Lasers in medical science · 2026
Patient-reported outcomes of laser hair removal for hidradenitis suppurativa: an exploratory cross-sectional survey.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Bosch Leandro, Yang Lynna, Flood Kelsey Shannon, Riley Julia Mhlaba
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a chronic, debilitating skin disease often requiring multimodal therapy. Laser hair removal (LHR) is an emerging treatment option, yet patient-centered data is limited. This study aimed to assess patient perspectives on the effectiveness, safety, motivations, and barriers associated with LHR for HS.
METHODS: An anonymous cross-sectional online survey was administered via REDCap (July-December 2024) to adults with HS living in the United States. Respondents reported prior treatments, LHR parameters, outcomes, adverse effects, and barriers. Descriptive statistics were used.
RESULTS: Of 110 participants who completed the survey (110/132, 83%), 24 (22%) had used LHR and comprised the analytic cohort, with a median of 8 LHR sessions (IQR 6-12). Leading motivations included reducing inflammation (92%), relieving pain (75%), and seeking durable treatment (71%). Highest median improvements (score 4, IQR 4-5) were in lumps/abscesses, swelling, and flare frequency. Other symptoms, including pain, odor, and quality of life, also showed moderate improvement. Half reported benefits lasting over 12 months. While biologics were perceived as most effective (median 4.5, IQR 3.5-5), LHR received one of the highest median scores among non-biologic options (3.5, IQR 3-5). Barriers included cost, insurance limitations, and low awareness; 63% paid over $1,000, and 38% discontinued early. Common adverse effects included discomfort (71%) and transient erythema (46%).
CONCLUSION: Most patients perceived LHR as beneficial for HS, but affordability and awareness remain barriers. Findings highlight the need for payer advocacy and additional trials defining LHR's role in HS management.
METHODS: An anonymous cross-sectional online survey was administered via REDCap (July-December 2024) to adults with HS living in the United States. Respondents reported prior treatments, LHR parameters, outcomes, adverse effects, and barriers. Descriptive statistics were used.
RESULTS: Of 110 participants who completed the survey (110/132, 83%), 24 (22%) had used LHR and comprised the analytic cohort, with a median of 8 LHR sessions (IQR 6-12). Leading motivations included reducing inflammation (92%), relieving pain (75%), and seeking durable treatment (71%). Highest median improvements (score 4, IQR 4-5) were in lumps/abscesses, swelling, and flare frequency. Other symptoms, including pain, odor, and quality of life, also showed moderate improvement. Half reported benefits lasting over 12 months. While biologics were perceived as most effective (median 4.5, IQR 3.5-5), LHR received one of the highest median scores among non-biologic options (3.5, IQR 3-5). Barriers included cost, insurance limitations, and low awareness; 63% paid over $1,000, and 38% discontinued early. Common adverse effects included discomfort (71%) and transient erythema (46%).
CONCLUSION: Most patients perceived LHR as beneficial for HS, but affordability and awareness remain barriers. Findings highlight the need for payer advocacy and additional trials defining LHR's role in HS management.