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.

Prolonged exposure to UV-radiation induces photo-aging and a variety of visible skin changes such as lentigines, actinic keratoses and solar elastosis. Laser skin resurfacing using ablative lasers (CO(2) or Erbium:YAG) is a popular procedure to reduce these marks and improve the aesthetic appearance of photoaged facial skin . Skin resurfacing is defined as an ablation of the epidermis (the upper layers of facial skin).

The use of pulsed or scanning Carbon Dioxide, and pulsed Erbium-YAG lasers allows the programmable and reproducible photocoagulation of thin layers of the epidermis and superficial dermis. Thermal damage depends on the type of laser and is greater with CO(2) lasers. The degree of neocollagenesis is proportional to the thermal damage and is better with CO(2) lasers. Their main indication is the correction of photoaged facial skin but they can also be used for corrective dermatology, e.g. for scars and genodermatosis.

Ablative laser resurfacing is the most effective treatment for many conditions of the photoaged skin. Results are highly satisfactory but the technique is invasive, edema and prolonged erythema are commonand, and the patient experiences a social hindrance of about 7 to 10 days (“downtime”). Possible side effects are hyperpigmentation, hypopigmentation and, at worst, scarring.

A new concept of laser called fractional photothermolysis has been designed to create microscopic thermal wounds to achieve skin rejuvenation without significant side-effects. The fractional techniques such as the 1,550 nm erbium fiber laser (Fraxel Laser , Reliant Technologies) are used to treat non-adjacent microzones without ablation of the epidermis. Around 25 p. 100 of the affected region is treated per session without ablation of the epidermis. Each fraction is only mini-invasive and is performed under local anesthesia. Social hindrance is reduced. Fractional laser was an attempt to bridge the gap between the ablative and nonablative laser modalities to treat the epidermal and dermal signs of skin aging. By targeting water as its chromophore, the laser induces a dense array of microscopic, columnar thermal zones of tissue injury that do not perforate or impair the function of the epidermis. The significant skin remodeling that ensues can be used to treat, with limited downtime, epidermal pigmentation, melasma, and rhytides, as well as textural abnormalities that include acne-related and surgical scars.

LaserOffers.com comment

Nonetheless, the results are inferior to those obtained with ablative lasers, especially regarding deep wrinkles. The treatment is costly and four sessions are usually required to treat the whole affected area. 

Laser-based devices for aesthetic treatments are the industry “gold-standard,” although the efficacy of devices based on Intense Pulsed Light (IPL) technology is improving and the gap between IPLs and lasers is closing. Laser technology is expected to remain the only effective light-based treatment in specialist areas such as large pigmented lesion removal, tattoo removal and deep vascular treatments, but IPL-based devices are becoming more popular for the more mainstream aesthetic treatments, especially in the high growth market of skin rejuvenation.

Medical experts, who have used both IPL devices and lasers, would point out the following reasons why they prefer lasers:

• It is harder to predict results with IPL due to its broad-spectrum of light and multiple wavelengths
• IPLs are not safe to use around the eye
• IPLs are not safe on the skin of color and tanned patients

Despite not quite matching the performance of some premium laser-based systems, IPL technology has its advantages for the core aesthetic treatments such as hair removal and skin rejuvenation.

Various sources and study groups forecast IPL-based devices to enjoy growth rates of 10-12% in hair removal and skin rejuvenation. Unlike for laser-based devices, the IPL-based device market is more accessible to non-physicians, and hence IPL-based devices are commonly found in spas across the U.S. and Europe.

As IPL-based devices are not designed to treat complex skin conditions, practitioners do not have to be as highly trained as they do for laser-based devices. IPL-based devices typically come with two simple-to-use handsets, one for each of the most popular applications, hair removal and skin rejuvenation. Adding to the appeal of IPL-based devices for a non-physician is the lower price with respect to a laser-based system, whilst maintaining the core applications essential to a light-based aesthetic practice or medical spa.