Sadick, 2000 (flash lamp clinical data)

Sadick, 2000

Title: Long-term photoepilation using a broad-spectrum intense pulsed light source

Authors: Sadick NS, Weiss RA, Shea CR, Nagel H, Nicholson J, Prieto VG

Journal: Arch Dermatol 2000 Nov;136(11):1336-40

PMID: 11074695

Affiliated institution: 772 Park Ave, New York, NY 10021.

Cited in :

The goal of laser or flashlamp photoepilation is to produce long-term, cosmetically significant hair removal. We document the long-term efficacy achieved with an intense pulsed light source for photoepilation. DESIGN: Prospective study comparing long-term results of single vs multiple treatments, and effects of anatomic site and skin type on efficacy of photoepilation with a device emitting broad-spectrum, noncoherent (nonlaser) radiation from 550- to 1200-nm wavelengths, in macropulses divided into 2 to 5 minipulses. SETTING: Private dermatology practice. PATIENTS: Thirty-four patients (8 men, 26 women) with hirsutism. INTERVENTIONS: Parameters for the study were wavelength of 615 to 695 nm, pulse duration of 2.6 to 3.3 milliseconds, fluence of 34 to 42 J/cm(2), 10 x 45-mm exposure field, and application of 1 degrees C cooling gel. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Hair removal efficiency, calculated as percentage ratio of the number of hairs present compared with baseline counts, and patient satisfaction questionnaire completed at last follow-up. RESULTS: The mean hair removal efficiency achieved was 76% after a mean of 3.7 treatments. More than 94% of the sites reached mean hair removal efficiency values greater than 50%. Hair removal efficiency was not significantly related to skin type, hair color, anatomic site, or number of treatments. Side effects were mild and reversible and occurred in a minority of patients (hyperpigmentation in 3 and superficial crusting in 2). CONCLUSIONS: Our data document the long-term clinical efficacy of intense pulsed light source-induced hair removal in light and dark skin phenotypes. Maximal photoepilation was achieved from the initial 1 to 3 treatments; only a small added benefit was seen after more treatments. Arch Dermatol. 2000;136:1336-1340