Treatment of trichiasis using an 810-nm diode laser: an efficacy study.

PURPOSE: To determine the efficacy of an 810-nm diode laser in the treatment of trichiasis. METHODS: Noncomparative interventional prospective study of 87 patients, providing 153 eyelids with darkly pigmented trichiatic eyelashes, treated with the 810-nm diode laser. The number of trichiatic eyelashes was counted before and after treatment. Patients were followed for 6 months with monthly examinations. RESULTS: Immediately after laser treatment, the average number of trichiatic eyelashes per patient was reduced from 3.50 (standard deviation, 4.20) to 0.40 (standard deviation, 1.0). Forty-one patients were followed for 3 or more months (minimum of 90 days; maximum, 443 days; standard deviation, 77.23 days). Among these patients, the average number of eyelashes per patient was reduced from 3.58 (standard deviation, 4.15) to 0.73 (standard deviation, 1.60). The paired t tests demonstrated a statistically significant difference between numbers of eyelashes before and after laser treatment irrespective of gender, age, or location of eyelashes. CONCLUSIONS: The 810-nm diode laser is an effective tool in treating trichiasis.

Retinal evaluation after 810 nm Dioderm laser removal of eyelashes.

BACKGROUND: When operating hair removal lasers on the face or in the periorbital region, even with an ocular shield in place, patients often report seeing "flashing lights" each time the laser is fired. This phenomenon suggests stimulation of retinal photoreceptors and raises laser safety issues. OBJECTIVE: To perform retinal electrophysiologic studies to evaluate the safety of hair removal lasers in the periorbital region. METHODS: Five patients with severe trichiasis secondary to trachoma were studied. The 810 nm Dioderm laser (Cynosure, Inc., Chelmsford, MA) was used to treat the eyelash follicles on the lower eyelid of each patient. Cox III metal eye shields (Oculo-Plastik, Inc., Montreal, Canada) were placed behind the eyelids of both eyes during the laser procedure. Prior to irradiation, a comprehensive ophthalmic evaluation including pupillary and slit-lamp examination, funduscopy, and full-field electroretinograms (ERGs) was performed. A comprehensive ophthalmic evaluation including ERG testing was repeated 30 minutes and 3-6 months after completion of treatment. An independent blinded assessor evaluated the ERG studies. Subjective reports of laser light sensation, pain, and discomfort during and after the laser procedure were also assessed. RESULTS: There was no detectable change in slit-lamp, pupillary, or funduscopic evaluations after periorbital laser irradiation. Similarly the pre- and posttreatment ERGs were unchanged. Three patients reported seeing flashing lights during the procedure. CONCLUSION: We found no ERG evidence of retinal damage after laser hair removal in the periorbital region, with Cox III-type ocular shields over the eyes, even when patients subjectively reported "flashing lights" during laser irradiation.