What Women Want: Women's Perspectives on Male Cosmetic Procedures.

BACKGROUND: The rate of growth for male cosmetic treatments has slowed in the past 5 years. There is limited data on why men may not seek cosmetic treatments. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate women's perspectives on male cosmetic treatments. METHODS: Heterosexual female patients (single (n = 64); in a relationship/married (IR/M) (n = 136)) completed an online survey. RESULTS: 87.5% of single and 36.03% of IR/M women reported that men are bothered by signs of aging (p < .0001). However, both single and IR/M women reported that men are interested in (single: 77.78%, IR/M: 65.44%) and will benefit (single: 93.55%, IR/M: 67.31%) from cosmetic procedures. Both groups of women (single: 93.75%, IR/M: 83.82%, p < .0530) indicated, however, that men are reluctant to seek cosmetic treatments. Societal stigma/perception of masculinity was the number one cited reason (single: 87.1.75%, IR/M: 73.02%, p < .0264). However, 87.5% of single and 94.86% of IR/M women (p = .0659) reported that male cosmetic treatments will not affect their perceptions of masculinity. Furthermore, 95% of women (single: 95.31%, IR/M: 95.59%, p = .9292) reported that they will support their partners from pursuing cosmetic treatments. CONCLUSION: Women strongly believe that men can benefit from cosmetic treatments, do not believe cosmetic treatments affect masculinity, and are overwhelmingly supportive of male cosmetic treatments.

The effect of a dual-wavelength 532 nm and 1064 nm picosecond-domain laser with a fractionated holographic optic on photoaging and patient age perception: A pilot study.

INTRODUCTION: This study evaluated the efficacy of a dual-wavelength 532 nm/1064 nm Nd:YAG picosecond-domain laser with a holographic lens array in treating facial photoaging. METHODS: Thirteen subjects were enrolled with 10 completing the study. Receiving three-month treatments, subjects underwent full-face spot treatment of facial lentigines with the 532-nm non-fractionated handpiece, followed by two sequential facial passes of the 1064-nm and the 532-nm fractionated handpieces. Improvement was measured by treating physician evaluation of pigmentation and rhytids as well as blinded reviewer evaluation of pre- and post-treatment image sets taken 12 weeks after the final treatment. Participants completed treatment surveys to assess satisfaction. RESULTS: Physician grading on a 5-point scale revealed an average improvement of 1.6 in pigmentation (p = 0.0042) and 0.9 in rhytids (p = 0.0196). Blinded physicians appropriately selected baseline images in 44 of 50 (88%) image sets (10 subjects; five reviewers). On an 11-point scale for overall facial photoaging (0 = no change, 1 = 10% improvement, 2 = 20% improvement, etc.) treating physicians scored mean improvement as 3.3 ± 1.83 (95% CI 1.99 to 4.61; range 1-6), while blinded reviewers scored mean improvement as 2.32 ± 2.62 (range % -4 to 8, 95% CI 1.57 to 3.07). The greatest majority (80%) of participants reported satisfaction with the treatment. Adverse events were mild; however, one patient developed hyperpigmentation, consistent with melasma that was successfully treated with topical agents. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to show that picosecond-domain 532 nm/1064 nm laser treatments with combination non-fractionated and fractionated handpieces are well-tolerated, safe, and effective for the treatment of photodamage.