Standard guidelines of care: laser and IPL hair reduction.

UNLABELLED: Laser-assisted hair removal, Laser hair removal, Laser and light-assisted hair removal, Laser and light-assisted, long-term hair reduction, IPL photodepilation, LHE photodepilation; all these are acceptable synonyms. Laser (Ruby, Nd Yag, Alexandrite, Diode), intense pulse light, light and heat energy system are the different light-/Laser-based systems used for hair removal; each have its advantages and disadvantages. The word "LONG-TERM HAIR REDUCTION" should be used rather than permanent hair removal. Patient counseling is essential about the need for multiple sessions. PHYSICIANS' QUALIFICATIONS: Laser hair removal may be practiced by any dermatologist, who has received adequate background training during postgraduation or later at a centre that provides education and training in Lasers or in focused workshops providing such training. The dermatologist should have adequate knowledge of the machines, the parameters and aftercare. The physician may allow the actual procedure to be performed under his/her direct supervision by a trained nurse assistant/junior doctor. However, the final responsibility for the procedure would lie with the physician. FACILITY: The procedure may be performed in the physician's minor procedure room. Investigations to rule out any underlying cause for hair growth are important; concurrent drug therapy may be needed. Laser parameters vary with area, type of hair, and the machine used. Full knowledge about the machine and cooling system is important. Future maintenance treatments may be needed.

Ultraviolet protective properties of branded and unbranded sunglasses available in the Indian market in UV phototherapy chambers.

BACKGROUND: Patients receiving phototherapy for various dermatoses are at increased risk of eye damage due to ultraviolet (UV) rays. They are prescribed UV protective sunglasses by dermatologists but their exact protecting effects are not known. AIM: To study the ultraviolet protective properties of branded and unbranded UV protective sunglasses available in the Indian market, in UV phototherapy chambers. METHODS: Sixteen different branded and unbranded UV protective sunglasses were collected from two opticians in Mumbai. Baseline irradiance of the UV chamber was calculated by exposing the photosensitive probe of UV photometer in the chamber. Then, the photosensitive probe of the UV photometer was covered with the UV protective glass to be studied and irradiance was noted. Such readings were taken for each of the UV protective sunglasses. The percentage reduction in the UV rays' penetration of different UV protective sunglasses was calculated. RESULTS: Thirteen sunglasses provided > 80% reduction in UVA rays penetration, of which four were branded (out of the four branded studied) and nine were unbranded (out of the 12 unbranded studied). More than 70% reduction in UVB penetration was provided by 12 sunglasses, which included 10 unbranded and two branded sunglasses. CONCLUSION: All branded sunglasses provided good protection against UVA penetration, but UVB protection provided by both branded and unbranded sunglasses was not satisfactory. A few unbranded sunglasses had poor efficacy for UVA and UVB spectra; one branded glass had poor efficacy for protection against the UVB spectrum. The efficacy of sunglasses used for phototherapy should be assessed before use.