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

Daniel Thaysen-Petersen; Andres M Erlendsson; J F Nash; Frank Beerwerth; Peter A Philipsen; Hans C Wulf; Merete Haedersdal

doi:10.1007/s10103-015-1796-4

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

Daniel Thaysen-Petersen, Andres M Erlendsson, J F Nash, Frank Beerwerth, Peter A Philipsen, Hans C Wulf, Merete Haedersdal

Institut for Klinisk Medicin

2 Citationer (Scopus)

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.

Originalsprog	Engelsk
Tidsskrift	Lasers in Medical Science
Vol/bind	30
Udgave nummer	8
Sider (fra-til)	2171-7
Antal sider	7
ISSN	0268-8921
DOI	https://doi.org/10.1007/s10103-015-1796-4
Status	Udgivet - 1 nov. 2015

Adgang til dokumentet

10.1007/s10103-015-1796-4

Citationsformater

@article{36e492f4d59443d6a84ccde1a0539108,

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

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.",

keywords = "Adolescent, Adult, Erythema, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Hair Removal, Humans, Intense Pulsed Light Therapy, Male, Pain, Skin, Ultraviolet Rays, Young Adult",

author = "Daniel Thaysen-Petersen and Erlendsson, {Andres M} and Nash, {J F} and Frank Beerwerth and Philipsen, {Peter A} and Wulf, {Hans C} and Merete Haedersdal",

year = "2015",

month = nov,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1007/s10103-015-1796-4",

language = "English",

volume = "30",

pages = "2171--7",

journal = "Lasers in Medical Science",

issn = "0268-8921",

publisher = "Springer",

number = "8",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Ultraviolet radiation after exposure to a low-fluence IPL home-use device

T2 - a randomized clinical trial

AU - Thaysen-Petersen, Daniel

AU - Erlendsson, Andres M

AU - Nash, J F

AU - Beerwerth, Frank

AU - Philipsen, Peter A

AU - Wulf, Hans C

AU - Haedersdal, Merete

PY - 2015/11/1

Y1 - 2015/11/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Adolescent

KW - Adult

KW - Erythema

KW - Female

KW - Follow-Up Studies

KW - Hair Removal

KW - Humans

KW - Intense Pulsed Light Therapy

KW - Male

KW - Pain

KW - Skin

KW - Ultraviolet Rays

KW - Young Adult

U2 - 10.1007/s10103-015-1796-4

DO - 10.1007/s10103-015-1796-4

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 26296296

SN - 0268-8921

VL - 30

SP - 2171

EP - 2177

JO - Lasers in Medical Science

JF - Lasers in Medical Science

IS - 8

ER -

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

Abstract

Adgang til dokumentet

Fingeraftryk

Citationsformater