Search

In the past 5 years since their US introduction, there has been a rapid proliferation of light-based hair removal devices intended for home-use. In the last 2 years in Europe, sales already run into many tens of thousands of units with well-known multi-national companies entering the market. These guidelines provide a definition of light-based home-use technology, to inform healthcare professionals about home-use light-based technology and encourage manufacturers wishing to sell in Europe to adopt 'best practice'. The review presents the current status on standards and regulation issues and considers home-use safety issues, encompassing human, device and electrical safety, given risks to the eyes and skin from optical radiation both to the consumer and persons in the vicinity. Proposed technical measurement methodology is considered with focus on recognized critical parameters for the safe use of light-based hair removal technology including recording the technical performance and safety claims of a range of home-use hair removal devices. The literature review emphasizes potential adverse incidents and safety aspects of treating cosmetic conditions, such as unwanted hair growth. Although some regulations exist, they differ from region to region and there is a specific need for international common principles and guidelines relating to the manufacture, marketing and use of intense pulsed light and laser devices, including manufacturing standards for home-use products intended, amongst others, for cosmetic hair removal and photo-rejuvenation procedures. In these guidelines, the European Society for Laser Dermatology (ESLD) provides a professional view of what 'best practice' may imply for manufacturers and consumers alike. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Hair removal with professional light-based devices is established as an effective, mainstream treatment. The field of optical home-based hair removal is evolving and movement from control by physicians into hands of consumers warrants understanding efficacy and human safety. Objectives To systematically review and evaluate the efficacy and human safety of currently available home-based optical hair removal devices. Methods A comprehensive Pub Med literature search was conducted which systematically identified publications of relevance. Prospective clinical trials were included whether controlled, uncontrolled or randomized and with a sample size of at least 10 individuals. Results We identified a total of seven studies: one controlled (CT) and six uncontrolled trials (UCTs). No randomized controlled trials (RCT) were recognized. The best evidence was found for IPL (intense pulsed light) (three devices, one CT, five UCTs) and limited evidence for laser devices (one diode laser, one UCT). Most studies evaluated short-term hair reduction up to 3 and 6 months following light exposure at different body sites. Hair reduction percentages ranged from 6% to 72% after repetitive treatments. The most frequently reported side-effect was erythema, but oedema, blistering, crusting and pigment changes were also reported. Theoretical concerns about ocular damage and paradoxical hair growth have not been reported in any of the studies reviewed. Conclusions Available evidence from prospective, uncontrolled clinical trials indicates short-term hair removal efficacy of currently available home-use light-based hair removal devices. Additional controlled trials will be helpful to substantiate the efficacy and to better predict the incidence of adverse events associated with optical home-use hair removal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Reports on the 2003 meeting of the European Society for Pigment Cell Research in Ghent University in Gent, Belgium. Program of the meeting; List of speakers and topics discussed at the meeting.

The article reports on the case of a patient who had suffered of contact dermatitis which is found to occur due to isothiazolinones, a component of various cosmetic and household products. The case was reported in a 28-year-old beautician who had an itchy eczema. Patch tests had given positive reactions to nickel sulfate and Cl + Me-isothiazolinone. It is found that the occurrence of airborne contact dermatitis was due to carpet cleaners that were used by her. Especially, sources of the disease were found to be carpet cleaners and wash softeners.