MP04-14 COMPARISON OF LASER AND ELECTROLYSIS FOR PERMANENT HAIR REMOVAL BEFORE GENDER-AFFIRMING VAGINOPLASTY: WHY WE SHOULD CONSIDER LASER HAIR REMOVAL AS A FIRST-LINE TREATMENT FOR PROPERLY SELECTED PATIENTS

Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologyTrauma/Reconstruction/Diversion: External Genitalia Reconstruction and Urotrauma (including transgender surgery) I (MP04)1 Sep 2021MP04-14 COMPARISON OF LASER AND ELECTROLYSIS FOR PERMANENT HAIR REMOVAL BEFORE GENDER-AFFIRMING VAGINOPLASTY: WHY WE SHOULD CONSIDER LASER HAIR REMOVAL AS A FIRST-LINE TREATMENT FOR PROPERLY SELECTED PATIENTS Nance Yuan, Alexandra Feldman, Patrick Chin, Michael Zaliznyak, Susan Rabizadeh, and Maurice Garcia Nance YuanNance Yuan More articles by this author , Alexandra FeldmanAlexandra Feldman More articles by this author , Patrick ChinPatrick Chin More articles by this author , Michael ZaliznyakMichael Zaliznyak More articles by this author , Susan RabizadehSusan Rabizadeh More articles by this author , and Maurice GarciaMaurice Garcia More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000001971.14AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Permanent genital hair removal is required before gender-affirming vaginoplasty to prevent complications from intravaginal hair growth. No prior studies have directly compared the relative efficacy, costs, and patient experience of genital hair removal using laser versus electrolysis. This study compares treatment outcomes of genital electrolysis and laser hair removal (LHR). METHODS: Patients undergoing penile-inversion vaginoplasty (PIV) completed surveys about their preoperative hair removal, including procedure type (electrolysis versus laser), number and frequency of sessions, cost, and discomfort. RESULTS: LHR was associated with greater efficiency, decreased cost, decreased pain, and improved patient satisfaction, as compared to electrolysis. Of 52 vaginoplasty patients that were surveyed, 44 underwent full-depth penile-inversion vaginoplasty and 8 underwent shallow-depth vaginoplasty. A total of 22 patients underwent hair removal with electrolysis only; 15 underwent LHR only, and 15 patients used both techniques. Compared to patients that used laser only, patients that used electrolysis only required more treatment sessions (24.3 electrolysis sessions vs. 8.1 laser sessions, p<0.01) and more frequent sessions (every 2.4 weeks for electrolysis vs. 5.3 weeks for laser, p<0.01) to reach the treatment goal of no hair regrowth. Electrolysis sessions were longer than laser sessions (152 minutes vs. 26 minutes, p<0.01). Total costs for electrolysis ($5161) were significantly greater than for laser ($981, p<0.01). Electrolysis was associated with greater pain and significantly increased need for pre-treatment analgesia. The greater need for local anesthetic with electrolysis contributed to higher net costs for treatment with electrolysis versus laser. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first comparison study of electrolysis and LHR for genital hair removal. When compared with electrolysis, permanent hair removal with LHR for patients with dark hair shows greater treatment efficiency (shorter and fewer treatment sessions), less pain, greater tolerability, and lower total cost. Our data suggests that, for patients with dark hair, providers should consider recommending LHR as the first-line treatment for permanent genital hair removal before vaginoplasty. Source of Funding: none © 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 206Issue Supplement 3September 2021Page: e72-e72 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Nance Yuan More articles by this author Alexandra Feldman More articles by this author Patrick Chin More articles by this author Michael Zaliznyak More articles by this author Susan Rabizadeh More articles by this author Maurice Garcia More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Loading ...