家用强脉冲光与医用强脉冲光脱毛的疗效和安全性比较。

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q3 ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL
Yunling Yan, Sha Lu, Shan Wu, Kai Wang, Yunjing Xu, Kui Zhan, Ying Zeng, MaoQiang Man, Bin Yang, Zhenfeng Liu
{"title":"家用强脉冲光与医用强脉冲光脱毛的疗效和安全性比较。","authors":"Yunling Yan, Sha Lu, Shan Wu, Kai Wang, Yunjing Xu, Kui Zhan, Ying Zeng, MaoQiang Man, Bin Yang, Zhenfeng Liu","doi":"10.1007/s10103-025-04414-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Although many home-used intense pulsed light (IPL) are available for hair removal, whether these devices exhibit comparable efficacy and safety to those IPL used at hospitals is unknown. Therefore, we compared here the efficacy and safety of a home-used UI04 IPL freezing point hair removal device with a Broadband Light (BBL) intense pulsed light hair removal device for hair removal. A total of 84 participants were enrolled from our outpatient clinic. In each participant, the right and the left sides of the axilla, calf, or forearm were randomly assigned to either the observation side treated with a UI04 IPL hair removal device or control side treated with a BBL device for 3 months and were followed up for 3 months. Our results showed that 78 out of 84 (87.6%) patients completed the study. After 1-month treatment, the effective rate of hair removal was significantly higher on the observation side than on the control side (P = 0.001). After 3-month treatment, the effective rates on the observation and the control sides were comparable. The incidence of adverse reactions was similar between the two instruments. Thus, the UI04 IPL and BBL IPL hair removal device exhibit similar efficacy and safety for hair removal.This study confirms that the efficacy and safety of the UI04 IPL as an at-home hair removal device is similar to that of IPL devices, while they are inexpensive, easy to operate, portable, and can be used as an alternative treatment for hair removal. Trial registration 20210454.</p>","PeriodicalId":17978,"journal":{"name":"Lasers in Medical Science","volume":"40 1","pages":"148"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of the efficacy and safety of home-used intense pulsed light with medical intense pulsed light for hair removal.\",\"authors\":\"Yunling Yan, Sha Lu, Shan Wu, Kai Wang, Yunjing Xu, Kui Zhan, Ying Zeng, MaoQiang Man, Bin Yang, Zhenfeng Liu\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10103-025-04414-x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Although many home-used intense pulsed light (IPL) are available for hair removal, whether these devices exhibit comparable efficacy and safety to those IPL used at hospitals is unknown. Therefore, we compared here the efficacy and safety of a home-used UI04 IPL freezing point hair removal device with a Broadband Light (BBL) intense pulsed light hair removal device for hair removal. A total of 84 participants were enrolled from our outpatient clinic. In each participant, the right and the left sides of the axilla, calf, or forearm were randomly assigned to either the observation side treated with a UI04 IPL hair removal device or control side treated with a BBL device for 3 months and were followed up for 3 months. Our results showed that 78 out of 84 (87.6%) patients completed the study. After 1-month treatment, the effective rate of hair removal was significantly higher on the observation side than on the control side (P = 0.001). After 3-month treatment, the effective rates on the observation and the control sides were comparable. The incidence of adverse reactions was similar between the two instruments. Thus, the UI04 IPL and BBL IPL hair removal device exhibit similar efficacy and safety for hair removal.This study confirms that the efficacy and safety of the UI04 IPL as an at-home hair removal device is similar to that of IPL devices, while they are inexpensive, easy to operate, portable, and can be used as an alternative treatment for hair removal. Trial registration 20210454.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17978,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Lasers in Medical Science\",\"volume\":\"40 1\",\"pages\":\"148\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Lasers in Medical Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10103-025-04414-x\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Lasers in Medical Science","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10103-025-04414-x","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

虽然许多家用强脉冲光(IPL)可用于脱毛,但这些设备是否具有与医院使用的IPL相当的功效和安全性尚不清楚。因此,我们在此比较了家用UI04 IPL冰点脱毛器与宽带光(BBL)强脉冲光脱毛器脱毛的有效性和安全性。我们门诊共入组84例受试者。在每个参与者中,腋窝、小腿或前臂的左右两侧被随机分配到使用UI04 IPL脱毛器治疗的观察侧或使用BBL脱毛器治疗的对照侧,为期3个月,随访3个月。我们的结果显示84例患者中有78例(87.6%)完成了研究。治疗1个月后,观察组脱毛有效率显著高于对照组(P = 0.001)。治疗3个月后,观察组和对照组的有效率具有可比性。两种器械的不良反应发生率相似。因此,UI04 IPL脱毛器和BBL IPL脱毛器在脱毛方面具有相似的疗效和安全性。本研究证实,UI04 IPL作为家用脱毛装置的疗效和安全性与IPL装置相似,同时价格低廉,操作方便,便携,可作为脱毛的替代治疗方法。试验注册号20210454。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of the efficacy and safety of home-used intense pulsed light with medical intense pulsed light for hair removal.

Although many home-used intense pulsed light (IPL) are available for hair removal, whether these devices exhibit comparable efficacy and safety to those IPL used at hospitals is unknown. Therefore, we compared here the efficacy and safety of a home-used UI04 IPL freezing point hair removal device with a Broadband Light (BBL) intense pulsed light hair removal device for hair removal. A total of 84 participants were enrolled from our outpatient clinic. In each participant, the right and the left sides of the axilla, calf, or forearm were randomly assigned to either the observation side treated with a UI04 IPL hair removal device or control side treated with a BBL device for 3 months and were followed up for 3 months. Our results showed that 78 out of 84 (87.6%) patients completed the study. After 1-month treatment, the effective rate of hair removal was significantly higher on the observation side than on the control side (P = 0.001). After 3-month treatment, the effective rates on the observation and the control sides were comparable. The incidence of adverse reactions was similar between the two instruments. Thus, the UI04 IPL and BBL IPL hair removal device exhibit similar efficacy and safety for hair removal.This study confirms that the efficacy and safety of the UI04 IPL as an at-home hair removal device is similar to that of IPL devices, while they are inexpensive, easy to operate, portable, and can be used as an alternative treatment for hair removal. Trial registration 20210454.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Lasers in Medical Science
Lasers in Medical Science 医学-工程:生物医学
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
4.80%
发文量
192
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Lasers in Medical Science (LIMS) has established itself as the leading international journal in the rapidly expanding field of medical and dental applications of lasers and light. It provides a forum for the publication of papers on the technical, experimental, and clinical aspects of the use of medical lasers, including lasers in surgery, endoscopy, angioplasty, hyperthermia of tumors, and photodynamic therapy. In addition to medical laser applications, LIMS presents high-quality manuscripts on a wide range of dental topics, including aesthetic dentistry, endodontics, orthodontics, and prosthodontics. The journal publishes articles on the medical and dental applications of novel laser technologies, light delivery systems, sensors to monitor laser effects, basic laser-tissue interactions, and the modeling of laser-tissue interactions. Beyond laser applications, LIMS features articles relating to the use of non-laser light-tissue interactions.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信