3.8 Article

Effect of Different Pulse Durations on the Efficacy of Long-Pulsed Alexandrite-Assisted Hair Removal; A Split-Face Comparison Study

Journal

JOURNAL OF LASERS IN MEDICAL SCIENCES
Volume 12, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

SHAHID BEHESHTI UNIV MEDICAL SCIENCES, FAC MEDICINE
DOI: 10.34172/jlms.2021.21

Keywords

Pulse duration; Alexandrite laser; Hair removal; Pulse width

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of hair removal using an alexandrite laser with different pulse durations. The results showed that both 3 and 10 milliseconds pulse durations had a 56% clearance rate with no significant difference in clinical efficacy or side effects. The 755 nm alexandrite laser is an effective and safe method for delaying hair regrowth, regardless of the pulse duration.
Introduction: Laser-assisted hair removal is widely used by a large number of patients complaining of unwanted hair. However, little is known about the effect of varying the pulse duration on clinical results and side effects. This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of hair removal using an alexandrite laser with different pulse durations. Methods: Fifty female patients with facial hirsutism were subjected to a hair removal procedure with an alexandrite laser, using 3 and 10 milliseconds pulse durations on each side of the face every 5 weeks for three sessions. Photographs were taken and hair counts were checked before the treatment and one month postoperatively. Results: one month after the laser treatment, the clearance rate was 56% with both 3 and 10 milliseconds pulse durations. There was not any significant difference in clinical efficacy or the side effect profile. Conclusion: Using a 755 nm alexandrite laser for hair removal is an effective and safe method for delaying hair regrowth and this delay is not markedly different by increasing the pulse duration from 3 to 10 milliseconds.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available