Scientific Comparison of Light and Laser Hair Removal Devices
Based on Report of: 1) Procedures Committee of the Aesthetic Surgery Education and Research Foundation (ASERE) 2) Jay Harvy, MD ESC Corporation 3) Michael Gold, in Dermatological Surgery 1997

The EpiLight device developed by Energy Systems Corporation (ESC), harnesses the light energy from as low as 590 nm to infrared of 1000 to 1200 nm to remove unwanted hair. This flashlamp category applies a broad band of energy to tissue generated by a flashlamp. ESC, who has developed The EpiLight has released reports of clinical successes outside the range of dark hair and light skin types preferred by the ruby and alexandrite wavelengths. It has the advantage over laser by minimizing long term thinning of the skin because it reduces the size of hair follicles rather than destroying them.

There is limited long term information in the medical literature, Dr. Jay Havry reports. This table shows results on 6 patients followed for 16 months with 64% - 95% clearance.

Patient Age Body Area No of Treatments Clearance

1 36 Chest, shoulders 6 90%

2 63 Thigh 5 (partial) 80%

3 19 Abdomen 3 64%

4 25 Underarms 2 64%

5 25 Neck, chin, jaw 3 79%

6 27 Bikini area 4 95%

Dr. Gold in a published paper reports 60% clearance at 12 weeks with a single treatment on 37 patients. Research shows that with 3 treatments 90–99% hair reduction can be achieved for up to 3 years.

Based on the present knowledge it appears that 3 treatments will achieve significant long term hair reduction.

The SoftLight lasers use a ruby wave length of 694 nanometers. The carbon cream acts as an exogenous target to wrestle the hair from the follicle base through a nanosecond thermal expansion. The result has been proven after 1½ years to be less than efficacious. No results have been published with the new device used.

The Spectrum Epilaser produced by Palomar was the first laser system approved in the United States. 40% of the treated population respond well to the Epilaser, 40% have some limited success with the Epilaser, and the remaining 20% have had no results from treatment. The treatment works best on patients with dark hair. It has not been recommended for Fitzpatrick type IV skin and above and is not recommended for light hair tones. The 3 msec pulse falls within the “ideal” thermal relaxation time (TRT) of the hair follicle (0.8 to 3.1 msec). TRT measures the time period necessary for a heated tissue target to cool down to less than one half the temperature increased before additional exposure.

Clinical success was mixed with scattered transitory hyperpigmentation, blistering, and unsuccessful hair removal. Coherent Medical Lasers has made an agreement with Palomar to market the Epilaser within the Coherent line.

The EpiTouch Laser (Sharplan Industries) by ruby laser has the ability to deliver either a 1.2 msec pulse for hair removal or a low nanosecond pulse for tattoo and lentigo removal and its results are no better than other laser results.

The Mehl Biophile Chromos 694 ruby laser is similar to the EpiTouch laser in its technical specification with the change to the 0.8 msec pulse. The Mark One version currently in use has demonstrated clinical success in long-term hair removal and the potential complications noted above. The report to the FDA includes numbers supporting 90% hair removal 190 days beyond the third treatment. Mehl recently announced the release of the Mark Two system. The Mark Two system is also expected to have a pattern generator to expedite treatment and potentially allow for more uniform application of light pulses. The alexandrite has a slight advantage by allowing absorption by hemoglobin. It is a laser that has a pulse time of 3 to 5 msec pulses at the 755nm wavelength. The Cynosure LPIR (Long Pulse Infrared) has a pulse time of 20 msec. This opens a new window of discussion on the epidermal impact of the 755 nm wavelength as it responds to the TRT of the hair versus the epidermis. It is not approved to treat Type 3 Fitzpatrick skin type. The concept is for the pulse to be longer than the 3 to 10 msec TRT of the epidermis but still within the absorption time of the hair follicle allowing hair reaction with lessened impact on skin. The theory would reduce transitory hypopigmentation and deliver potentially better clinical results. It is too early to determine the long-term efficacy of the alexandrite wavelength. The significant difference between the LPIR and the other two alexandrite lasers is the pulse time of 20 msec versus the reported 2 to 5 msec for the Candela and Sharplan lasers.