Many consumers bombard laser manufacturers looking to buy a hair removal laser for home use. “The price for a full body hair removal at a medical aesthetic clinic is over $3,000. Why can’t buy a laser and do it myself and share the laser with the family?” Most people are surprised that even for a used light-based device for hair removal medical professionals have to pay upwards of $50,000.

Why laser manufacturers do not make devices for consumers?

The simple answer is: laser hair removal devices are not a consumer technology. It’s not a matter of cost. Some consumers might consider footing a $50K bill for personal use. It’s not a matter of making the laser technology cheap and affordable to general public. Due to safety considerations lasers should never be used without medical supervision.

The home-based market for aesthetic devices is a potential source of significant growth for the aesthetic industry.  While this seems to represent a considerably larger market opportunity than the professional aesthetic equipment market, we believe that even cheap low power home-based hair removal devices will be competing against conventional razors, electronic razors, waxing products, light-based epilation, electrolysis, bleaching, and hair growth inhibitors. For skin rejuvenation, some of the leading alternatives include conventional facials, chemical peels, and microdermabrasion, which are competitively offered by day spa kind of outfits.

What consumer laser devices are avaialble now?

Palomar Medical Technologies has made the most advanced attempt into the field. Years ago they forged a what seemed a guaranteed success partnership with Gillette to develop and commercialize a home-based hair removal device. It was very long in the making and recently Gillette waived the exclusive distribution rights to the device, which seems like a clear indication that the device did not meet internal expectations during the 12-month consumer assessment trial. The future of the project is unclear.

Privately held Radiancy introduced its homebased hair removal device, no!no!, in October 2007 in the U.S., which is exclusively offered through cosmetics retailer Sephora at $250 per unit. The company’s approach to market was unique in that it contracted directly with a single retailer that has a national presence as opposed to consumer products distributor capable of reaching multiple retail outlets (the approach currently being pursued by Syneron and Palomar). We believe that Radiancy is expanding its home-use line to include solutions for acne and facial skin rejuvenation.

All patients who used Silk’n, a low-energy pulsed-light device intended for home-use hair removal, showed a positive clinical response to treatment in a controlled study by the Washington Institute of Dermatologic Laser Surgery, which was published in mid-March 2009. Hair counts were reduced 37.8% to 53.6% 6 months after three treatments. Skin region influenced clinical response, with lower legs exhibiting greater hair reduction than arms and inguinal and axillary areas. Mild erythema was experienced in 25% of patients, but no other side effects or complications were encountered. Patient satisfaction scores were high, with all patients stating that they would purchase the device for future home use.

It appears that this low-energy pulsed light device can be applied safely and effectively for at-home hair removal in a variety of nonfacial locations and skin phototypes I-IV. These devices are available via a limited number of physicians in the U.S.

Other devices, such as nuFace and Zeno, are not using laser technologies.

LaserOffers.com. It is highly unlikely that consumers will see an affordable but effective light-based device for permanent hair reduction or photorejuvenation in a store near you in the many years to come. The long-term efficacy of the experimental devices listed above is incomparable to any hair reduction treatments offered by professional IPLs and lasers.

Hirsutism is the excessive facial or body hair in women, which either runs in the family, typically occurs at puberty or menopause, or it can be an indicator of a larger underlying problem - Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome which can be linked to excessive hair growth and hirsutism.

More often than not hirsutism is largely an aesthetic rather than a health concern. It is most likely the result of excessive male hormone production (adrenal virilism), or an increased sensitivity of the hair follicle to normal male hormone levels. It is important to both a woman’s health and her self-confidence to have this condition diagnosed by a doctor. Hirsutism and any hormone imbalance that may underlie this condition can be treated. Excessive facial and/or body hair can be managed.

Electrolysis is one means of managing excess hair but this can be painful, slow and very costly requiring many visits as only one follicle at a time is usually treated by sending an electrical pulse down the hair shaft.

Laser hair removal (as distinct from the much less effective IPL hair reduction) is a much more manageable maintenance procedure as it treats a larger number of follicles at a time, is more comfortable than electrolysis and provides fast effective treatments. Hormonal hair growth via Laser Hair Removal therapy is efficient and manageable but not always a permanent solution as it is likely that hormonal hair regrowth may occur although usually at a much slower rate and usually much thinner than before, so hirsutism sufferers should be wary of claims by any service provider that they will achieve a permanent solution.

Based upon the thermal relaxation time (TRT) of the hair follicle (10-50 ms), most lasers and light devices use relatively long pulse widths for hair removal. The study by a group of medical practitioners headed by Dr. Khalil A. Khatri of the Skin & Laser Surgery Center of New England, MA was conducted to evaluate a shorter pulsed, 0.65 ms Nd:YAG laser for hair removal.

One half of each axilla of six female participants was treated and the other half was monitored as a control. The treatment sites were treated with a fluence of either 21 J/cm2 or 36 J/cm2 using an Nd:YAG laser with a wavelength of 1064 nm and a pulse duration of 0.65 ms. A manual hair count was done before treatment and at each follow-up visit.

Results:

Four months after four monthly treatments, the hair reduction was graded as 5 (75-100% reduction) on the high fluence side and 4 on the low fluence side (50-75% reduction) by individuals and investigators. The average hair count 4 months after four treatments in the sites treated with a high fluence went from 114 to 28 (76% reduction) and in the low fluence areas from 135 to 38 (72% reduction).

Conclusion:

This well-controlled study shows that a 0.65 ms Nd:YAG laser is effective and safe for hair removal with significantly lower level of pain.