Home Hair Removal System Safe and Effective for Removing Unwanted Facial Hair
Laser and intense pulsed light (IPL) treatments for the removal of unwanted hair are effective and have been performed in a clinical setting for over 20 years. Consumers desire safe and effective home-use devices for hair removal and the market has been expanding over the past several years. Recent studies have found that although there are a variety of IPL home hair removal devices on the market, many of them do not have the necessary power outputs to deliver the promised efficacy in removing unwanted hair. In addition, the research on those that are effective has focused largely on removing unwanted body hair. There is a lack of research on whether these same systems may be effective for removing facial hair.
A recent study, published in The Journal of Clinical and Aesthetic Dermatology, studied the use of a home-pulsed system specifically for hair removal on the face, in the area below the cheekbone line. This is the first home use hair removal device study looking at facial hair and the effects of the treatment at each treatment visit, and one and three months following the last hair removal treatment.
The device used has United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval and is intended for general hair removal use in the home environment. The 17 study participants were female, adult patients from age 21 years to 60 years of age with a mean age of 39. Treatment was performed on the face, always below the cheekbone line. The authors found that this novel home-pulsed system was effective for removing facial hair. There were statistically significant hair reduction numbers (22.7 at baseline, 4.4 at the end of the one-month follow-up, and 7.0 at the end of the three months) and no adverse events with the device in the clinical evaluation were observed.
Major limitations of the study include the small sample and the length of follow up. Patients were followed for only three months after the last treatment. Based on hair growth cycles, a longer follow-up period would be warranted.
By: Wendy Meltzer, MPH
Source: JCAD Online
Adapted from the original article.
[image by Dietmar Downunder]