Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Background: Removal of unwanted hair is the most popular skin treatment worldwide. Over the past decade, various lasers and light sources for epilation have been advocated for use in an office setting, although most people continue to treat unwanted hair with a variety of temporary physical methods (e.g., waxing, shaving) in a home setting, presumably due to cost and convenience factors.
Objectives: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of a low-energy pulsed-light device intended for home-use hair removal.
Materials And Methods: Twenty women (skin phototypes I-IV) with dark terminal hair in nonfacial sites (axilla, forearms, inguinal region, legs) self-administered three treatments at 2-week intervals using a handheld intense-pulsed-light device. Matched untreated skin sites were also studied. Hair counts and clinical photographs were obtained pretreatment and at 1, 3, and 6 months after the third treatment. Side effects and patient satisfaction scores were recorded.
Results: All patients showed a positive clinical response to treatment, with reduction of unwanted hair. No reduction of hair was noted in untreated matched areas. Hair counts were reduced 37.8% to 53.6% 6 months after the 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. CONCLUSIONS Low-energy pulsed light can be applied safely and effectively for at-home hair removal in a variety of nonfacial locations and skin phototypes I-IV.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4725.2009.01089.x | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!