Hair removal Skin and Connective Tissue Diseases
Conditions
Interventions
The study was carried out in a clinic in Krakow (Poland). Informed consent for participation and treatment was obtained during the consultation. No hair maintenance was done in the treatment area duri
Sponsors
Magdalena Atta-Motte
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
Female
Inclusion criteria
Inclusion criteria: 1. Healthy females 2. Aged 21-23 years 3. Thick, black hairs in axilla 4. No history of use of light-based methods of hair reduction 5. Skin type II-III
Exclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria: 1. Cancer or history of cancer 2. Use of light based devices for hair removal on axilla 3. History of keloid scarring 4. Active infection or a history of herpes simplex in the treatment area 5. Use of depilatories or other hair removal treatments, such as waxing, plucking or electrolysis, within the preceding 6 weeks 6. Hypersensitivity to hydroquinone or other bleaching agents, if applicable 7. Use of oral Accutane (isotretinoin) within the preceding 6 months 8. Epilepsy or other light-related condition
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| 1. Number of hairs in each photo was counted by using magnified screen images from photos taken before treatment and 6 weeks after the end of treatment. Three evaluators independently counted the number of hairs and the mean value was used for the evaluation. To keep the evaluators blind, no information was given about the participants, the axillary side, or the chronology of the photographs. Hair reduction from each axilla, the main outcome measure in this study, was defined as the number of removed hairs divided by the number of initial axillary hairs, and expressed as a percentage. 2. Post-procedural assessment was quantified on a visual analogue scale (VAS) ranging from 0 to 3, 6 weeks after the last session where 0 meant thicker hairs, 1 meant no change observed, 2 meant thinner hairs, and 3 meant the hairs were thinner and weaker. | — |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| 1. Participant's subjective satisfaction scale at 4 weeks after the last treatment, where 1 meant "the treatment did not meet my expectations", 2 meant "lack of satisfaction of the treatment effect", 3 meant "moderate contentment", 4 meant "satisfying effects", and 5 meant "the treatment has met all my expectations". 2. Adverse events were evaluated at each visit by means of physical examination and through the patients' self-report | — |
Countries
Poland
Outcome results
None listed