PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
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.
摘要：
基于光的脱毛家庭设备发出强烈的脉冲光（IPL）或二极管激光。虽然美国食品和药物管理局在美国控制着它们，欧洲继续将它们归类为化妆品。新出现的问题是：如果没有保护的眼睛无意中暴露于光发射，该怎么办？或者，如果消费者试图克服保护性安全功能？我们通过搜索Medline进行了系统审查，中部,和谷歌学者数据库调查暴露于IPL脱毛后报告的眼部损伤。我们无法确定暴露于家庭设备后报告的任何病例；然而，共有20名患者被确定为虹膜萎缩，前房炎症,和/或暴露于办公室IPL或二极管光后的视网膜色素上皮损伤。40%的人在光照过程中没有使用任何防护眼镜。所报道的能量密度在20-24J/cm2的范围内。尽管在办公室设备后发现了眼部损伤，报告的流量在家庭设备的限制范围内。为此，制造商应在包装上提供有关眼部危害的明确说明，使用护目镜的重要性，和一个坚定的警告，不要克服接触传感器。家庭设备引起的眼部损伤仍然是一个问题，也许报道不足。
