Urticaria induced by laser epilation: A clinical and histopathological study with extended follow‐up in 36 patients

Landa, N.; Corrons, Natalia; Zabalza, Iñaki; Azpiazu, Jose L.

doi:10.1002/lsm.22024

Cited by 8 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similar reactions have been rarely reported in the literature, with the largest study of 36 patients conducted. 3 An association was found between allergies and post-treatment urticarial eruption, with 33/36 patients having allergies, mostly to dust mites which is similar to the patient presented. The cases presented had a more delayed onset compared to the few other cases in the literature, within 6 h to 5 days.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 54%

Severe persistent urticaria following laser hair reduction

Dorgham

Witkoff

Weiss

et al. 2022

J of Cosmetic Dermatology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Laser hair reduction is a common practice that utilized light‐based therapy to prevent future hair growth. 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. Aims Review reports of persistent urticaria following laser hair reduction and discuss a rarely discussed laser complication. Methods Pubmed literature review. Results There have been very rare reports of persistent urticaria following laser hair reduction. Similar case reports have also been described though no definitive reasoning for this reaction, nor consistent treatment has been documented. Discussion In this report, we present a patient who developed persistent urticaria with severe pruritus in the areas treated with laser hair reduction. Previous reports an association was found between allergies and post‐treatment urticarial eruption, with 33/36 patients having allergies, mostly to dust mites which is similar to the patient presented. Other etiologies such as reaction to cryogen and physical urticaria are unlikely. Conclusion Our report highlights a case of persistent urticaria with severe pruritus following laser hair reduction treatment, with both similarities and differences to other cases reported in the literature. While this is a rare side effect of laser hair removal, it should be monitored in patients who have a history of moderate to severe environmental allergies.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 54%

Severe persistent urticaria following laser hair reduction

Dorgham

Witkoff

Weiss

et al. 2022

J of Cosmetic Dermatology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Additionally, clinical studies on professional (dermatological, high fluence) LHR in which AEs have been documented serve as an important reference point to compare to low fluence IPL treatment focusing on reducing hair regrowth. The top 25 AEs presented in Table 3 are largely recapitulated in clinical studies from professional IPL treatments 7,8,13,25–31 . Beyond such clinical reports, reviews of expected AEs in dermatological practice exist.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The top 25 AEs presented in Table 3 are largely recapitulated in clinical studies from professional IPL treatments. 7,8,13,[25][26][27][28][29][30][31] Beyond such clinical reports, reviews of expected AEs in dermatological practice exist. For example, Haedersdal and Gotzsche 32 reviewed the effects of professional hair epilation with lasers and light sources, that is, IPL, which included 11 randomized controlled trials involving 444 people.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of adverse events for a home‐use intense pulsed light hair removal device using postmarketing surveillance

Hattersley

Kiernan²,

Goldberg

et al. 2023

Lasers Surg Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and objectives Home‐use intense pulsed light (IPL) hair removal devices are convenient for consumers. Consumer safety associated with home‐use IPL devices, however, remains a subject of interest. In this descriptive analysis, we assessed the most commonly reported adverse events (AEs) for a home‐use IPL device from postmarketing surveillance and qualitatively compared these with AEs from clinical studies and medical device reports of home‐use IPL treatments. Materials and methods For this analysis of voluntary reports, we queried a distributor′s postmarketing database for IPL devices for the period beginning January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2021. All sources of comments, for example, phone, e‐mail, company‐sponsored web sites, were included in the analysis. AE data were coded according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) terminology. Also, we conducted a PubMed search to identify AE profiles from existing literature on home‐use IPL devices and we searched the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database for reports on home‐use IPL devices. These results were qualitatively compared to the data in the postmarketing surveillance database. Results A total of 1692 cases involving IPL were identified from voluntary reports of AEs between 2016 and 2021. The shipment‐adjusted reporting rate for AE cases (number of AE cases/100,000 shipped IPL devices) was 67/100,000 during this 6‐year period. The most commonly reported AEs were pain of skin 27.8% (470/1692), “thermal burn” 18.7% (316/1692), and erythema 16.0% (271/1692). Among the top 25 AEs reported, no unexpected health events were observed. The reported AEs were qualitatively similar to the pattern seen in clinical studies and the MAUDE database associated with such home‐use IPL treatments. Conclusion This is the first such report documenting AEs for home‐use IPL hair removal from a postmarketing surveillance program. These data are supportive of the safety of such home‐use low‐fluence IPL technology.

show abstract

“…[136] In our patient, diode laser may have acted as a trigger for dermographic urticaria possibly by causing local mast cell degranulation. Cold-induced dermographic urticaria was unlikely in our patient as her lesions were linear and we performed surface cooling in a circular manner.…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

“…In the latter, eruption had been diagnosed as urticarial vasculitis, in which, the urticaria resolved after 72 hours while ecchymosis took 7 days to subside. [345]…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%