Efficacy of long‐ and short pulse alexandrite lasers compared with an intense pulsed light source for epilation: a study on 532 sites in 389 patients

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Undesirable hair growth presents a significant problem for many patients, and photoepilation has become a very popular procedure in aesthetic and cosmetic practice. Among the systems used are the long‐ and short‐pulsed alexandrite lasers (LP‐Alex, SP‐Alex) and intense pulsed light (IPL) sources. The present study retrospectively examined the outcome of these systems from the viewpoint of efficacy and side effects.PATIENTS AND METHODS: Three hundred and eighty‐nine patients (370 females and 19 males, mean age 36.4 yrs, skin types II–V) were admitted to the study, with a total of 532 treated sites. They were treated either with the LP‐Alex, SP‐Alex or IPL. Subjective evaluation and interview of the patients was held prior to every treatment session. Six to eight treatments were required with the alexandrite lasers, 2.4–2.8 months between treatments, and the IPL source required 8–9 treatments, 2–2.5 months apart.RESULTS: No significant difference was seen between the LP‐ and SP‐Alex, or between both of them and the IPL source, although the period to regrowth was longer for the lasers. Erythema and oedema were more noticeable with the LP‐Alex, as were crusting and hyper‐ and hypopigmentation. Discomfort was greatest with the LP‐Alex and the IPL source. Hair induction at the borders of the treated area on the face and neck was seen only with the LP‐Alex, and correlated statistically significantly with any episode of severe erythema, crusting or hyperpigmentation.CONCLUSIONS: There was no statistically significant difference between the LP‐, SP‐Alex and IPL photoepilation with regard to efficacy. Transient side effects were highest with the LP‐Alex, and least with the IPL system. In the LP‐Alex treated face and neck sites, 3.1% had hair induction in the borders of the treated areas.