ABSTRACT Background Laser hair removal (LHR) is a commonly performed aesthetic procedure known to generate a hazardous laser plume composed of toxic chemicals, ultrafine particles, and potentially infectious biological materials. Current mitigation strategies, such as smoke evacuation systems, are costly and often used inconsistently, highlighting the need for more practical and effective solutions for laser plume management. Objectives Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of a hydrogel laser treatment patch in reducing laser plume exposure during LHR procedures. Secondary objectives comprised assessment of hair removal efficacy and patient‐reported pain. Materials and Methods This single‐center, randomized proof‐of‐principle study enrolled 21 adult participants undergoing bilateral LHR. In each subject, one side was randomized to receive LHR utilizing the laser treatment patch, while the contralateral side served as the control. Plume concentrations were measured using a condensation particle counter. Hair density was assessed at baseline and 90 days posttreatment. Subject pain was rated and reported immediately posttreatment using a numeric scale. Results Use of the laser treatment patch resulted in a 95.6% reduction in plume concentration compared to the control side ( p = 0.0001). At 90 days posttreatment, the interventional site demonstrated a 37.2% mean reduction in hair density versus 26.7% on the control side ( p = 0.3607). Mean pain scores were significantly lower on the intervention side (3.5 vs. 5.1, p = 0.0033). No adverse events were reported. Conclusions The hydrogel laser treatment patch significantly reduced laser plume generation and exposure during LHR. Additionally, the patch was associated with greater hair reduction and reduced pain compared to the control. These findings support its use as an adjunct to enhance procedural safety and patient experience during LHR procedures without compromising treatment efficacy.
DiBernardo et al. (Mon,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: