Comparative Study between the Vectus™ Diode

Laser System and LightSheer™ Duet

for Long-Term Hair Reduction in the Axilla
Joe Lowery, Rich Cohen, Felicia Whitney, James Childs and Gregory Altshuler
Burlington, MA

OVERVIEW

T
he use of lasers for hair removal has been well es- relative to baseline. Specific treatment areas in each axilla
tablished. The most commonly used devices in- approximately 25 cm2 in area were identified using tem-
clude Intense Pulse Light (IPL), the alexandrite, plates to aid in camera registration. Areas were cleaned
Nd:YAG, and diode lasers1, all of which have proven safe and shaven prior to treatment and no anesthesia was ad-
and effective for removing unwanted hair. Recently a new ministered. Maximum cooling was selected for both the
near-infrared diode laser system (Vectus™, Palomar Medi- large and small sapphire contact optics with exception of
cal Technologies, Burlington, MA) has been introduced with the LightSheer™ Duet Large HS Tip which has no cool-
features that provide fast, safe and effective hair removal. ing. Specifications of the Vectus™ are shown in Table 1.
Unique design features of the Vectus™ system include
an optimum wavelength for hair removal (800 nm), high
peak power (3000 W), a uniform beam profile, a smooth
pulse shape and photon recycling, all of which provide
greater energy delivery to the hair follciles2. A clinical tri-
al to validate the system’s performance and design fea-
tures was completed to demonstrate long-term efficacy.

MATERIALS & METHODS

This study was conducted under an IRB approved proto-
col, and all subjects provided signed, informed consent.
Eight female adult subjects (Fitzpatrick Skin Type II and
III) received treatment for unwanted hair in the axilla in a
split-body fashion using the Vectus™ System on one side
and the LightSheer™ Duet, (Lumenis, Yoakneum, Israel) on
the other axilla. Large and Small Treatment Optics of both With the Vectus™ system, fluence and pulsewidth were
devices were tested in this study with four subjects ran- optimized for each individual patient and treatment area
domly assigned to receive treatments with the large optics using a combination of the SkinTel™ Melanin Reader, the
and the others receiving treatments with the small optics. MaxPulse™ pulsewidth auto-selection feature, and the Hair
The spot size of the Vectus™ Small and Large Optics were Specific Fluence Selection system, all of which are integrat-
12x12mm and 23x38mm, respectively; or about 74% and ed as standard components (Fig. 1). The melanin content
14% larger than the 9x9mm and 22x35mm Small (ET) of the skin in the treatment areas was measured using the
and Large (HS) tips of the LightSheer™ Duet. All subjects SkinTel™ which converts the melanin content to a numeric
received three treatments at intervals of approximately value between 1 and 99, with 1 representing the lightest
four to six weeks, and were scheduled with follow-up 6 skin and 99 the darkest skin, or highest melanin content.
months after the laser treatment. High resolution pho- The readings were automatically averaged and transmitted
tographs of the treatment areas were taken at each visit wirelessly to the Vectus™ base unit where additional char-
so that subsequent hair counts could be performed as a acteristics describing the hair color, thickness and density
measure of percent hair reduction, the primary outcome were entered on the control screen, shown in Figure One.
measure of the study. Hair counts were performed in a
blinded fashion by two trained investigators and the per-
cent reduction in hair count was determined for each site

1
The Vectus™ processes the entered information using a so-

phisticated algorithm to display a recommended starting
fluence for the first test spot. As a final step, the Max-
Pulse™ feature was selected which, for a given fluence set-
ting, automatically adjusted the pulsewidth to a value that
will maximize the power, in Watts, of the delivered treat-
ment pulse. For the Duet, the starting fluence for the first
test spot was determined based upon the treatment guide
recommendations for fluence and pulse width (Auto) for the
individual’s hair character and skin type. For both devices,
after delivering the first test spot to the treatment area, the
skin reaction and patient pain tolerance were evaluated,
and the fluence incrementally increased to the highest lev-
el that was well-tolerated by the patient, or to the maxi-
mum fluence setting of the device. Treatments with the
Vectus™ were performed with an average fluence of 10.6
J/cm2 and 25.7 J/cm2 with the Large and Small Tips, re-
spectively, versus 11.6 J/cm2 and 29.2 J/cm2 for the Large
and Small Tips, respectively, of the LightSheer™ Duet.

RESULTS
All subjects tolerated the treatments well with both devices,
and hair reduction was observed in all areas. Clinical end-
points with the two devices, such as the appearance of peri-
follicular edema post-treatment were observed. However,
treatment with the large area optics consistently had less peri-
follicular edema/erythema than the small area tip treatments.

2
The Vectus™ demonstrated 40% greater hair reduction of a more uniform beam profile, better photon recycling4
at 6 months after 3 treatments than the LightSheer Duet and compression with contact cooling providing more
with an average 64% hair reduction for Vectus com- energy to the hair follicles without decreasing skin safety.
pared to 46% for the Duet. The difference in hair reduc-
tion was statistically significant (18% ± 16%, p=0.01, For fixed fluence, energy reaching a target at depth in-
n=8 paired T-test). All eight subjects had a higher per- creases with the area of the device in part due to scat-
centage of hair reduction for Vectus (Fig 2). The baseline ter and due to greater energy delivered into the skin. An
and 6 month follow-up hair count photos for subject LG3 additional increase is also realized with photon recycling
are shown in Fig 3. The average hair reduction for the that depends on internal design and also on the area of
Vectus large and small optics was equivalent, 65% and the device. Reflection from the internal surfaces of the
64%, respectively even though the average treatment flu- device will send more captured light back into the skin.
ence was 11 J/cm2 compared to 26 J/cm2 (Table 2). The In turn, the percentage of light captured by the device is
large and small optics of the Duet similarly had equiva- also increased with area. A portion of the light reflected
lent hair reduction 48% and 44%, respectively, with 12 J/ back from the skin escapes beyond the edge of the de-
cm2 and 29 J/cm2 average treatment fluence. There was vice’s optic within a distance that is independent of the
no difference in discomfort ratings between the devices. optic size and is only determined by skin’s optical proper-
ties. This reflected light is lost to recycling. The fraction
of the total light that is collected by the optic and recy-
cled back into the skin therefore increases with optic size.

The above considerations explain why similar efficacy

is observed with the large and small optics despite over
50% less treatment fluences (11 vs 26 J/cm2 for Vectus™
and 12 vs 29 J/cm2 for LightSheer Duet, respectively).
The decrease in a device’s fluence can be compensated
for by increase in area and photon recycling. Design dif-
ferences between the two systems contribute to the ob-
served performance differences: The special internal gold-
mirror design provides the Vectus™ Large Tip with more
efficient recycling leading to improvement in efficacy and
a more uniform beam profile in both optics increases the
effective spot sizes to nearly the actual window sizes.
This leads to minimal overlapping requirements (about
10%) and faster, safer treatment. In addition, a contact
device can compress the skin to decrease tissue scat-
ter and bring the deep targets closer to the skin surface.

An interesting observation in both systems is that large

optic treatments cause less perifollicular edema and ery-
thema, but similar efficacy compared with the correspond-
ing small optic treatments. Similar conclusions were pre-
sented in a histology study5. Note that injury to the tissue
DISCUSSION surrounding the superficial portion of the follicle, e.g., the
The split-body comparison of laser hair removal on the ax- infundibular epidermis and possibly the isthmus, mani-
illa is an effective means to evaluate differences between fests itself as perifollicular erythema and edema. The flu-
devices or settings. Both devices were tested using their ence in the superficial layer of the skin is apparently less
max power setting modes that deliver the selected fluence for the large than for the small optic. In spite of this, the
in the shortest available pulse width. The 40% greater re- similar efficacy suggests that effective injury profiles are
duction observed with the Vectus compared to the Light- provided to the deeper targets by both tip sizes. Since the
Sheer Duet was statistically significant. The 48% hair re- study design treated to tolerable fluences in both optics, it
duction for the LightSheer Duet large optic is similar to the is not known if the small optic fluences would have been
54 ± 24% reported 6 months after 3 treatments on the axil- as effective at lower levels although such a result is not
la in the Ibrahami study3 and suggests that settings used in expected. As discussed above, this desirable feature may
this study were appropriate. The higher efficacy observed be explained as follows: A larger optic provides more en-
with the Vectus™ is a consequence of the combination ergy to the deeper targets without adding as much energy

3
to the epidermis and superficial hair structures. However,
increasing area increases the energy required from the
REFERENCES
device. Approximately 2.6 times more energy is required
from the large versus small optic to compensate for ap- 1. Dierckx C. Hair Removal by Lasers and Intense Pulsed
proximately 6 times increase in area. The well-known rule Light Sources. Dermatol Clin 20(1):135-146, 2002.
that a 1 cm2 beam area is optimum for heating a target
located a few millimeters deep in human skin is applica- 2. Childs J, et al. Optimization of a Laser Diode for Per-
ble when trying to minimize the device’s required energy manent Hair Reduction. Palomar Published Material.
output. Increasing the beam area, besides increasing area
of treatment and speed, continues to add more energy to 3. Ibrahimi, O, Kilmer W. Long-term Clinical Evaluation
the target with less increase in energy to the epidermis. of a 800-nm Long-Pulsed Diode Laser with a Large
Spot Size and Vacuum-Assisted Suction for Hair

 
The above considerations suggest that the current clinical Removal. Derm Surg 38: 912-917, 2012.
end-points for laser-based hair reduction treatments may not
be necessary with the new generation of very large optics. 4. Yaroslavsky I, Altshuler G, Yaroslavsky A, Pankratov
M, Stoll M, Manstein D, Anderson R. Photon Recycling
as a Means of Increasing Efficacy and Safety of Flash-
SUMMARY lamp Systems. Lasers in Surg Med 2003 (Abstract).
In a split-body direct comparison on laser hair removal
the 65% hair reduction observed with Vectus™ was 40% 5. Xia, Y, Moore, R, Cho, S, Ross, EV. Evaluation of the
greater than the 46% hair reduction observed with the vacuum-assisted handpiece compared with the sap-
Duet. The large and small optics were found to be equally phire-cooled handpiece of the 800-nm diode laser
effective even though the large optic used fluence settings system for the use of hair removal and reduction. J.
that were over 50% lower and had reduced perifollicular Cosmet. And Laser Therapy, 2010; 12: 264-268.
skin reactions. The higher efficacy observed with the Vec-
tus™ suggests that the combination of higher peak power,
larger spot sizes, higher efficiency photon recycling and
skin compression provides more effective energy to the
hair follicles. At the same time, a uniform beam profile in
combination with contact cooling and implementation of
the Skintel Melanin reader with starting test dose range
algorithm are safety features which helps protect the skin.