Comparison of Permanent Hair Removal Procedures before Gender-Affirming Vaginoplasty: Why We Should Consider Laser Hair Removal as a First-Line Treatment for Patients Who Meet Criteria.

INTRODUCTION

Permanent genital hair removal is required before gender-affirming vaginoplasty to prevent hair-related complications. No previous studies have directly compared the relative efficacy, costs, and patient experiences with laser hair removal (LHR) vs electrolysis treatments. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) oversight of medical devices is poorly understood and commonly misrepresented, adversely affecting patient care.

AIM

This study compares treatment outcomes of electrolysis and LHR for genital hair removal and investigates FDA regulation of electrolysis and LHR devices.

METHODS

Penile-inversion vaginoplasty and shallow-depth vaginoplasty patients completed surveys about their preoperative hair removal, including procedure type, number/frequency of sessions, cost, and discomfort. Publicly available FDA-review documents and databases were reviewed.

MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURE

Compared to electrolysis, LHR was associated with greater efficiency, decreased cost, decreased pain, and improved patient satisfaction.

RESULTS

Of 52 total (44 full-depth and 8 shallow-depth) vaginoplasty patients, 22 of 52 underwent electrolysis only, 15 of 52 underwent laser only, and 15 of 52 used both techniques. Compared to patients that underwent LHR only, patients that underwent only electrolysis required a significantly greater number of treatment sessions (mean 24.3 electrolysis vs 8.1 LHR sessions, P < .01) and more frequent sessions (every 2.4 weeks for electrolysis vs 5.3 weeks for LHR, P < .01) to complete treatment (defined as absence of re-growth over 2 months). Electrolysis sessions were significantly longer than LHR sessions (152 minutes vs 26 minutes, P < .01). Total treatment costs for electrolysis ($5,161) were significantly greater than for laser ($981, P < .01). Electrolysis was associated with greater pain and significantly increased need for pretreatment analgesia, which further contributed to higher net costs for treatment with electrolysis vs laser. Many LHR and electrolysis devices have been FDA-cleared for safety, but the FDA does not assess or compare clinical efficacy or efficiency.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

For patients with dark-pigmented hair, providers should consider LHR as the first-line treatment option for preoperative hair removal before gender-affirming vaginoplasty.

STRENGTH AND LIMITATIONS

This is the first study to compare electrolysis and LHR for genital hair removal. The discussion addresses FDA review/oversight of devices, which is commonly misrepresented. Limitations include the survey format for data collection.

CONCLUSION

When compared with electrolysis, LHR showed greater treatment efficiency (shorter and fewer treatment sessions to complete treatment), less pain, greater tolerability, and lower total cost. Our data suggests that, for patients with dark genital hair, providers should consider recommending laser as the first-line treatment for permanent genital hair removal before vaginoplasty. Yuan N, Feldman A, Chin P, et al. Comparison of Permanent Hair Removal Procedures before Gender-Affirming Vaginoplasty: Why We Should Consider Laser Hair Removal as a First-Line Treatment for Patients Who Meet Criteria. Sex Med 2022;10:100545.