Patient satisfaction with laser hair removal

Awareness and knowledge of laser hair removal: a cross sectional study from tertiary care dermatology clinics in Oman

BACKGROUND

Laser hair removal (LHR), including the use of home-based devices, is becoming very popular in Oman. Despite this, some people still have many misconceptions about this procedure, especially of its long-term complications. This study aimed to assess the awareness and knowledge of LHR among dermatology clinic attendees in Muscat, Oman.

METHODS

A cross sectional survey study was conducted at Al Seeb and Bowshar polyclinics in Muscat, Oman, to attendees between the ages of 18 and 70 years. The Chi-square test was used to assess the association between different categorical variables. Results were considered to be statistically significant if P < 0.05.

RESULTS

Of the 500 questionnaires which were distributed, 403 were completed (response rate = 80.6%). The mean (± standard deviation [SD]) age of participants was 32.9 (8.5) years old. In this study, 45.7% (184/403) of participants had used LHR, and of those, 88.6% (163/184) were satisfied with the results. The knowledge percentage among individuals was higher among those who used LHR compared to those who did not use LHR (46% vs. 27%, respectively; P < 0.001). However, there were no significant differences in LHR knowledge percentages based on employment status or monthly income. Female participants and subjects with an educational level of a college degree or above had superior knowledge regarding the safety of LHR use during pregnancy (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

This study noted a lack of knowledge, with various misconceptions, about LHR among patients attending dermatology clinics in Oman, especially in individuals who had not used LHR before.

Comparison of Permanent Hair Removal Procedures before Gender-Affirming Vaginoplasty: Why We Should Consider Laser Hair Removal as a First-Line Treatment for Patients Who Meet Criteria

Introduction

Permanent genital hair removal is required before gender-affirming vaginoplasty to prevent hair-related complications. No previous studies have directly compared the relative efficacy, costs, and patient experiences with laser hair removal (LHR) vs electrolysis treatments. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) oversight of medical devices is poorly understood and commonly misrepresented, adversely affecting patient care.

Aim

This study compares treatment outcomes of electrolysis and LHR for genital hair removal and investigates FDA regulation of electrolysis and LHR devices.

Methods

Penile-inversion vaginoplasty and shallow-depth vaginoplasty patients completed surveys about their preoperative hair removal, including procedure type, number/frequency of sessions, cost, and discomfort. Publicly available FDA-review documents and databases were reviewed.

Main Outcomes Measure

Compared to electrolysis, LHR was associated with greater efficiency, decreased cost, decreased pain, and improved patient satisfaction.

Results

Of 52 total (44 full-depth and 8 shallow-depth) vaginoplasty patients, 22 of 52 underwent electrolysis only, 15 of 52 underwent laser only, and 15 of 52 used both techniques. Compared to patients that underwent LHR only, patients that underwent only electrolysis required a significantly greater number of treatment sessions (mean 24.3 electrolysis vs 8.1 LHR sessions, P < .01) and more frequent sessions (every 2.4 weeks for electrolysis vs 5.3 weeks for LHR, P < .01) to complete treatment (defined as absence of re-growth over 2 months). Electrolysis sessions were significantly longer than LHR sessions (152 minutes vs 26 minutes, P < .01). Total treatment costs for electrolysis ($5,161) were significantly greater than for laser ($981, P < .01). Electrolysis was associated with greater pain and significantly increased need for pretreatment analgesia, which further contributed to higher net costs for treatment with electrolysis vs laser. Many LHR and electrolysis devices have been FDA-cleared for safety, but the FDA does not assess or compare clinical efficacy or efficiency.

Clinical Implications

For patients with dark-pigmented hair, providers should consider LHR as the first-line treatment option for preoperative hair removal before gender-affirming vaginoplasty.

Strength and Limitations

This is the first study to compare electrolysis and LHR for genital hair removal. The discussion addresses FDA review/oversight of devices, which is commonly misrepresented. Limitations include the survey format for data collection.

Conclusion

When compared with electrolysis, LHR showed greater treatment efficiency (shorter and fewer treatment sessions to complete treatment), less pain, greater tolerability, and lower total cost. Our data suggests that, for patients with dark genital hair, providers should consider recommending laser as the first-line treatment for permanent genital hair removal before vaginoplasty.

Yuan N, Feldman A, Chin P, et al. Comparison of Permanent Hair Removal Procedures before Gender-Affirming Vaginoplasty: Why We Should Consider Laser Hair Removal as a First-Line Treatment for Patients Who Meet Criteria. Sex Med 2022;10:100545.

Nonsurgical Management of Facial Masculinization and Feminization

BACKGROUND

Transgender patients may seek nonsurgical methods for facial masculinization and feminization as an adjunct or alternative to undergoing surgical procedures.

OBJECTIVES

The authors reviewed the existing literature regarding this topic and provided an overview of nonsurgical techniques for facial masculinization and feminization.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search of the PubMed and MedLine databases was conducted for studies published through December 2017 for techniques and outcomes of nonsurgical facial masculinization and feminization. Keywords were used in performing the search. Data on techniques, outcomes, complications, and patient satisfaction were collected.

RESULTS

Four articles fit our inclusion criteria. Given the lack of published literature describing facial injectables in transgender patients, data from the literature describing techniques in cisgender patients were utilized to supplement our review.

CONCLUSIONS

Facial feminization can be achieved through injectables such as neurotoxin and fillers for lateral brow elevation, lip augmentation, malar augmentation, and improvement of rhytids. Facial masculinization can be achieved with injectables used for genioplasty, jawline augmentation, and supraorbital ridge augmentation. One must develop best practices for these techniques in the transgender patient population and increase awareness regarding nonsurgical options.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4

A randomized clinical trial on the comparison between hair shaving and snipping prior to laser hair removal sessions in women suffering from hirsutism

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Hirsutism or excess hair growth is a common dermatological problem in females, affecting up to 10% of females worldwide. We aimed this study to compare the two hair-shortening methods shaving vs. snipping among hirsute women regarding the outcome of the therapy and also the paradoxical hypertrichosis phenomenon (terminal hair regrowth) 6 months after the final therapy session.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this study, 129 premenopausal women affected by hirsutism were randomly divided into two study groups according to hair-shortening method: shaving as group A (66 patients) and hair shortening by scissor as group B (63 patients). Each patient received six alexandrite laser therapy sessions every month for six consecutive months. Chin hairs in a 5 × 5 cm² zone were counted, and the paradoxical hair regrowth was evaluated four times during the study: once at baseline, once before the third session, once before the sixth session, and once 6 months after the last laser session.

RESULTS

Before the third session, the counts were 15.06 ± 5.20 in group A and 13.07 ± 4.44 in group B (P = 0.022); both counts were meaningfully less than the baseline count (P < 0.001). The counts before the sixth session were 2.80 ± 1.16 in group A and 2.71 ± 1.12 in group B (P = 0.673); the counts were significantly lower than the previous session (P < 0.001). Six months after the last laser session, the counts were 11.27 ± 9.30 in group A and 8.15 ± 3.12 in group B (P = 0.012). Paradoxical hypertrichosis was observed in three patients of group A vs. no patients in group B.

CONCLUSION

We found that alexandrite laser therapy is really effective for treating hirsutism. Both shaving and using a scissor for hair shortening showed similar short-term results, but in one-year follow-up, paradoxical hypertrichosis was only observed in shaving group and also a lower hair count was observed in the snipping group.

Impact on facial rejuvenation with dermatological preparations

The treatment options for facial rejuvenation using dermatological, nonsurgical techniques have dramatically increased in the past 10 years. This follows the introduction of botulinum toxin and a variety of dermal fillers. The public interest in noninvasive treatments has changed the market beyond recognition with more physicians involved in providing services to satiate the demand. The impact on the public and medical profession is discussed.

Lasers and optical technologies in facial plastic surgery

Lasers and optical technologies play a significant role in aesthetic and reconstructive surgery. The unique ability of optical technologies to target specific structures and layers in tissues to effect chemical, mechanical, or thermal changes makes them a powerful tool in cutaneous rejuvenation, hair removal, fat removal, and treatment of vascular lesions such as port-wine stains, among many other procedures. With the development of adjunct techniques such as epidermal cooling, lasers and optical technologies have become more versatile and safe. The constant improvement of existing applications and the emergence of novel applications such as photodynamic therapy, nanoparticles, spectroscopy, and noninvasive imaging continue to revolutionize aesthetic medicine by offering a minimally invasive alternative to traditional surgery. In the future, therapies will be based on individualized, maximum, safe radiant exposure to deliver optimal dosimetry. Lasers and optical technologies are headed toward safer, easier, more quantifiable, and more individualized therapy.

Laser hair removal in women with polycystic ovary syndrome

Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is one of the most common reasons for women to present seeking removal of facial hair, particularly within the UK National Health Service (NHS). In the NHS, there is geographical variation in the number of laser treatments available to women with PCOS, with some units limiting patients to six treatments whilst others allow unlimited treatments. This study aims to assess the effect of number of treatments on women with PCOS.

METHODS

This study prospectively assessed hair counts, hair-free intervals and patient satisfaction in 60 women with PCOS undergoing 3ms pulse duration alexandrite laser treatment.

RESULTS

Following six treatments there was a mean 31+/-38% reduction in hair counts (mean+/-SD; P=0.001). Mean hair-free interval (HFI) increased steadily with treatment, from 1.9 weeks after six treatments to 4.3 weeks after 10 treatments (P=0.001). From the postal questionnaire, after an average of 12 treatments, 31% of patients had a HFI longer than 6 weeks compared to only 2.6% after six treatments (P=0.003). Overall, despite the low hair count reductions, 95% of patients were satisfied with treatment.

CONCLUSION

In women with PCOS, laser treatment is associated with a poorer than expected reduction in hair counts and HFI following treatment. However, offering more than six treatments does have additional benefits in terms of prolonging HFI and overall patient satisfaction with treatment is very high.