Photoepilators Basic facts
A burst of filtered light is aimed at one hair at a time, which
is then tweezed. No published proof that this lasts longer than
just tweezing.
Description
 A fiberoptic probe is placed in or
directly above a follicle.
Light-based energy is then sent through
the probe and into the follicle.
Promoters claim (without adequate proof)
that the light can cause permanent damage to the hair follicle.
Advantages
Some find treatment has less associated
pain and side effects compared to tweezing.
Safe if performed properly.
Disadvantages
No published clinical data demonstrating
long-term effectiveness.
Expensive and slow.
Quack claims
“painless and permanent.”
Background
This is the earliest commercial device to emerge from research
into laser hair removal. The original device used blue-green light
filtered from a xenon light source, the same source used in flash
lamps. The 225-watt device emitted energy levels of 9-10 J/cm2
in a 3 millisecond flash. [1] As with other laser and light devices,
it is intended to target blood and melanin pigments and makes
them heat up (called selective photothermolysis).
The filtered light traveled down a fiberoptic probe inserted
into the follicle. This fiberoptic probe was not disposable and
had to be sterilized with each use. Also, it was difficult to
find a probe slender enough to fit into a follicle without breaking.
Later versions have the fiberoptic wire held above the follicle.
History
In 1969, electrolysis chain Gregory Systems approached Richard
A. Harte of Palo Alto, California and provided funds for the development
of a prototype photoepilator. The company eventually cancelled
the project later that year, stating: "We abandoned our investment
after we found it was only a temporary method." [2] However,
the device was carried forward under the name Omicron Systems.
In 1970, the Omicron prototype was completed and test data was
submitted, and a 12-month conditional approval by the California
Department of Health was secured in April 1971. In November 1971,
the Omicron device was first put to commercial use.
It didn't take long for problems to arise, especially with the
probes. The original probes were plastic and very thick (10 mils).
They were not very flexible and did not hold up to the heat of
the flash lamp well. They needed about an hour of sterilization
after use: 20 minutes in boiling water followed by 30 minutes
in a disinfectant. Care had to be taken not to shatter the probes
during cooling.
Omicron halted manufacture in February 1972 and voluntarily withdrew
sale of their photoepilator on April 5, 1972, after their 12-month
conditional approval in California ran out. That state's Bureau
of Food and Drug also deemed Omicron's sterilization procedures
and test protocol regarding efficacy were unsatisfactory. On September
18, 1972, Omicron submitted formal acknowledgement of voluntary
withdrawal.
In 1973, Omicron was sued for breach of contract in California
Superior Court by ten owners of their device. The case was settled
out of court, with owners receiving refunds after returning the
devices. Unfortunately, the devices were then resold to Carol
Block of Illinois, whose company continues to sell photoepilation
franchises and treatment under the brand name D'Plume XXIII.
In 1990 FDA sent a warning letter to Carol Block:
“The training manual and promotional material contain
statements which represent and suggest that the devices are
adequate and effective for the permanent removal of hair, which
statement is false or misleading or otherwise contrary to fact,
since these devices are not adequate and effective for such
purpose." [3]
Block frequently gets her service listed in the yellow pages
under electrolysis to imply permanence.
In 1999 Jennifer Maxx Inc. of New York received FDA clearance
for her photoepilator device, which she currently sells as franchises
and treatments under the name ThermaLight 2000. The ThermaLight
2000 is indicated for removal or unwanted body hair through the
application of pulsed light energy applied to the hair follicle
at the surface of the skin (non-invasive photo-epilation). As
with the predecessors, there is no proof this photoepilator can
achieve permanent hair removal.
Brands
Clinical data
There are still no published studies to back up claims of permanence
using a photoepilator. See my Clinical
data page for details.
Most consumers opting for light-based treatments forego photoepilators
for newer lasers that treat larger areas more rapidly with higher
power levels. Newer light-based devices also have published clinical
data available.
- Omicron 1970 owner's manual.
- Gregory Systems 1975 sales brochure.
- FDA Regulatory Letter CHI-499-90 (April 12, 1990).
|
hair removal
facts
for consumers
