Ocular Complications After Laser or Light-Based Therapy-Dangers Dermatologists Should Know

The role of photobiomodulation in accelerating bone repair

Bone repair is faced with obstacles such as slow repair rates and limited bone regeneration capacity. Delayed healing even nonunion could occur in bone defects, influencing the life quality of patients severely. Photobiomodulation (PBM) utilizes different light sources to derive beneficial therapeutic effects with the advantage of being non-invasive and painless, providing a promising strategy for accelerating bone repair. In this review, we summarize the parameters, mechanisms, and effects of PBM regulating bone repair, and further conclude the current clinical application of PBM devices in bone repair. The wavelength of 635-980 nm, the output power of 40-100 mW, and the energy density of less than 100 J/cm2 are the most commonly used parameters. New technologies, including needle systems and biocompatible and implantable optical fibers, offer references to realize an efficient and safe strategy for bone repair. Further research is required to establish the reliability of outcomes from in vivo and in vitro studies and to standardize clinical trial protocols.

Is It Possible for Light-Based Hair Removal Home Devices to Induce Ocular Damage? Systematic Review

Light-based hair removal home devices emit intense pulse light (IPL) or Diode laser. While the Food and Drug Administration controls them in the US, Europe continues to classify them as cosmetic products. Emerging concerns are: what if an unprotected eye is inadvertently exposed to light emission? Or if the consumer tries to overcome the protective safety features? We performed this systematic review by searching the Medline, CENTRAL, and Google Scholar databases to investigate the ocular damage reported after exposure to IPL for hair removal. We could not identify any case reported following exposure to home devices; however, a total of 20 patients were identified with iris atrophy, anterior chamber inflammation, and/or retinal pigment epithelium damage following exposure to office IPL or Diode lights. 40% were not using any protective eyewear during the light procedure. The reported fluences were in the range of 20-24 J/cm2. Although the ocular damage was identified following office devices, the reported fluences were within the home device's limits. For that, manufacturers should provide clear instructions on the package regarding the ocular hazards, the importance of using protective goggles, and a firm warning not to overcome the contact sensors. Home device-induced ocular damage is still a concern, perhaps under-reported.

Preventing Eye Injuries From Light and Laser-Based Dermatologic Procedures: A Practical Review

The light and laser-based devices used in cosmetic dermatology practice carry a risk of serious ocular injury if appropriate safety measures are not put in place. Currently there is a lack of enforced regulation around the use of these devices. This raises concerns for the handling of these devices by operators who may not have adequate training and qualifications. There is also no mandated reporting of adverse events, thus precluding determination of the true incidence of laser-induced ocular injuries. To decrease the risk of ocular and periocular laser-induced injuries, several practical measures can be implemented within the clinical setting. Scientific articles were identified by performing a literature review using terms relevant to laser eye safety and a narrative review was performed. This article explores several components of laser eye safety: patient screening and informed consent, clinical environment considerations, operator considerations, protective eyewear selection for operators and patients, when to use a corneal shield, how to place a corneal shield and what to do in the event of a suspected eye injury. It is our prerogative that a functional understanding of the scientific underpinnings of laser eye safety coupled with observance of published standards has the potential to reduce incidents.

Adverse Events of Light-Assisted Hair Removal: An Updated Review

BACKGROUND

With light-assisted hair removal becoming widely used, reports of adverse effects are increasing.

OBJECTIVE

To review all the reported optical incidents and cutaneous complications of laser or intense pulse light-assisted hair removal.

METHODS

A PubMed database systematic search was performed to identify studies reporting such adverse events before July 2022 using the Mesh terms "adverse effects" AND "hair removal" AND ("laser" OR "intense pulse light").

RESULTS

Altogether, 358 references were identified. After excluding duplicates, unrelated articles, guidelines, and conference abstracts, then adding references from studies bibliography, 104 publications were included. Ocular incidents consisted of anterior uveitis, iritis and iris atrophy, pupillary distortion, posterior synechiae, anterior chamber pigment, and cataracts in the anterior subcapsular region. Cutaneous complications consisted of pain, burns, folliculitis, leukotrichia, paradoxical hypertrichosis, pigmentary changes, changes in nevi, pili bigemini, herpes infection, hyperhidrosis, bromhidrosis, Fox-Fordyce disease, and frostbite from the cooling system. They were mostly correlated to skin type and body area as well as to light device and set parameters. Intense pulse light devices were found to be less painful than alexandrite laser, yet more painful than diode laser; Nd:YAG laser had the highest pain score.

CONCLUSION

Optical incidents can be systematically avoided. Cutaneous complications are usually related to professional errors and patient characteristics. Better knowledge of laser physics and adequate training of laser operators are key recommendations to avoid undesirable side effects. Safety recommendations help prevent most of the reported complications.

Thermal eye injuries from dermatologic laser treatments-an experimental study

In recent years, severe ocular complications after dermatological laser therapies have been reported. One hypothesis is thermal damage due to heating of the metal eye shields. The aim of the present study is to evaluate the safety of ocular metal eye shields during laser therapy of the periocular region. For the experimental study, porcine eyelids were exposed to continuously increasing laser energy and multiple pulses using a number of dermatologic laser systems. Temperature differences of the convex and concave surface of metal eye shields were constantly measured using a thermocouple. Maximum increase of the convex surface of shields was + 8.9 °C (± 0.1 °C) provided by the long-pulsed alexandrite laser (20-25-J/cm2 energy, 15-mm spot size, 20-ms pulse duration, 1 Hz). Present data indicate that metal eye shields provide sufficient thermal protection when clinically used laser parameters are applied. Other safety precautions continue to be essential to protect both the patient and the laser operator. These include the use of nonreflective metal eye shields, precise knowledge of laser physics, and a clear understanding of how they interact with ocular and periocular anatomy.