Safety and efficacy of single pass vs multipass emission with 755 alexandrite laser for all‐skin‐type hair removal: A pilot study

Abstract

Lasers are considered the most efficient methods for hair reduction. The goal of these devices is to provide long-term effects without adverse reactions. This is a randomized split-body controlled study on body hair removal and pseudofolliculitis (PFC) treatment, comparing the standard single pass (SP) emission with the multipass emission (Moveo handpiece) with 755 alexandrite laser. Patients with Fitzpatrick skin types I to VI underwent laser hair removal, by treating one side of the body using the standard SP and the other side with Moveo. Treated areas included face, arms, legs, trunk, axillae and groins. Each patient underwent a minimum of three to a maximum of eight treatments, every 6 weeks, with a 6-month follow-up. Hair reduction, side effects, PFC severity score and patient satisfaction were recorded for all patients. Totally, 108 patients were enrolled, of whom 96 were female. The overall hair reduction rate (% ± SD), independent of skin type, was estimated as 87 ± 5.5 for standard SP and 78.5 ± 7.6 for Moveo. No significant statistically differences were found between the two groups. Side effects included pain, which was higher after standard SP (4.2 ± 0.8) than after Moveo treatment (1.5 ± 0.5). A statistical significant difference between the two devices was found (P = .0002). PFC score improved in almost all the patients. Patients declared to be satisfied with both the treatments, reporting a preference for Moveo (84% vs 16%) (P = .01). Standard SP and Moveo 755 alexandrite laser seems to be safe and effective treatments for hair removal in all Fitzpatrick skin types and for PFC. Moveo has a higher security profile with fewer side effects.

Comparing Traditional and “In-Motion” Intense Pulsed Light Techniques for Hair Removal: A Split Study

“…This method allows the induction of a progressive increase of the target temperature, while monitoring the cutaneous reactions and being able to interrupt or modify the treatment at any time, thus minimizing the side effects typical of the traditional method, as already proposed for other typologies of lasers and lights in hair removal [26]. Of course, a physician trained adequately in using IPL is necessary to improve effectiveness and reduce the rate of side effects [27][28][29][30].…”

Comparing Traditional and in Motion Nd:YAG Laser in Hair Removal: A Prospective Study

“…By doing so, the areas are treated in a short length of time, the device is easier to use-as skin does not easily reach high temperatures associated with burns-and larger areas are treated more rapidly. This method allows a progressive increase of the target temperature, monitoring the cutaneous reactions, and being able to interrupt or modify the treatment at any time, thus minimizing the typical side effects of the traditional method, as already proposed for other typologies of lasers in hair removal [20].…”

Severe persistent urticaria following laser hair reduction

“…The light energy is converted to heat energy, which destroys the follicle while sparing surrounding tissue 1 . Complications following laser hair reduction treatment include thermal burns, which may lead to hyper‐ or hypopigmentation, hair stimulation, scar, or transient erythema of treated areas 2 . We herein present the case of a patient who developed persistent urticaria with severe pruritus in the areas treated with laser hair reduction, which has been very rarely reported in the current literature.…”