Laser Hair Removal: Comparison of Long-Pulsed Nd:YAG,
Long-Pulsed Alexandrite, and Long-Pulsed Diode Lasers
NAVID BOUZARI, MD,
n
HOSSEIN TABATABAI, MD,
n
w
ZAHRA ABBASI, MD,
w
ALIREZA FIROOZ, MD,
n
AND YAHYA DOWLATI,MD,PHD
n
n
Center for Research and Training in Skin Diseases and Leprosy, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, and
w
Mehregan
Skin Laser Center, Tehran, Iran
BACKGROUND. Advances in laser technology over the past
several years have led to the development of numerous lasers
for the treatment of unwanted hair. Laser wavelength is a key
factor influencing treatment efficacy and complication rates.
OBJECTIVE. To compare the efficacy and safety of laser hair
removal using three different laser systems.
METHODS. A retrospective study of 805 consecutive laser-
assisted hair removal treatments, conducted on 75 patients by
means of either a long-pulsed Nd:YAG, a long-pulsed alexan-
drite, or a long-pulsed diode laser is reported. All patients were
evaluated at least 3 months after the last treatment, and their
present conditions were compared with the 1st-day photographs.
RESULTS. The mean hair reduction was 42.4%, 65.6%, and
46.9% in Nd:YAG, alexandrite, and diode lasers, respec-
tively. When the number of treatment sessions was taken into
account, the efficacy of alexandrite and diode lasers was not
significantly different, whereas both systems were more
efficacious than Nd:YAG. Neither of the laser systems showed
better results for a particular skin type. The occurrence of side
effects was not significantly different between three laser
systems.
CONCLUSION. Both long-pulsed alexandrite and long-pulsed
diode laser systems are effective in the treatment of unwanted
hair, and they are more efficacious than Nd:YAG laser.
N. BOUZARI, MD, H. TABATABAI, MD, Z. ABBASI, MD, A. FIROOZ, MD, AND Y. DOWLATI, MD, PHD HAVE
INDICATED NO SIGNIFICANT INTEREST WITH COMMERCIAL SUPPORTERS.
LASER-ASSISTED HAIR removal has been recently
introduced as the treatment of choice for the reduction
of unwanted hair. Hair removal lasers work based on
the theory of selective photothermolysis.
1
Currently,
several lasers are available for the treatment of
unwanted hair. Laser wavelength is a key factor
influencing treatment efficacy and complication rates
because different lasers have specific absorption
properties.
2
However, there is paucity in our knowl-
edge about the optimal laser systems and parameters
for a permanent and effective hair reduction in each
skin type. The purpose of this study is to compare the
efficacy of three different hair removal laser systems
(long-pulsed Nd:YAG, long-pulsed alexandrite, long-
pulsed diode) in various skin types, as well to
determine the frequency of side effects induced by
each laser system.
Methods
A retrospective study of 805 consecutive laser-assisted
hair removal treatments was conducted on 75 con-
senting patients (1 male and 74 females) with 181
anatomic areas over 18-month period. Patients were
excluded if the period of last treatment session to time
of investigation was less than 3 months. Treatment
sites included chin (67), upper lip (55), and periauri-
cular (34), and neck (25). Fitzpatrick skin types I–V
were represented. The distribution of skin types in
different laser systems is shown in Table 1.
Patients were instructed to avoid sun tanning and to
cease using other hair removal methods on the
treatment sites at least 1 month before the commence-
ment of the laser treatment. The treatment sites were
shaved before each treatment session. No specific
preoperative topical anesthesia was used. Postopera-
tive care included sun avoidance (at least 3 days),
avoiding harsh soaps, scrubs, facial peels, or topical
acne therapies. A low-potency topical corticosteroid
was used after the treatment session in the case of
erythema or perifollicular edema (once or twice in the
treatment day).
Hair removal was performed by means of either a
long-pulsed Nd:YAG, long-pulsed alexandrite, or
long-pulsed diode laser. The choice of laser system
employed was based on each laser’s availability and
was randomly allocated rather than on distinct patient
selection criteria. In five patients, more than one type
of laser system was employed because of unavailability
r2004 by the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery, Inc.Published by Blackwell Publishing, Inc.
ISSN: 1076-0512/04/$15.00/0 Dermatol Surg 2004;30:498–502
Address correspondence and reprint requests to: Navid Bouzari, MD,
1175 NE Miami Gardens Dr. 708E, NMB, FL 33179.
