Laser hair removal history and current issues The new uses of lasers in the 1960s captured
the imagination of both scientists and the general public. Lasers
also captured the imagination of the hair removal industry, who
began attempting hair removal almost as soon as dermatologists
and researchers began experimenting on living tissue.
- Wave 1 lasers: 1960 to 1969
The first lasers used for dermatology
in the mid to late 1960's emitted a continuous wave, but this
was not practical for hair removal, since the beam could not
be controlled well enough to avoid collateral skin damage. The
development of the Q-switch (similar to a camera shutter) allowed
laser energy to be emitted in controlled pulses.
- Wave 2 lasers: 1969 to present
Early laser-like devices (see photoepilators)
selectively targeted individual follicles by delivering energy
through a wire-thin fiberoptic probe (and later through a penlight-type
device). This device was rushed to market without adequate
testing of effectiveness. It was marketed illegally
as painless and permanent until FDA stepped in. These devices
turned out to be tedious to use, logistically difficult to maintain
the probes, and ineffective for permanent hair removal.
- Wave 3 lasers: 1979 to present
As with electrolysis, the early published
clinical data on laser hair removal involved the successful
treatment of ingrown eyelashes. [1] This led to research
and even a commercial attempt at a device using an argon laser
for general market hair removal. This device was rushed to market
without adequate testing of effectiveness, and it turned
out to be tedious to use and ineffective for permanent hair
removal.
Other researchers began using lasers
for dermatological procedures and found them useful for removing
some kinds of tattoos and for the treatment of some kinds of
vascular lesions. In some instances, it was observed that hair
loss occurred in treated areas, which led to experiments in
epilation in animal models and later human subjects in the early
1990's.
- Wave 4 lasers: 1995 to present
In 1995, one century after the discovery
of x-rays, FDA cleared the first laser for hair removal in the
US, the SoftLight™ Nd:YAG by ThermoLase. [2] This device was rushed to market
without adequate testing of effectiveness. It was marketed
illegally as painless and permanent until FDA stepped in. It
uses a carbon-based lotion as a chromophore. This lotion was
rubbed into the skin following waxing, with the hope it would
penetrate the follicle. The laser would then rapidly heat the
carbon, causing a shock wave of energy that had the potential
to damage nearby cells. This process was found to be more complicated
and less effective than targeting chromophores that occur naturally
in the skin.
The device was sold to physicians and treatments were offered
in a chain of proprietary clinics called Spa Thira, primarily
in affluent communities. Consumers basically paid to be guinea
pigs. By the time a medical paper appeared in 1997 which observed
full regrowth of all hair [3], consumers had already spent hundreds
of thousands of dollars on treatments. They quickly shifted
their marketing strategy away from permanent hair removal to
a "hair-management strategy," but word was beginning
to get out.
In 1998 a class action suit was brought against the company
by a consumer alleging ThermoLase "advertised SoftLight
laser hair removal as long lasting with the knowledge that such
treatments did not achieve that result." [4] ThermoLase
quietly settled out of court later that year. In 1999, following
other lawsuits and an annual loss of over $41 million, they
began closing or selling their spas. [5] In 2000, with the stock
down 92% from its high, ThermoLase was folded back into its
parent company, which no longer manufactures or markets SoftLight
in the U.S.
- Wave 5 lasers: 1997 to present
In 1997 FDA cleared several types of
devices that target melanin in the hair (see also flashlamps).
As with the earlier devices, these devices were rushed
to market without adequate testing of effectiveness.
Incremental improvements in equipment
since 1997, such as more ergonomically-designed handpieces and
methods of epidermal cooling, have made treatment generally
more tolerable and reduced the likelihood of some side effects.
The publication of clinical observations have also led to more
optimized treatment parameters, but understanding of lasers
and their long-term effects on hair and other skin structures
is still in the early stages.
Current laser consumer
issues: "A big problem brewing"
This quote is taken from a letter by Rox Anderson M.D., one of
the major figures in medical laser research. He has written extensively
on lasers in dermatology [6] and in hair removal in particular.
I have quoted extensively from his comments below:
"Unfortunately, there is relatively little good, hypothesis-driven
research on lasers in dermatology. These studies are expensive
and slow to perform, analyze, present, and publish. The laser
companies are quick to promote their new devices and procedures,
even before efficacy and safety are well established, and before
a specific FDA clearance is given."
"Self-promotion is also common among laser practitioners,
especially after laying out a small fortune for some new device.
In the long run, their reputations (and ours) will suffer. Fooling
the public into buying something of little value, is a very
old trick."
"Hippocrates knew this when making his famous oath...
Does "first, do no harm'' extend to a prospective patient's
bank account? Does it include the loss of trust suffered after
receiving a series of costly, ineffective treatments? The answer
is, yes."
"When poorly researched before use on patients, cosmetic
lasers or anything else are no different than the infamous patent
medicines of the 19th century... But, what can be done about
the decrepit standards for quality of introducing new aesthetic
laser applications?... Specifically, I think companies should
find it difficult to get a "general'' [FDA] 510k clearance
and then sell a device for some specific, unproven new procedure."
"But the problem lies mainly with us, the professionals.
We should simply refuse to believe infomercials over peer-reviewed
studies." [7]
Lack of consensus about effectiveness
Recent medical overviews of laser hair
removal present widely differing opinions regarding the status.
Some view it as "a promising but still faltering medical
field," [8] while others proclaim it's "beyond the experimental
stage." [9] Some other examples:
"From this review of the literature, we conclude that
laser hair removal does not at the moment have a permanent or
convincing long-lasting effectiveness." [10]
"During the last few years the fast development of different
laser and laser-like systems for photoepilation and their one-sided
representation in media has led to confusion among physicians
and patients." [11]
"Aggressive marketing of [lasers] has contributed to their
popularity among patients and physicians. However, significant
controversy and confusion surrounds this field... Although the
field of optical hair removal is still in its infancy, initial
reports of long-term efficacy are encouraging." [12]
"As the field develops, a better sense of the effectiveness
of laser hair removal will evolve and reasonable expectations
will be determined." [13]
"Although the amount of unwanted hair in a treated area
can be effectively diminished, it is unclear if complete elimination
of unwanted hair from any anatomic area can be achieved with
any of the existing systems... There are very little published
data on most of the lasers... The optimal treatment parameters,
which may vary with anatomic site and skin type, have not been
clearly established for any of the systems." [14]
Optimizing treatment
Because lasers were rushed to market
without a full understanding of their capabilities and limitations,
it's vital that researchers, practitioners, and consumers continue
to make their experiences known to the public.
Skin cooling continues to be improved,
[15, 16, 17] as does pain management
[18, 19], although the risks of
side effects have not been eliminated. Following a consumer
death in 2000 due to a combination of pain medications prior
to laser hair removal, [20] I have put together an overview
of hair removal pain management. [21]
Standardizing terminology and performance
standards
With everyone offering up arbitrary definitions
in published data [22, 23, 24] and even on websites like this, it's very
confusing for consumers to judge long-term effectiveness and
safety. In addition, FDA currently has no performance standard
for epilators. They simply accept or reject definitions submitted
by each manufacturer. This has led to multiple standards for
what is permanent, which also confuses consumers. [25] If FDA
is going to regulate labeling regarding use of the term "permanent,"
there needs to be industry consensus on what this means, preferably
a year or more follow-up with several hundred subjects participating
in controlled multi-center studies.
Who gets to use laser?
The biggest issue at the time of this
writing is who will control the use of this technology. Physicians,
electrologists, and beauticians have all staked their claims,
and it's being left to each state to decide. [26] As expected, one survey showed that physicians
feel they should maintain control of the device, and some non-physicians
have stated they are qualified to own and operate lasers. [27]
As with x-ray 100 years earlier, use
of dermatological lasers is in danger of being rapidly debased
into a cosmetic procedure. Self-proclaimed "laserologists"
have set up "training institutes" for beauticians
and other non-physicians. Some even offer laser hair removal
treatments to consumers without direct medical supervision.
There is currently a legislative push
in some areas to make lasers available for purchase to non-physicians,
proposed by those who stand to gain financially. Some argue
this will make laser hair removal more widely available and
drive down prices for consumers. Some consumer activists (including
myself) have concerns that the likelihood of injury and quackery
will increase if these devices are widely available to non-physicians.
For instance, several of the parties pushing to make laser available
to non-physicians in Florida are contributors, members and/or
moderators of non-recommended promotional site Kitty's Consumer
Beware. [28]
As with Dr. Anderson, Christian Raulin, M.D., another pioneering
laser researcher, states the issue of laser training is "a
serious problem." He notes: "Anyone, including healers,
hair stylists, tattoo artists, and cosmeticians, can buy lasers
and then advertise for their services. There are no legal requirements
for training, no quality control measures, no official quality
standards or guidelines... We must demand the extensive scientific
evaluation of new and existing systems; objective and trustworthy
marketing by laser manufacturer; well-founded training for laser
operators; and legislation which restricts the use of lasers
to physicians alone. [29]
Pushing for more published data
As always, the best hope for consumers comes is that researchers
and physicians continue to make their findings known in peer-reviewed
journals. This is the only way to combat the hype rampant in
the mainstream press, the manufacturer and practitioner promotional
materials, and in the unreliable anecdotal reports from consumers,
as discussed in my section on recommended and non-recommended
information sources.
References
- Berry J. Recurrent trichiasis: treatment with laser
photocoagulation. Ophthalmic Surgery 1979 Jul;10(7):36-8.
- FDA Docket K950019. 5 April 1995. See summary (requires Adobe Acrobat).
- Nanni CA, Alster TS. Optimizing treatment parameters for hair
removal using a topical carbon-based solution and 1064-nm Q-switched
neodymium:YAG laser energy. Archives of Dermatology 1997
Dec;133(12):1546-9.
- Tester v. ThermoLase, Calif. Superior Court (S.F. County,
case # 995285)
- TLZ 1998 Annual Report and SEC 10K, 18
December 1998.
- Anderson RR. Lasers in dermatology--a critical update.
Journal of Dermatology. 2000 Nov;27(11):700-5.
- Anderson RR. Response to "Letter to the Editor.''
Lasers in Surgery and Medicine 28:102 (2001)
- Paquet P, Pierard GE. [Laser-assisted hair removal: realities
and calculations]. Revue Medicale de Liege. 1999 Sep;54(9):739-45.
French.
- DiBernardo BE, Perez J, Usal H, Thompson R, Ferraro FJ, Fallek
SR. Laser hair removal. Clinics in Plastic
Surgery. 2000 Apr;27(2):199-211.
- Haedersdal M, Matzen P, Wulf HC. [Laser epilation. A systematic review
of evidence-based clinical results]. Ugeskrift for Laeger.
2000 Dec 11;162(50):6809-15. Danish.
- Raulin C, Greve B. [Current status of photoepilation].
Hautarzt. 2000 Nov;51(11):809-17. German.
- Ort RJ, Anderson RR. Optical hair removal. Seminars in
Cutaneous Medicine and Surgery. 1999 Jun;18(2):149-58.
- Hobbs L, Ort R, Dover J. Synopsis of laser assisted hair removal
systems. Skin Therapy Letter. 2000;5(3):1-5.
- Lawrence WT. Hair removal laser and nonlaser light
systems. Plastic Surgery Educational Foundation DATA Committee.
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 2000 Jan;105(1):459-61.
Available online through PubMed
- Haas AF. Use of a unique cooling gel applied prior
to laser hair removal. Surgery. 2000 Nov;26(11):1045-6.
- Zenzie HH, Altshuler GB, Smirnov MZ, Anderson RR. Evaluation of cooling methods for laser
dermatology. Lasers in Surgery and Medicine. 2000;26(2):130-44.
- Altshuler GB, Zenzie HH, Erofeev AV, Smirnov MZ, Anderson
RR, Dierickx C. Contact cooling of the skin. Physics
in Medicine and Biology. 1999 Apr;44(4):1003-23.
- Eremia S, Newman N. Topical anesthesia for laser hair removal:
comparison of spot sizes and 755 nm versus 800 nm wavelengths.
Dermatologic Surgery. 2000 Jul;26(7):667-9.
- Altman DA, Gildenberg SR. High-energy pulsed light source hair removal
device used to evaluate the onset of action of a new topical
anesthetic. Dermatologic Surgery. 1999 Oct;25(10):816-8.
- Jackman, T. "Man's Death After Visit To Clinic
Spurs Suit" Washington Post, 31 January 2001, p. B1
- Please see hairfacts.com for a discussion of pain management issues.
- Liew SH, Gault DT. Laser hair removal: the subjective hair-free
interval as a simple outcome measure. British Journal of
Plastic Surgery. 1999 Jun;52(4):322-3.
- Kobayashi T. Electrosurgery using insulated needles:
epilation. Journal of Dermatologic Surgery and Oncology
1985 Oct;11(10):993-1000. p. 995.
- Dierickx CC. Hair removal by lasers and intense pulsed
light sources. Seminars in Cutaneous Medicine and Surgery.
2000 Dec;19(4):267-75. Dierickx discusses "unwanted pigmented
hair" here, avoiding a discussion of ineffective laser
results on unpigmented hair. This follows her 1998 article proclaiming
permanent hair removal by normal-mode
ruby laser, but defining success based on "miniaturization"
of pigmented terminal hairs only, and not complete hair removal.
See the section on "permanent hair reduction" for
details.
- FDA Docket K892514, 8 August 1990. In it, FDA
reviewer Paul Tilton allowed
9 weeks as a performance standard for permanent hair removal.
Docket 99P-1614 contains an extensive critical
analysis of the Tilton decision. This scientifically unsound
standard has been subsequently proposed in laser 510(k) submissions
to FDA, but fortunately they are not allowed to use 9 weeks
for permanence. The Tilton decision is an unfortunate footnote
in the history of hair removal regulation and a triumph of quackery
over good science.
- Crawley MT, Weatherburn H. Application of regulations to cosmetic
lasers in private practice. Journal of Radiological Protection.
2000 Sep;20(3):315-9.
- Wagner RF Jr, Brown T, McCarthy EM, McCarthy RA, Uchida T.
Dermatologist and electrologist perspectives
on laser procedures by nonphysicians. Dermatologic Surgery.
2000 Aug;26(8):723-7.
- See the page on information sources for details on why Kitty's Consumer Beware is a non-recommend
source of hair removal information.
- Raulin C, Greve B, Raulin S. Ethical considerations concerning laser
medicine. Lasers in Surgery and Medicine 28:100-101 (2001)
|
|