You Can Smooth or Zap but Will the Results Hit Home?

By MELENA RYZIK
Published: June 14, 2007

IN pursuit of a glowing, smooth, youthful complexion, Ann Runnels, 44, has tried Botox, microdermabrasion, injectable fillers, Fraxel lasers (a treatment said to stimulate cell growth) and the usual array of creams, ointments and $120-a-bottle serums.
“My father was an oilman and cattle rancher and I spent my whole life out in the sun,” said Ms. Runnels, who lives in Kyle, Tex., and works at home helping her husband with his real estate business. “Now I’m seeing fine lines show up, and I try to be proactive about it.”
So when she read a rave review of an odd-looking mallet-like device called a Baby Quasar on a skin-care message board last year, Ms. Runnels thought, well, it couldn’t hurt. She ordered the light-emitting gadget, affectionately called a Baby Q by its devotees. It cost $399, but she was impressed with its sturdy packaging and was eager to see the results. “I used it immediately,” she said.
As quickly as the next morning, she said, “my skin looked plumper.” She was so pleased that a few months later she upgraded to the full-size Quasar, a more powerful professional machine that costs $1,800.
Though the fight against wrinkles long ago went high tech (and high cost), it is only recently that technologies such as pulsing heat, L.E.D.s and electrical currents have become safe and easy enough for consumers to use on themselves. Years after women first started recreating professional treatments with at-home spa days, a growing array of devices have migrated from the aesthetician’s office to the bathroom, where they now compete with topical solutions, medications and other prescribed remedies to combat aging.
Though it is hard to say exactly how many of these products exist, new ones seem to arrive daily: the HairMax LaserComb, for “thicker, fuller, healthier looking hair”; the DermaVie, for microdermabrasion; the Crystalift, a vacuum, to “resurface” the skin. That they often cost hundreds or even thousands of dollars is little deterrent to people for whom youth is priceless — or at least financially attainable.
“If you do the math, a spa session or a clinic session would probably cost $100 for a cosmetic treatment, whereas if you do this for five minutes a day, it has the same results,” said Donna Regii, a manager at Bliss, the spa chain. The company stocks NuFace, which emits microelectrocurrents and at $450 is a top seller.
But as an increasing number of devices fill up electrical outlets, many dermatologists question their efficacy, if not their safety.
“One of the major issues with these home-use devices is they promise more than they can deliver,” said Dr. Arielle Kauvar, a dermatologist and associate professor at New York University School of Medicine who specializes in laser-assisted treatments. The claims they make — that skin will be tightened or fine lines and wrinkles minimized — are largely cosmetic, so the manufacturers do not need approval by the Food and Drug Administration, only clearance, said Dr. Kauvar, which is easier to get.
A manufacturer that claims scientific proof of its product’s effectiveness is probably using the term loosely. For example, the makers of the RejuvaWand, an L.E.D.-based massaging tool said to “reverse the signs of aging” that came on the market in February, promote their two-month clinical trial. But the trial involved only 36 women, with no controls. Of the 36 women, 31 reported their skin had improved, said Marc Maisel, a company founder. The participants used a gel with hyaluronic acid, which also can plump skin, Dr. Kauvar said.
NuFace, too, advertises its scientific appeal. Based loosely on a procedure used to treat Bell’s palsy, the hand-held device emits electrical microcurrents meant to stimulate muscles, which the makers claim tightens the skin. But it hurts. So does the ThermaClear, a heat pulsing tool for combating acne. Applied to the skin, it emits a hot zap, enough to make you recoil. NuFace stings. Except for the eye-crossing bright light it emits, RejuvaWand is not painful, though it does carry an explicit warning not to look into the beam, even when it is off.
Once customers are buzzing or zapping in their own rooms, it is hard to say what they are doing. NuFace is recommended for use only once a day, and is not for pregnant women or people with pacemakers or subject to seizures.
Nevertheless, the company is besieged with questions from customers about increasing the frequency. “They think if one time’s good, then twice is even better and three times is even better than that,” said Tera N. Valdez, the vice president for sales and marketing for Skin Star Inc., NuFace’s manufacturer. “It is really important not to overstimulate the muscles.” (Prolonged use could cause the muscles to atrophy, she said, though the likelihood is “very slim.”)
Alternately, the devices can be too targeted. ThermaClear specifies that it be used on mild or moderate acne only; no blackheads, whiteheads or hard pustules. Using it in combination with prescription treatments or on sensitive skin is discouraged and best results are achieved if the pimple is zapped right away.
How many treatable pimples does that add up to? Not many, Dr. Kauvar said: “What these devices can do is get rid of an individual pimple a little faster, but you’re doing nothing to prevent further pimples. If that’s your goal, there’s certainly nothing wrong with that.”
But, she added, “if someone is zapping something that they think is a pimple but it really isn’t, or they’re spreading an infection around the face, they can get into trouble.”
Safety is generally not the issue; price and efficacy are: NuFace costs $450, RejuvaWand $199.95 and ThermaClear $149.99.
“I don’t think people are going to hurt themselves,” said Dr. William P. Coleman, clinical professor of dermatology and adjunct professor of plastic surgery at Tulane University School of Medicine. “I think they’re much more likely to waste their money.”
He added: “When I read these claims, none of them are based on true science, none of them are based on articles in peer-reviewed journals. They’re all based on a kernel of science, and extrapolating that to the advertisers’ benefit.”
For example, the name of the Baby Quasar suggests that it is a laser, a clinically-proven treatment; in fact it is a high-powered L.E.D. like the kind found in a remote control, Dr. Coleman said. RejuvaWand also uses L.E.D.s. Likewise, the marketing materials for ThermaClear draw parallels to lasers, though it is essentially a heating element.
Heat does help decrease pimples. But, Dr. Coleman said, “I still don’t know whether using warm water or a Q-tip that’s been warmed up” is any less effective. Microcurrents and lasers approved for home use are likely to be too weak to do anything, he added.
The Baby Q was not even intended for home use, its manufacturer said. But last fall a few people bought the Baby Q and posted glowing comments on message boards. The company’s sales went from a handful every few months to the thousands, said Alex Webster, director of sales at AdvanThera, which makes the device.
Ms. Runnels eventually returned the $1,800 Quasar, which she found too painful. “It just got so hot,” she said, “I couldn’t even put my hand to it. It made my rosacea worse and my skin drier.”
She exchanged it for her old Baby Q, which she uses in combination with her vitamin C and olive oil serums, Restylane fillers and occasional Botox. “It’s not like a miracle worker,” she said. “You can’t really say what it does.”

Fonte: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/14/fashion/14skin.html?pagewanted=2&ref=health - 14/06/07