Search

Background: Laser hair reduction gained popularity in the last decade and is presently the most frequently used long‐term hair removal method. It works on the principle of selective photothermolysis—the laser damages the hair follicle without damaging the skin. Shorter Nd:YAG pulses are also effective in hair reduction, while maintaining better comfort for the patient. Aims: The aim of this study was to compare the short and long pulsed methods of Nd:YAG for facial hair removal on darker Fitzpatrick skin types (IV–V). Patients/Methods: This prospective split face, evaluator‐blinded comparison of short‐pulse Nd:YAG laser versus long‐pulse Nd:YAG laser study included 10 untanned healthy women. There were two outcome measers, two blinded dermatologists compared baseline photographs with those taken 3 months after last session and FotoFinder was used to compare the terminal hair count reduction at the baseline and 3 months after 6th session. Results: Both blinded assesors observed significant hair reduction with both lasers; excellent results were achieved in 20% with long pulse and in 55% with short pulse. Both treatment options showed reduction in number of terminal hair with statistical significance using FotoFinder. Comparison of the efficacy of the two pulse durations measured by percent reduction in the number of terminal hair 3 months after the last session showed no significant difference between the groups. Conclusion: Hair reduction using 1064 nm Nd:YAG is a safe and effective method of hair reduction especially in darker skin types. We have shown that short pulses are better or at least equally safe and effective as the "gold standard" long pulses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Microneedle devices have been used to reduce scarring and wrinkling as well as for the treatment of pattern hair loss. Aims: Here, we investigated the efficacy and safety of a newly developed home‐use microneedle device for the treatment of pattern hair loss. Methods: Twenty‐nine patients were assigned into three groups based on block randomization: home‐use microneedle device only, a combination of home‐use microneedle device and 5% minoxidil solution and 5% minoxidil topical solution only. Each treatment was performed twice a week. The study outcomes included hair counts, patient self‐assessments, and adverse events at baseline and at 6 months. Statistical analyses were performed using analysis of variance (ANOVA), repeated measures ANOVA and Kruskal‐Wallis test. Results: The improvements in hair count were seen in the combination group at month 6, but the differences observed did not reach statistical significance in each group and among the three groups. The patient self‐assessment showed the highest score in the combination group, but it did not reveal a statistically significant difference among the three groups. Mild and transient pruritus were reported by one patient who was using the microneedle device only. Conclusions: Our study shows that the home‐use microneedle device may be a safe and 5% minoxidil solution penetration‐enhancing therapeutic modality for stimulating hair growth. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]