ABSTRACT

The lack of uniform and objective techniques to evaluate treatment efficacy in photo-epilation studies leads to contradictory results. Thus, there is an urgent need to explore commonly accepted assessment tools. One of the most common methods uses hair counts via digital photography. However, macrophotography may not be able to depict the vellus-like hair induced by photo-epilation. On the other hand, handheld dermatoscopy is practical, affordable and offers high-quality magnification. Hair counts from a handheld dermatoscope and a digital camera were compared in 73 women who underwent 6 sessions with the Alexandrite 755 nm laser. Significantly more hairs were counted using the dermatoscope than using the digital camera (76.9 ± 41.3 vs. 58.6 ± 31.4, p < .005), independently of hair thickness and hair density. The difference in hair counts between the two instruments was inversely related to hair thickness and directly related to hair density. The handheld dermatoscope may be a more effective tool than the widely used digital camera in evaluating the response to laser hair removal treatment.

摘要

光脱毛研究中缺乏统一和客观的技术来评估治疗效果，导致结果相互矛盾。因此，迫切需要探索普遍接受的评估工具。最常见的方法之一是通过数码摄影来计数头发。然而，微距摄影可能无法描绘光脱毛引起的毳毛状毛发。另一方面，手持式皮肤镜实用、价格实惠，并提供高质量的放大倍率。对接受 6 次紫翠玉 755 nm 激光治疗的 73 名女性通过手持式皮肤镜和数码相机获得的毛发计数进行了比较。使用皮肤镜计数的毛发数量明显多于使用数码相机的毛发数量（76.9 ± 41.3 vs. 58.6 ± 31.4，p  < .005），与毛发厚度和密度无关。两种仪器之间的头发数量差异与头发厚度成反比，与头发密度成正比。在评估激光脱毛治疗的反应方面，手持式皮肤镜可能是比广泛使用的数码相机更有效的工具。