Long-Term Efficacy and Safety of755-nm Alexandrite Laser for Axillary Hair Removal: A Comparative Analysis of Single vs. DualFlash lamp Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Laser hair removal is a noninvasive cosmetic procedure that targets melanin in hair follicles through selective photothermolysis. Objective: This study aims to evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of the 755-nm alexandrite laser for axillary hair removal by comparing single- and dual-flash lamp systems. Methods: In total, 40 women aged 20 to 35 years with Fitzpatrick skin types II and III participated in a study on laser hair removal for their axillae. Participants underwent 3 treatment sessions, each spaced 4 weeks apart, from January to April 2024. They were divided into 2 groups, both receiving treatments with an alexandrite laser (755 nm, 14 mm spot size). The first group was treated with a dose of 8 J/cm² using a single-flash lamp device operating at 5 Hz, with a pulse duration of 10 ms. The second group received doses between 9 and 11 J/cm² from a dual-flash lamp device operating at 2.5 Hz, with pulse durations ranging from 10 to 15 ms. Photographs and hair counts were taken at baseline and 1 month after the final session. A 2-tailed t test was used to assess statistical significance, and regression analysis evaluated treatment effects. Pain scores and side effects were assessed using a visual analog scale in a satisfaction questionnaire. Results: The dual-flash lamp laser achieved an overall hair reduction of 94%, while the single-flash lamp laser resulted in a 91% reduction in the axilla. The difference was not statistically significant (P=.14). No serious adverse effects were reported with either device, indicating effective safety features. Conclusions: The outcomes show that both systems provide similar results in terms of efficacy and safety, with no reported side effects, and results were maintained even after 6 and 12 months of follow-up.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".