Adverse effects reported in epilatory ruby laser treatment

Adverse Events of Light-Assisted Hair Removal: An Updated Review

BACKGROUND

With light-assisted hair removal becoming widely used, reports of adverse effects are increasing.

OBJECTIVE

To review all the reported optical incidents and cutaneous complications of laser or intense pulse light-assisted hair removal.

METHODS

A PubMed database systematic search was performed to identify studies reporting such adverse events before July 2022 using the Mesh terms "adverse effects" AND "hair removal" AND ("laser" OR "intense pulse light").

RESULTS

Altogether, 358 references were identified. After excluding duplicates, unrelated articles, guidelines, and conference abstracts, then adding references from studies bibliography, 104 publications were included. Ocular incidents consisted of anterior uveitis, iritis and iris atrophy, pupillary distortion, posterior synechiae, anterior chamber pigment, and cataracts in the anterior subcapsular region. Cutaneous complications consisted of pain, burns, folliculitis, leukotrichia, paradoxical hypertrichosis, pigmentary changes, changes in nevi, pili bigemini, herpes infection, hyperhidrosis, bromhidrosis, Fox-Fordyce disease, and frostbite from the cooling system. They were mostly correlated to skin type and body area as well as to light device and set parameters. Intense pulse light devices were found to be less painful than alexandrite laser, yet more painful than diode laser; Nd:YAG laser had the highest pain score.

CONCLUSION

Optical incidents can be systematically avoided. Cutaneous complications are usually related to professional errors and patient characteristics. Better knowledge of laser physics and adequate training of laser operators are key recommendations to avoid undesirable side effects. Safety recommendations help prevent most of the reported complications.

Variations in laser energy outputs over a series of simulated treatments

BACKGROUND

Test patches are routinely employed to determine the likely efficacy and the risk of adverse effects from cutaneous laser treatments. However, the degree to which these represent a full treatment has not been investigated in detail.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to determine the variability in pulse-to-pulse output energy from a representative selection of cutaneous laser systems in order to assess the value of laser test patches.

METHODS

The output energies of each pulse from seven cutaneous laser systems were measured using a pyroelectric measurement head over a 2-h period, employing a regime of 10-min simulated treatments followed by a 5-min rest period (between patients).

RESULTS

Each laser system appeared to demonstrate a different pattern of variation in output energy per pulse over the period measured.

CONCLUSIONS

The output energies from a range of cutaneous laser systems have been shown to vary considerably between a representative test patch and a full treatment, and over the course of an entire simulated clinic list.