I am starting this as a seperate issue with regards to the Kobayashi Yamata Technique of electrolysis currently being discussed in another thread.
The oringinal reply to the consumer’s questions contained the following.
I was taught a variation of this during my training, but I do not use it as there really doesn’t seem to be much advantage to increasing the discomfort of a treatment without the clinical data to support any additional benefits from it.
A subsequent statement from another electrologist was as follows:
Perhaps those noted above have some documented studies.
This is the reason why I have started this thread - to clear up some of the confusion with regards to this issue.
As was stated in the original reply, there isn’t any definitive clinical data that I have been able to track down that lends any credibility to the assumption that the Kobayashi Yamata Technique actually decreases the time span required to effect permanant hair removal from any area of the body. Conversely, there isn’t any clinical evidence to indicate that it doesn’t. That is the problem with this particular technique, when viewed within the framework of what’s allowable under any particular state’s governing regulations with respect to the practice of electrology.
California, for example, has it’s electrologists regulated by the Department of Consumer Affairs, Board of Barbering and Cosmetology. Quote; Under Title 16, Division 9 of the California Code of Regulations, Item 991. Invasive procedures;
Section A: No licensee may perform any act which affects the structure or function of living tissue of the face or body. Any such act shall be considered an invasive procedure.
Section B: Invasive procedures include, but are not limited to:…Penetration of the skin by metal needles, except electrolysis needles.
While the use of electrolysis needles is allowed, the assumption is that the vast majority of insertions will stay within the non-living tissues of the outer root sheath. Traditionally, the tissues destroyed by the treatment will likewise be contained within the outer root sheath as well. This definition does cover the cells of the matrix of the root bulb as well as the stem cells in the bulge area of the outer root sheath as well.
From the perspective of the California BBC, any treatment procedure that regularly penetrates the unliving tissues of the outer root sheath is considered to be invasive as the tissues affected are not a part of the pilo-sebacous unit but are the connective tissues and germinative cells of the dermal layer of the skin. This now becomes an invasive procedure by definition and is considered beyond the scope of practice for licensees controlled by the state BBC. Invasive procedures are only allowed to be performed or practiced by medical and dental licensees under California State laws.
I hope that this may clarify why many electrologists are not real quick to practice this technique, even with the newer equipment, in some states.
Best regards,
Joanie