Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ultraviolet radiation after exposure to a low-fluence IPL home-use device: a randomized clinical trial

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Lasers in Medical Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The prevailing advice is to avoid sun exposure after intense pulsed light (IPL) hair removal. However, no systematic evaluation of ultraviolet radiation (UVR) after IPL hair removal exits. Therefore, we investigated the occurrence of side effects in subjects receiving solar-simulated UVR after a low-fluence IPL treatment with a home-use device. Sixteen subjects with Fitzpatrick skin types (FST) II-V were enrolled. Three constitutive buttock blocks (4.4 × 6.4 cm) were each subdivided into four sites, randomized to one IPL exposure of 0, 7, 8, or 10 J/cm2 (spectral output 530–1100 nm). Blocks were randomized to no UVR or three standard erythema doses (SEDs) UVR either 30 min or 24 h after IPL. Follow-up visits were 48 h, 1 week, and 4 weeks after IPL. Outcome measures were (i) clinical skin reactions, (ii) reflectance measurements of erythema and pigmentation, and (iii) pain. Subjects with FST II–IV experienced no skin reactions up to 4 weeks after IPL, neither erythema, edema, blisters, crusting, textual, nor pigment changes. Reflectance confirmed no change in erythema and pigmentation (p ≥ 0.090). UVR exposure induced erythema and increased pigmentation. The combination of IPL and UVR induced skin reactions not different to responses from UVR (IPL-UVR vs. UVR, p ≥ 0.164). Pain was generally low (median 1, range 0–4) and correlated positively with fluence and pigmentation (Spearman’s rho ≥ 0.394, p < 0.001). One subject with FST V experienced perifollicular hyperpigmentation after IPL and slightly more intense when exposed to UVR. A single UVR exposure of three SEDs either shortly or 1 day after low-fluence IPL causes no amplification of skin responses in constitutive skin of individuals with FST II–IV.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Fernandez AA, França K, Chacon AH, Nouri K (2013) From flint razors to lasers: a timeline of hair removal methods. J Cosmet Dermatol 12:153–162

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Haedersdal M, Gøtzsche PC (2006) Laser and photoepilation for unwanted hair growth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 18:CD004684

    Google Scholar 

  3. Haedersdal M, Beerwerth F, Nash JF (2011) Laser and intense pulsed light hair removal technologies: from professional to home use. Br J Dermatol 165:31–36

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Anderson RR, Parrish JA (1983) Selective photothermolysis: precise microsurgery by selective absorption of pulsed radiation. Science 220:524–527

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ibrahimi OA, Avram MM, Hanke CW, Kilmer SL, Anderson RR (2011) Laser hair removal. Dermatol Ther 24:94–107

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Altshuler GB, Anderson RR, Manstein D et al (2001) Extended Theory of selective photothermolysis. Lasers Surg Med 29:416–432

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Town G, Ash C, Dierickx C et al (2012) Guidelines on the safety of light-based home-use hair removal devices from the European Society for Laser Dermatology. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 26:799–811

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Thaysen-Petersen D, Bjerring P, Dierickx C et al (2012) A systematic review of light-based home-use devices for hair removal and considerations on human safety. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 26:545–553

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Wheeland RG (2007) Simulated consumer use of a battery-powered, handheld, portable diode laser (810 nm) for hair removal: a safety, efficacy and ease-of-use study. Lasers Surg Med 39:476–493

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Alster TS, Tanzi (2009) Effect of a novel low-energy pulsed-light device for home-use hair removal. Dermatol Surg 35:483–489

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Emersom R, Town H (2009) Hair removal with a novel, low fluence, home-use intense pulsed light device. J Cosmet Laser Ther 11:98–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Elm CM, Wallander ID, Walgrave SE et al (2010) Clinical study to determine the safety and efficacy of a low-energy, pulsed light device for home use hair removal. Lasers Surg Med 42:287–291

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Gold MH, Foster A, Biron JA (2010) Low-energy intese pulsed light for hair removal at home. J Clin Aesthet Dermatol 3:48–53

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Rohrer TE, Chatrath V, Yamauchi P et al (2003) Can patients treat themselves with a small novel light based hair removal system? Lasers Surg Med 33:25–29

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Mulholland RS (2009) Silk’n – a novel device using Home Pulsed Light for hair removal at home. J Cosmet Laser Ther 11:106–109

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Wheeland RG (2012) Permanent hair reduction with a home-use diode laser: safety and effectiveness 1 year after eight treatments. Lasers Surg Med 44:550–557

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Trelles MA, Ash C, Town G (2013) Clinical and microscopic evaluation of long-term (6 months) epilation effects of the ipulse personal home-use intense pulsed light (IPL) device. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venerol

  18. Thaysen-Petersen D, Barbet-Pfeilsticker M, Beerwerth F et al (2014) Quantitative assessment of growing hair counts, thickness and colour during and after treatments with a low-fluence, home-device laser: a randomized controlled trial. Br J Dermatol 171:151–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Casey AS, Goldberg D (2008) Guidelines for laser hair removal. J Cosmet Laser Ther 1:24–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Drosner M, Adatto M (2005) Photo-Epilation: guidelines for care from the European Society for Laser Dermatology (ESLD). J Cosmet Laser Ther 7:33–38

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Thaysen-Petersen D, Lin JY, Nash JF et al (2014) The role of natural and UV-induced skin pigmentation of low-fluence IPL-induced side effects: a randomized controlled trial. Lasers Surg Med 46:104–111

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Fitzpatrick TB (1988) The validity and practicality of sun-reactive skin-type I through IV (Editorial). Arch Dermatol 124:869–871

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Na R, Stender IM, Henriksen M, Wulf HC (2001) Autofluorescence of human skin is age-related after correction for skin pigmentation and redness. J Invest Dermatol 116:536–540

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Wulf HC. Methods and an apparatus for determining an individual’s ability to stand ultraviolet radiation. US patent 1986 nr. 4882598. Ref type: Patent

  25. Wulf HC, Eriksen P (2010) UV index and its implications. Ugeskr Laeger 172:1277–1279

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Ichihashi M, Ueda M, Budiyanto A et al (2003) UV-induced skin damage. Toxicology 189:21–39

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Hasan AT, Eaglstein W, Pardo RJ (1999) Solar-induced postinflammatory hyperpigmentation after laser hair removal. Dermatol Surg 25:113–115

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

D.T.P., A.M.E., P.A.P., and H.C.W. have no conflicts of interest.

J.F.N. and F.B. are employees at The Procter & Gamble Company.

M.H. receives research grant from The Procter & Gamble Company.

Funding sources

The study was funded by The Procter & Gamble Company.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Dermatology, Bispebjerg Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Bispebjerg Bakke 23, DK-2400, Copenhagen NV, Denmark

    Daniel Thaysen-Petersen, Andres M. Erlendsson, Peter A. Philipsen, Hans C. Wulf & Merete Haedersdal

  2. The Procter & Gamble Company, Cincinnati, Ohio, 45202, USA

    J. F. Nash

  3. Braun/Procter & Gamble, Kronberg, Germany

    Frank Beerwerth

Authors
  1. Daniel Thaysen-Petersen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andres M. Erlendsson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. J. F. Nash
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Frank Beerwerth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Peter A. Philipsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Hans C. Wulf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Merete Haedersdal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel Thaysen-Petersen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Thaysen-Petersen, D., Erlendsson, A.M., Nash, J.F. et al. Ultraviolet radiation after exposure to a low-fluence IPL home-use device: a randomized clinical trial. Lasers Med Sci 30, 2171–2177 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10103-015-1796-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10103-015-1796-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation