I would like to say something that might be of some help. I’ve had lhr done on various parts of my body. I’ve had great results on some areas, while in other areas the results weren’t very good. Now, about the depth of hair follicles, I think that it plays a major role in getting good results. It’s pretty obvious that the deeper the follicle is, less energy is going to reach it. I remember reading about the PPX Aesthera, and even though it doesn’t seem to work very well, there is a reasoning behind it that sounds very logical. What the PPX does, is that it stretches the skin before firing the laser, thus reducing the distance between the follicles and the skin surface. This is because our skin is more or less like a rubber. Whenever you stretch a rubber, it becomes thinner. This is because a rubber has a certain volume, and no matter what, this volume is constant. So if you stretch the rubber, thus making it longer, it becomes thinner, in order to maintain its volume. So, when you stretch your skin, it becomes thinner, and because of this thinning, the follicles that before were at 4mm from the skin suface, are now going to be at 3mm from the skin surface. (These numbers that I gave are only for illustrative purpose). The last few LHR treatments that I had, I really stretched the skin where the laser was being applied, and I have to say that my results were better. Now, of course this is all speculation, I’m no doctor but I do have some scientific background, as I have an Engineering degree. Anyway, I just thought I would share this information and maybe get some feedback from all of you.
Out of curiosity, were you able to determine the direction in which the follicles were distorted? e.g. they were curled upwards in the direction of the surface of the skin, or downwards, away from the surface…or was it just random?
It has been three years since I treated that person, so it is hard to remember well enough to say with surety, but I believe that most of the curves were bent facing downward. There were some that went in other directions, especially under the jawline, but most on the mask area were pointing down towards the floor. I am sorry that I can’t be of more help on this one.
A scientist I met in Canada who did five years research on the hair removal efficacy question said that the reason for what that client experienced was something he called “the sun shade effect”. Basically, if you think of the LASER source as the sunlight, anything in shadow is not absorbing as much energy as the areas in full “sunlight” and so the treatment energy pattern is not even. He also said that hairs packed too close together would always have a lowered efficacy in Light Based treatments for this reason. There is no way other than a LASER probe to make sure that all hairs get even, consistent treatment, but what would be the poing of LASER if one had to insert every follicle to do it?
That is what he said anyway.
James, I’m wondering, have you had an electrolysis clients who DID get results from laser treatments? Dee says she has both, some with amazing results, some with ok, some with none, and some with more hair that what they started with on a woman’s face usually. What has your personal experience been?
I have had two clients in the past ten years who I know to have had LASER on the face, and got something out of it. Not what they were promised, to be sure, but something. One got a reduction that he reported to be 30% to 40% reduction, but as I never met this person prior to being awarded the “Finish With Electrolysis Contract”, I can’t speak on just how much was actually reduced. The other started LASER treatment as a healthy 29 year old with and estimated 350 to 400 thick black hairs per square inch, and became a healthy 33 year old with an estimated 350 to 400 thinner WHITE hairs per square inch.
Again, as I have said before, because I have a reputation for being able to clear hard cases, I may not get the easy cases. The only good results from LASER that I know of all come from work done on legs, underarms and stuff like that. I have never personally seen or worked on a person in my practice who got the 60% long term reduction postulated by the report that the FDA “Clearance to Market” is based as a best case situation on a face.
Of course, that could be due to people who go from 400 hairs per square inch, down to 160 hairs per square inch being satisfied with that level of reduction.
What I have seen personally is hair increases, skin blanching/scarring, follicle distortion, hair turning white or clear, and nothing at all changing after the shedding period.
One other factor here may be that my practice is about 8 people born male vs. 2 people born female out of every ten clients. That is certainly NOT the average electrolysis practice.
I would like to say something that might be of some help. I’ve had lhr done on various parts of my body. I’ve had great results on some areas, while in other areas the results weren’t very good. Now, about the depth of hair follicles, I think that it plays a major role in getting good results. It’s pretty obvious that the deeper the follicle is, less energy is going to reach it. I remember reading about the PPX Aesthera, and even though it doesn’t seem to work very well, there is a reasoning behind it that sounds very logical. What the PPX does, is that it stretches the skin before firing the laser, thus reducing the distance between the follicles and the skin surface. This is because our skin is more or less like a rubber. Whenever you stretch a rubber, it becomes thinner. This is because a rubber has a certain volume, and no matter what, this volume is constant. So if you stretch the rubber, thus making it longer, it becomes thinner, in order to maintain its volume. So, when you stretch your skin, it becomes thinner, and because of this thinning, the follicles that before were at 4mm from the skin suface, are now going to be at 3mm from the skin surface. (These numbers that I gave are only for illustrative purpose). The last few LHR treatments that I had, I really stretched the skin where the laser was being applied, and I have to say that my results were better. Now, of course this is all speculation, I’m no doctor but I do have some scientific background, as I have an Engineering degree. Anyway, I just thought I would share this information and maybe get some feedback from all of you.
I think the main problem with the PPx is the fluence being too low. 10J is too low to do very much. They also use 400-500 nm primarily which is highly absorbed by melanin but does not penetrate very deeply.
Lightsheer uses a different principle to bring the base of the follicle closer to the surface of the skin. The Lightsheer practitioner is supposed to use compression, pushing down on the handpiece for each pulse. That is why I get skeptical when a technician uses the “gliding method.” Sure it’s faster but I don’t think it is as effective. Using compression causes the base of the follicle to rotate toward the skin surface. And it temporarily forces blood out of the surface capillaries where it may interfere with the passage of the light beam to the hair follicle. It also makes the cooling system more effective. I found compression to make a huge difference in effectiveness on finer brown hairs. So it seems to be related to ability to reach the base of the follicle.
RJC2001