include differences regarding technical specifications of used devices, number of treatments, intervals between treatments, and population characteristics like skin type, hair colour and treatment region. Thus, the four devices used in the eight included clinical trials 7–13 operated with various technical settings in terms of wavelengths (810 nm diode laser, IPL range: 400–1200 nm), pulse durations (range: <2–600 ms) and fluencies (range: 2–24 J/cm 2 ) (Table 1). Also the number of treatments varied substantially; from one to six treatments that were given in intervals from 1 to 4 weeks.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…At 1 month after the third treatment, 30% of participants were ‘very pleased’, 55% were ‘pleased’ and 15% were ‘not pleased’ with the treatment outcome. Participants experienced mild transient erythema 8 …”

Section: Uncontrolled Clinical Trialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

A systematic review of light‐based home‐use devices for hair removal and considerations on human safety

Thaysen-Petersen

Bjerring

Dierickx

et al. 2011

Acad Dermatol Venereol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Uncontrolled Clinical Trialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

A systematic review of light‐based home‐use devices for hair removal and considerations on human safety

Thaysen-Petersen

Bjerring

Dierickx

et al. 2011

Acad Dermatol Venereol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Clinical study to determine the safety and efficacy of a low‐energy, pulsed light device for home use hair removal

Elm¹,

Wallander²,

Walgrave³

et al. 2010

Lasers Surg Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Evaluation of a hot‐wire hair removal device compared to razor shaving

Biesman

2013

Lasers Surg Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Objectives: We describe a blinded, controlled, prospective clinical study of a hot-wire device promoted for hair removal and the reduction or delay of hair regrowth (no!no!, Radiancy, Inc., Orangeburg, NY) compared to a shaving control. Study Design/Materials and Methods: Twenty-two subjects were treated by trained clinical staff with the hotwire device according to its Instructions for Use on the lower leg two times per week for 8 weeks. An adjacent site was shaved with a razor blade on the same schedule to provide a control. Subjects were followed for 3 months after the last treatment to study the durability of the results. Standardized high-resolution photographs were made at baseline, once a week during treatment, and monthly during the post-treatment follow-up period. Micro-tattoos were used to ensure treatments and photographs were reliably made in the same anatomical location from visit to visit. Both active and control sites were shaved prior to baseline and allowed to regrow for a fixed period of time before first treatment to provide a consistent and welldefined baseline hair condition. Quantitative hair counts were made by a third party from the photographs and standard statistical analysis was performed to look for differences between the active and control sites. Visual assessments and quantitative analysis was also performed on the photographs to see if there were any differences in hair thickness (diameter) and hair color between the active and control sites. Results: The results show that shaving and the hot-wire device are indistinguishable in short-term or long-term effect, based on both visual assessment of the photographs and statistical analysis of the hair counts. The control (shaving) had a mean baseline hair count of 79.4, which remained stable (74.8-84.3) during the 8 week-treatment phase and climbed substantially after stopping treatment to 98.8, 100.1, and 104.6 at 1, 2, and 3 months posttreatment, respectively. The active (hot-wire device) had a mean baseline hair count of 86.0 which remained fairly stable (81.7-95.1) during the treatment phase and then climbed substantially after stopping treatment to 104.0, 106.4, and 109.0 at 1, 2, and 3 months post-treatment, respectively. The difference in hair counts between the control and shaving showed that (a) in the treatment phase, shaving was slightly more effective at hair removal than the hot-wire device with weak statistical significance (P < 0.05 at 5 of 7 time points) and (b) in the follow-up phase, shaving and the hot-wire device were statistically indistinguishable (P ¼ 0.252, 0.0972, and 0.230 at 1, 2, and 3 months, respectively). Likewise, the difference in percentage change from baseline in hair counts (which normalizes to baseline values) between the shaving control and hot-wire device is close to zero at every time point (À4.9% to þ4.9%) and the t-test P-values are high (0.154 < P < 0.890 over all the time points in the study and 0.360 < P < 0.890 during the 1, 2, and 3 month followup period), indicating no dete...

show abstract

Hair removal with a novel, low fluence, home-use intense pulsed light device

Abstract: In simulated consumer use, this home-use IPL demonstrated a significant, quantifiable and sustainable reduction in unwanted body and facial hair with minimal side effects.

Cited by 29 publications

References 16 publications

A systematic review of light‐based home‐use devices for hair removal and considerations on human safety

A systematic review of light‐based home‐use devices for hair removal and considerations on human safety

Clinical study to determine the safety and efficacy of a low‐energy, pulsed light device for home use hair removal

Evaluation of a hot‐wire hair removal device compared to razor shaving

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About