Pigmentation is a worldwide epidemic that impacts many lives. Its root causes range from heredity to sun exposure and skin damage. Certain forms of pigmentation may not be readily apparent, yet they can have significant consequences for one’s health and appearance nonetheless.
One of the most effective treatments for facial, neck, and hand pigmentation is ipl laser therapy. The treatment employs heat to eliminate discolored patches on the skin, leaving you with a smoother, more uniform appearance.
The Ipl Laser For Pigmentation is a beauty clinic which offers you the best ipl laser treatment in town. This is something which will not just remove your pigmentation but also keep your skin moisturized and glowing. In order to know more about this therapy all you need to do is visit us at our website. Read on to learn more on ipl for pigmentation at home/ipl treatment pigmentation side effects.
Ipl Laser For Pigmentation
At your initial consultation, one of our skincare experts will examine your skin to understand what you are looking to treat. This way, they can look at your areas of pigmentation and decide the best treatment plan. We will then discuss the suitable treatment options with you and carry out an IPL treatment skin patch test. This patch test is for your well-being and safety, and we cannot treat you without it, even if you have had previous IPL pigmentation treatments elsewhere.
It is important to avoid the sun during your IPL treatment for pigmentation and for 30 days afterwards. If you are going on holiday, please let us know at your initial consultation so that we can plan around it with plenty of time.
If you are using Retin-A, retinol, topical exfoliators or acids, we recommend you stop using them a couple of weeks before your IPL pigmentation appointment to prevent any extra sensitivity. We also recommend you do not have IPL treatment for pigmentation if you have a tan, even if it is fake. This is due to the fact that a tan may interfere with the targeting of the brown pigment, also known as melanin.
At your IPL pigmentation appointment
IPL treatments for pigmentation usually takes around 20-30 minutes. This includes preparing the skin pre-treatment and any aftercare procedures.
First, we gently cleanse the skin to remove any makeup or dirt. We then apply a room temperature ultra-sound gel to the skin. You will also be asked to wear protective eye goggles for your safety.
Most clients describe IPL as uncomfortable, rather than painful, comparing the treatment to a rubber band snapping against the skin for a brief second combined with a feeling of warmth. Feel confident knowing that your IPL treatment for pigmentation at our Kensington or Wimbledon central London clinics is relatively pain free.
Immediately after your treatment, it is normal for the skin to be a little red. Our IPL pigmentation specialist will apply a soothing room temperature aloe vera gel.
We will then apply a high SPF sunscreen. It is important that you avoid sun exposure before, during and after IPL treatment for pigmentation so sunscreen is essential. If you do have to spend a prolonged time outside, we recommend that you seek shade and wear a hat.
After your IPL pigmentation treatment
A little redness, like sunburn, is usual after the IPL treatment for pigmentation and occasionally clients experience slight swelling, which usually goes down after 24-48 hours.
The heat breaks this pigment down into tiny particles which rise to the skin’s surface, causing the pigmentation to initially darken. After this scabs, crusts and possible flaking will form. This will naturally slough away within 7-10 days.
Ipl Treatment Pigmentation Side Effects
Although side effects of IPL are typically rare and minimal in severity, the most common adverse events include pain and erythema. Other reported side effects include edema, bullae, hematoma, crusting, hyper/hypopigmentation, leukotrichia, scarring, keloid formation, and infection.
Pigmentation is the darkening of the skin. The most common cause of pigmentation is sun exposure. But it can also be caused by genetics, hormones, birth control pills and other medications, liver disease, kidney disease or thyroid disease.
IPL treatment can improve pigmentation problems such as freckles, age spots and melasma (also known as the mask of pregnancy). The procedure uses intense pulsed light energy to destroy the melanin-producing cells in your skin. This causes the skin to fade in color and eventually disappear.
Side effects depend on the amount of exposure to IPL treatment. Side effects may include:
Redness
Swelling
Scabbing and peeling.
Pigmentation is a common side effect of IPL treatment. It’s caused by the destruction of melanocytes, the cells that produce melanin, which is responsible for skin coloration.
The severity and duration of pigmentation depends on a number of factors including the area treated, your skin type, age and how your body reacts to injury.
Pigmentation can appear as dark spots (hyperpigmentation), redness (erythema) or swelling in the treated area. Hyperpigmentation usually fades over time but sometimes it may be permanent if too much pigment has been destroyed.
How long does pigmentation last?
The amount of time it takes for pigmentation to fade varies between people but generally it’s between 2 weeks and 6 months after treatment. However, it can take up to 2 years for some people depending on their natural skin tone before they see any improvement at all. The best way to reduce pigmentation is by using sunscreen every day after IPL treatment as this will protect your skin from UV damage which can cause more pigmentation problems down the line if exposed to too much sun exposure after treatment
Importance Keratosis pilaris (KP) is a common skin disorder of follicular prominence and erythema that typically affects the proximal extremities, can be disfiguring, and is often resistant to treatment. Shorter-wavelength vascular lasers have been used to reduce the associated erythema but not the textural irregularity.
Objective To determine whether the longer-wavelength 810-nm diode laser may be effective for treatment of KP, particularly the associated skin roughness/bumpiness and textural irregularity.
Design, Setting, and Participants We performed a split-body, rater-blinded, parallel-group, balanced (1:1), placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial at a dermatology outpatient practice of an urban academic medical center from March 1 to October 1, 2011. We included all patients diagnosed as having KP on both arms and Fitzpatrick skin types I through III. Of the 26 patients who underwent screening, 23 met our enrollment criteria. Of these, 18 patients completed the study, 3 were lost to or unavailable for follow-up, and 2 withdrew owing to inflammatory hyperpigmentation after the laser treatment.
Interventions Patients were randomized to receive laser treatment on the right or left arm. Each patient received treatment with the 810-nm pulsed diode laser to the arm randomized to be the treatment site. Treatments were repeated twice, for a total of 3 treatment visits spaced 4 to 5 weeks apart.
Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome measure was the difference in disease severity score, including redness and roughness/bumpiness, with each graded on a scale of 0 (least severe) to 3 (most severe), between the treated and control sites. Two blinded dermatologists rated the sites at 12 weeks after the initial visit.
Results At follow-up, the median redness score reported by the 2 blinded raters for the treatment and control sides was 2.0 (interquartile range [IQR], 1-2; P = .11). The median roughness/bumpiness score was 1.0 (IQR, 1-2) for the treatment sides and 2.0 (IQR, 1-2) for the control sides, a difference of 1 (P = .004). The median overall score combining erythema and roughness/bumpiness was 3.0 (IQR, 2-4) for the treatment sides and 4.0 (IQR, 3-5) for the control sides, a difference of 1 (P = .005).
Conclusions and Relevance Three treatments with the 810-nm diode laser may induce significant improvements in skin texture and roughness/bumpiness in KP patients with Fitzpatrick skin types I through III, but baseline erythema is not improved. Complete treatment of erythema and texture in KP may require diode laser treatment combined with other laser or medical modalities that address redness.
Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01281644
Keratosis pilaris (KP) is a common hereditary, benign disorder of unknown etiology1 that is frequently seen in conjunction with atopy. The hereditary pattern of this skin disorder is thought to be autosomal dominant without a known predisposition based on race or sex.2 Keratinaceous plugging of follicles results in markedly visible papules, often involving the lateral and extensor aspects of the proximal extremities but sometimes also the face, buttocks, and trunk.3 Perifollicular erythema is routinely notable.4 Topical treatments for KP include emollients, exfoliants, and anti-inflammatory agents, such as urea, salicylic acid, lactic acid, topical corticosteroids, topical retinoids, and cholecalciferol. Because most patients obtain limited benefit from these treatments, less conventional treatments, including phototherapy and lasers, have been explored. Among lasers, the 532-, 585-, and 595-nm vascular devices have been used with modest success, particularly in reducing redness.5–8 Longer-wavelength lasers have not been studied for the treatment of KP, and lasers have not been shown to be successful for treating the textural components of KP. Our study investigates the effectiveness of the longer-wavelength 810-nm diode laser for color and texture of upper extremity KP.
We performed a split-body, parallel-group, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial with an allocation ratio of 1:1 and a block size of 2 at an urban academic medical center. The unit of randomization was the individual unilateral upper extremity. The study was approved by the institutional review board of Northwestern University. All participants provided written informed consent.
Patients were recruited from a dermatology practice at Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, and the surrounding community. Inclusion criteria consisted of age 18 to 65 years, good health, Fitzpatrick skin types I to III, and a diagnosis of KP on both upper extremities. We excluded patients who had received any laser therapy to the arms in the 12 months before recruitment, with a concurrent diagnosis of another skin condition or malignant neoplasm, with a tan or sunburn over the upper arms in the month before recruitment, with open ulcers or infections at any skin site, or who were using topical or oral photosensitizing medications.
When potential participants called or e-mailed the clinic for possible inclusion in the study, they underwent prescreening (performed by O.I.) over the telephone using the aforementioned inclusion and exclusion criteria. Once enrollment criteria were met, patients were scheduled for a total of 4 visits, 4 to 5 weeks apart, in the Department of Dermatology, Feinberg School of Medicine.
On the patient’s first visit, one of us (O.I.) reviewed the inclusion and exclusion criteria. After the patients provided written informed consent, they separately rated redness and roughness/bumpiness on each arm using a scale of 0 (least severe) to 3 (most severe) for a total maximum score of 6 per patient per arm. Next, patients were randomized into 2 groups as described below, and baseline standardized digital photographs were obtained. Each patient received treatment using the 810-nm pulsed diode laser to the arm randomized to be the treatment site. After laser treatment, both sides were treated with topical petrolatum. Treatments were repeated twice for a total of 3 treatment visits, with visits spaced 4 to 5 weeks apart. At the fourth and final visit, 12 to 15 weeks after the initial visit, the patients again rated disease severity as previously described. At this last visit, 2 blinded dermatologists (S.Y. and M.A.) also rated the roughness/bumpiness and redness of the treatment and control arms separately using the same scales, and digital photographs were again obtained.
Patient screening and enrollment were performed by one of us (M.D.), as were random sequence generation and concealment (R.K.), which were conducted by coin toss of the same fair coin, with the outcomes (1 or 2) recorded separately on individual paper cards then placed in sealed, opaque, consecutively numbered envelopes. Each patient was assigned to one of 2 groups (by W.D.). Patients in group 1 were designated to receive laser therapy on the right arm, and those in group 2 were assigned to receive laser therapy on the left arm. All study treatments were delivered by the same clinician (D.B.).
All study treatments used the 810-nm pulsed diode laser. A lidocaine and prilocaine–based cream was applied to the arms 30 to 60 minutes before treatment and washed off before treatment. Laser therapy was performed on the treatment side at a fluence of 45 to 60 J/cm2 (to convert to gray, multiply by 1) (depending on Fitzpatrick skin type) and a pulse duration of 30 to 100 milliseconds, with precise settings selected to be just below the patient’s threshold for purpura. Each treatment session entailed 2 nonoverlapping passes separated by a 1-minute delay. The patient was then instructed to minimize sun exposure and apply sunscreen with a sun protection factor of 50 to the treatment area daily until the next visit.
The primary outcome measure was the difference in disease severity score, including redness and roughness/bumpiness, between the treated site and the control site as rated by the blinded dermatologists at 12 weeks after the initial visit. This scale was not validated because no relevant validated scale was available. However, raters were trained on the use of the study scale, and before the review of study images, they were asked to rate archival skin images on the same 4-point qualitative subscales used in the study. Raters reviewed and rated archival images separately and then reconciled their ratings through face-to-face forced agreement, with the process repeated until concordance was achieved between raters and their separately rated scores were consistently equivalent.
During the evaluation of study data, forced agreement was used to reconcile blinded ratings. The secondary outcome measure was the change from baseline in disease severity of each arm as rated by the patients.
Power Analysis and Sample Size
Assuming an SD of change of 0.84, a sample of 20 patients had 80% power to detect median differences (or median changes) in severity scores of 0.5. We assumed a 2-sided test and type I error rate of 5%.
We used the Wilcoxon signed rank test to compare the magnitude of change from baseline between treatment and control for all patient ratings (redness, roughness/bumpiness, and overall score). Blinded dermatologists’ ratings of the treatment and control sides were also compared using the Wilcoxon signed rank test.
Patient Baseline Demographic Characteristics
The study was conducted during a 7-month period from March 1 to October 1, 2011. A total of 26 patients underwent screening for our study, and 23 of those patients (46 arms) met our criteria and were enrolled in the study. Of these 23 patients, 18 (36 arms) completed the study and underwent analysis, 3 were lost to or unavailable for follow-up, and 2 voluntarily withdrew owing to inflammatory hyperpigmentation after the laser treatment. The demographic characteristics of our patients are presented in the Table. At baseline, patients rated the severity of the roughness/bumpiness in the texture of their arm test sites at a median score of 1.5 (interquarile range [IQR], 1-2) and the severity of the erythema of their arm test sites at a median score of 2.0 (IQR, 1-2). (The maximum score for both ratings was 3.0.)
At follow-up, the median redness score assigned by the blinded raters for the treatment and control sides was 2.0 (IQR, 1-2), a null difference (Figure 1). The median roughness/bumpiness score was 1.0 (IQR, 1-2) for the treatment sides and 2.0 (IQR, 1-2) for the control sides, a difference of 1 (P = .004) (Figure 1). The median overall score combining erythema and roughness/bumpiness was 3.0 (IQR, 2-4) for the treatment sides and 4.0 (IQR, 3-5) for the control sides, a difference of 1 (P = .005) (Figure 1).
Patient Self-assessment Scores
At follow-up, patients’ self-reported median erythema rating for the control sides did not change from the baseline score of 2.0 (IQR, 1-2), but the self-reported median erythema score for the treatment side decreased from 2.0 to 1.5 (IQR, 1-2), a nominal difference that was not statistically significant (P = .13) (Figure 2). The median roughness/bumpiness score for the control sides increased from 1.5 to 2.0 (IQR, 1-2) and for the treatment sides decreased from 1.5 to 1.0 (IQR, 1-2). The 1-point decrease in roughness/bumpiness in the treatment arm compared with the control arm was significant (P = .008) (Figure 2). The overall score (erythema and roughness/bumpiness) for the control sides increased from 3.5 to 4.0 (IQR, 3-4), and for the treatment arm decreased from 3.5 to 2.5 (IQR, 2-4), with the cumulative difference of 1.5 points being significant (P = .005) (Figure 2).
We found no unexpected adverse events associated with laser treatment. Two participants developed inflammatory hyperpigmentation after laser treatment and chose to withdraw from the study. These patients were instructed to continue sun-protective measures to their affected extremities, and in both cases hyperpigmentation completely resolved within 3 months.
We investigated the effectiveness of the 810-nm diode laser in the treatment of KP. After 3 treatments spaced 4 to 5 weeks apart, blinded dermatologist ratings and patient self-report indicated significant improvements in skin texture and roughness/bumpiness when compared with baseline However, neither raters nor patients detected a significant change in erythema.
Most topical treatments for KP, including emollients, corticosteroids, and retinoids, are of limited effectiveness.9 Light-based treatments have typically entailed use of vascular lasers, like the application of a 532-nm potassium titanyl phosphate laser to treat a case of resistant facial KP by Dawn et al.5 Repeated treatments resulted in a marked improvement in erythema and some clearance of papules. A study of 12 patients using the 585-nm pulsed-dye laser6 found improvement in erythema but not in roughness/bumpiness. A similar report7 described a case in which multiple treatments with a 595-nm pulsed-dye laser induced marked improvements in facial erythema, patient satisfaction, and quality of life. A study of 10 patients treated with a 595-nm pulsed-dye laser8 confirmed these results.
To our knowledge, our study is the first of its kind to investigate the use of a longer-wavelength laser, the diode laser, in the treatment of KP. More important, our results are the first from a clinical trial that demonstrate the effectiveness of laser treatment of the textural abnormality and roughness/bumpiness associated with KP. The data from our investigation suggest that the 810-nm diode laser is a particularly promising and effective treatment for the nonerythematous variants of KP. The variant of KP known as keratosis pilaris alba, which presents mostly as follicular papules, may be highly responsive to this laser modality.10 The variant that includes perifollicular erythema with follicular papules, keratosis pilaris rubra,9,10 may best respond to joint treatment with diode and vascular lasers, with the former improving texture and the latter addressing erythema.
We have theoretical reasons for selecting the 810-nm diode laser and the settings used in this study. Specifically, KP is an inflammatory condition of vellus hair follicles. Compared with terminal hair, vellus hair is relatively deficient in melanin (ie, has less chromophore) and smaller in diameter (ie, has shorter thermal relaxation time). Based on the theory of selective photothermolysis, these features would be consistent with a thermal relaxation time of approximately 50 milliseconds, which means that a pulse duration of less than 50 milliseconds, such as the 30 milliseconds used in this study, would be appropriate for treatment. Because of a substantial lack of chromophore, the fluence required for photothermal destruction of a vellus hair follicle is 40 to 45 J/cm2, greater than that for a terminal hair. Ideally a highly absorbing wavelength such as 695 nm would be the best to treat vellus follicles, but this wavelength is absorbed by epidermal pigment in darker skinned individuals before it can reach deeper targets, such as the stem cells in the bulge region of the follicles. Similarly, 1064 nm is not highly selective for melanin, and we know that the vellus follicle has little melanin to begin with. As a consequence, the 810-nm wavelength appears to be the best choice because its depth of penetration is sufficient, it has selectivity for melanin, and it is compatible with a pulse duration of 30 milliseconds.
In terms of adverse events, our study found that treatment with the 810-nm diode laser was safe and not associated with any serious or unexpected adverse events. Although 2 patients (9%) developed bothersome inflammatory hyperpigmentation after laser treatment, resulting in their withdrawal from the study, these sequelae resolved completely in the medium term. Further counseling about the need for sun protection and avoidance of tanning during the period of laser treatment may mitigate the risk for posttreatment inflammatory hyperpigmentation in the future.
A limitation of our study is that enrollment was restricted to participants with Fitzpatrick skin types I to III. The exclusion of darker skin types was not incidental but rather designed to minimize the risk for posttreatment inflammatory hyperpigmentation, which is more common after laser procedures in patients with Fitzpatrick skin types IV to VI. That posttreatment inflammatory hyperpigmentation was observed in this study despite careful patient selection suggests that this precaution was appropriate. Regardless, patients with darker skin types can indeed be treated safely with the diode laser if gentle settings are used. Once this treatment paradigm is optimized, such broader application will likely be appropriate and feasible. One protective benefit of the current treatment settings was that they were deliberately below the threshold for purpura and thus designed to avoid bruising, which can resolve with tan pigmentation, particularly in darker skin. To the extent that the 810-nm diode laser has hair-removing activity, this treatment may be inappropriate for patients who do not want hair loss at the site of their KP. Finally, although incidental reports from some participants previously in this study have indicated that they have maintained textural benefits for more than a year, it remains to be seen to what extent these improvements are maintained over the longer term. To the extent that laser treatment may significantly modify hair growth in abnormal vellus hair follicles initially induced by genetic predisposition, improvement may be long lasting. This result would then be parallel to the case of traditional hair removal, in which posttreatment long-term remission of coarse terminal hairs and the corresponding pseudofolliculitis is often observed.
However, this study was not designed to assess long-term improvement, and additional studies would need to be performed to systematically measure the duration and likelihood of persistent benefits. The present study only provides proof of concept and indicates that improvement of the textural abnormalities associated with KP is possible after treatment with an 810-nm diode laser.
By objective and subjective measures, we found that, among lighter-skinned persons, serial treatment with a long-pulsed 810-nm diode laser at subpurpuric levels provided medium-term improvement in KP, particularly for the associated roughness/bumpiness and textural irregularity. Combined with preexisting data about the utility of vascular lasers for the reduction of KP-associated erythema, this finding suggests that laser treatment may comprehensively address the clinical manifestations of KP in selected patients. Future studies may assess the durability of these responses and the comparative effectiveness of different long-wavelength lasers.
Ipl For Pigmentation At Home
Home IPL devices are unregulated and should not be used for management of pigmentation, or any skin problems,” she advises. Both doctors noted that these DIY devices aren’t really strong enough to produce significant results.
Intense pulsed light (IPL) therapy is typically used for hair removal, but it can also be an effective way to reduce skin pigmentation issues. But how does it work and is at-home IPL for dark spots—i.e. the DIY option—a safe solution?
Whether you call them age spots, sun spots or just pesky annoyances, those dark spots on your complexion can be tough to get rid of. They’re caused by pigment-making cells called melanocytes that live under the surface of your skin. As your skin matures, or gets aggravated by sun exposure, those melanocytes get to work, producing melanin that leaves you with the appearance of dark spots.
So how exactly do you get rid of them? While you might have considered using at-home laser hair removal for, you know, actual hair removal—it’s also effective when it comes to erasing dark spots too.
We spoke with several skincare experts to learn more about how (and how well) intense pulsed light treatments help clear up pigmentation issues—and whether it’s something you should try at home.
WHAT IS AN IPL TREATMENT?
How does IPL therapy work, then?
“IPL uses light energy at different specific wavelengths to treat many skin concerns,” explains Dr. Robert Morrell, M.D., founder and director of Medical Rejuvenation Centre(opens in new tab) and Di Morelli Skin Care(opens in new tab).
“It’s used for many therapeutic purposes due to the broad spectrum of wavelengths in IPL treatments,” he says. More specifically, IPL can be used to treat pigmentation, rosacea, veins, acne and hair removal, too.
HOW DOES IPL HELP REDUCE DARK SPOTS?
As Dr. Morrell explains, “IPL works to fade dark spots by selectively heating up the brown color with a band of light specific for brown pigment. Typically, these spots will become coffee-like granules that will shed off on the surface of the skin in five to seven days.”
When the light penetrates your skin, the targeted heat zaps only the spots with excess melanin, and leaves the rest alone. It works to eliminate the pigmentation that you see toward the surface of your skin so that you can naturally slough off or exfoliate those cells.
Unfortunately, IPL doesn’t permanently stop or remove melanocytes from producing melanin, so your dark spots will likely return in time. However, a lot of women see significant reductions in visible dark spots after professional treatments.
WHAT ARE THE RISKS OF USING AN IPL LASER AT HOME?
So if getting IPL done in a professional setting works well on dark spots, can we try at-home IPL for dark spots? Using this kind of advanced technology at home sounds like risky business—and, according to the experts we consulted, it is.
“In the last few years, there has been a rapid increase in home light devices that have had very little testing,” says plastic, reconstructive, and cosmetic surgeon Dr. Simone Matousek(opens in new tab). “Home IPL devices are unregulated and should not be used for management of pigmentation, or any skin problems,” she advises.
Both doctors noted that these DIY devices aren’t really strong enough to produce significant results. In fact, they can actually cause “darkening of pigmentation, as the intensity of home IPL units is too weak,” says Dr. Morrell. “And, if the intensity is stronger, there is a possibility of burns.”
So, zapping your skin with an at-home IPL device might actually worsen your unwanted dark spots, by making them even darker.
“Even in the hands of trained medical practitioners, an IPL device can cause side effects,” adds Dr. Matousek. Clinical trials(opens in new tab) have found that these can include redness, rashes, blistering, swelling, and hypopigmentation—patches of skin lightening—in addition to dark spots. If powerful IPL technology is misused, it can even lead to eye injuries and scarring.
AT-HOME IPL VS PROFESSIONAL IPL
If you’re comparing at-home IPL devices against professional-grade equipment, the latter will always be safer and more sophisticated.
“The more high-end IPL devices that are operated in medical practices are more tunable, have more precise targeting of skin problems, and are safer in darker skin types. Medical-grade broadband light is one such device, and is more effective and has inbuilt cooling to make it safe,” explains Dr. Matousek.
She continued, “At-home devices will likely be too weak to have any real impact, as any manufacturer would be worried about the potential of being sued. The machines that will actually have a real impact on skin problems are way more powerful than is safe for any consumer to use.”
Moreover, despite how easy at-home IPL for dark spots might sound, managing pigmentation concerns isn’t as simple as zapping your skin a few times. According to Dr. Matousek, “It requires correct topical medication before and after such treatments; some of these can only be prescribed by a doctor.”
So, if an at-home IPL product promises to clear up dark spots in no time—without any medical oversight, topical treatment, or training—it’s probably too good to be true.
HOW TO USE IPL TO TREAT DARK SPOTS
If you want to proceed with an IPL treatment for dark spots, “You should always go see a professional; do not try it at home,” advises Dr. Morrell.
The price tag for professional treatment might be higher, but experts advise against trying a DIY device as a way to cut costs on skincare.
As Dr. Matousek suggests, “Going to a trained plastic surgeon or dermatologist, having a proper skin assessment and treatment plan, and getting effective, evidence-based therapies is a far better use of time and money than buying a home device. There’s a reason the best lasers and light devices cost hundreds and thousands of dollars; they require precise engineering and regular checkups and tuning to keep your skin safe.”
The skin is the largest organ of the body, so it’s no surprise that skin imperfections, blemishes, marks and lesions can happen. Many skin conditions not harmful to your health, but can be a nuisance, unsightly or even embarrassing. Keratosis Pilaris is one such condition, and treating Keratosis Pilaris is simple.
It’s very common and completely harmless but if you suffer with it, can be something of a less than welcome part of your life, due to its sometimes, unattractive appearance. If you have small pimples on the skin that look like permanent goose bumps on areas of the body such as the back of your arms, legs, bottom and even the back, face, eyebrows and scalp, which sometimes get itchy or red, you may have Keratosis Pilaris.
The condition occurs when there is a build-up of a substance called Keratin, a natural protein, which in fact is the main component of the hair as well as healthy skin. This, excess Keratin blocks the openings of the hair follicles, which can cause the small red or white bumps to appear. Keratosis Pilaris also takes the name of “chicken skin” as the skin takes on this appearance. So, no wonder that many people who experience it would like to reduce oreven, eradicate the symptoms.
So, how are we treating Keratosis Pilaris?
Fortunately, at Skin Perfection London, we offer a choice of non-surgical solutions for treating Keratosis Pilaris, painlessly, safely and effectively, from the comfort of our clinic, which is based in the heart of London, between Oxford Street, Harley Street and Bond Street. Treatments can be used alone or combined, for a holistic approach to reducing the chicken skin appearance.
Laser hair removal is a superb way of treating Keratosis Pilaris at its cause. It’s safe, virtually painless and can be permanent! It works by emitting short pulses of light in to the hair follicle, causing it to stop growing hair and to close. This means that it can no longer be blocked by the Keratin and the condition can be drastically improved. The treatment may take up to 9 sessions for optimum results, but can be a long-term solution to this troublesome condition and far better than having to shave, wax or epilate the hair, which can be extremely painful and can exacerbate the symptoms. Laser hair removal is suitable for all skin types and you could see up to 95% permanent reduction in hair growth, so it’s a win-win!
Medical microdermabrasion could be another option. It works by resurfacing the skin and cleaning blocked and congested pores and offers very little downtime or discomfort. At Skin Perfection London, we use the Derma Genesis medical microdermabrasion system, which utilises tiny medical-grade aluminium oxide crystals, which are swept across the skin by a hand-held device. The crystals are then gently sucked back up, bringing with them dirt, debris and dead surface skin cells. This reveals a smoother, clearer and healthier complexion, less prone to becoming congested. Results can be seen after a course of several sessions and your skin expert will explain the treatment programme, along with expected results, at a no obligation consultation, prior to treatment.
Although a harmless condition, Keratosis Pilaris doesn’t have to be endured and at Skin Perfection London, we make it our mission to offer you the most effective, innovative and high-tech device-led treatments to restore smooth, healthy and sexy looking skin, all-year-round.