ArticleLasers in surgery and medicine2018
Airborne particulate concentration during laser hair removal: A comparison between cold sapphire with aqueous gel and cryogen skin cooling.
Article in Lasers in surgery and medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Randomized Single-Center Proof of Principle Study to Evaluate the Effectiveness and Safety of a Hydrogel Laser Treatment Patch in Laser Hair Removal.Lasers in surgery and medicine · 2026Trial
- Removal of unwanted hair: efficacy, tolerability, and safety of long-pulsed 755-nm alexandrite laser equipped with a sapphire handpiece.Lasers in medical science · 2018Trial
- Potential hazards posed by cryotherapy during the COVID-19 era.Dermatologic therapy · 2021Article
- Resumption of laser/IPL skin services post COVID-19 lockdown-British Medical Laser Association (BMLA) guidance document.Lasers in medical science · 2020Article
- COVID-19 plastic surgery recovery plan: The Malaysian experience.Archives of plastic surgery · 2020Article
- COVID-19 Pandemic: Consensus guidelines for preferred practices in an aesthetic clinic.Dermatologic therapy · 2020Review
- 9 Tips and Pearls for Safer Performance of Dermatological Procedures during Covid-19 Pandemic.Indian dermatology online journalArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHigh concentrations of sub-micron nanoparticles have been shown to be released during laser hair removal (LHR) procedures. These emissions pose a potential biohazard to healthcare workers that have prolonged exposure to LHR plume.
objectiveWe sought to demonstrate that cold sapphire skin cooling done in contact mode might suppress plume dispersion during LHR.
methodsA total of 11 patients were recruited for laser hair removal. They were treated on the legs and axilla with a 755 or 1064 nm millisecond-domain laser equipped with either (i) cryogen spray (CSC); (ii) refrigerated air (RA); or (iii) contact cooling with sapphire (CC). Concentration of ultrafine nanoparticles <1 μm were measured just before and during LHR with the three respective cooling methods.
resultsFor contact cooling (CC), counts remained at baseline levels, below 3,500 parts per cubic centimeter (ppc) for all treatments. In contrast, the CSC system produced large levels of plume, peaking at times to over 400,000 ppc. The CA cooled system produced intermediate levels of plume, about 35,000 ppc (or about 10× baseline).
conclusionsCold Sapphire Skin cooling with gel suppresses plume during laser hair removal, potentially eliminating the need for smoke evacuators, custom ventilation systems, and respirators during LHR. Lasers Surg. Med. 50:280-283, 2018. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29214662What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.