Photobiostimulation Therapy (PBST) and Pulsed Electromagnetic Field Therapy (PEMF) in Hair Loss Treatment: Multicentric, Retrospective, Case-Control Study

Pietro Gentile; Soo-Ik Lee

doi:10.1007/s00266-024-04569-y

Photobiostimulation Therapy (PBST) and Pulsed Electromagnetic Field Therapy (PEMF) in Hair Loss Treatment: Multicentric, Retrospective, Case-Control Study

Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2024 Dec 4. doi: 10.1007/s00266-024-04569-y. Online ahead of print.

Authors

Pietro Gentile^{1

2}, Soo-Ik Lee³

Affiliations

¹ Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgical Science, ″Tor Vergata″ University, Via Montpellier 1, 0017300133, Rome, Italy. pietrogentile2004@libero.it.
² Academy of International Regenerative Medicine & Surgery Societies (AIRMESS), 1201, Geneva, Switzerland. pietrogentile2004@libero.it.
³ MODUMO Clinic, 8 Yangnyeong-gil, Jung-gu, Daegu, South Korea.

PMID: 39630190
DOI: 10.1007/s00266-024-04569-y

Abstract

Background: The combined use of micro-needling (MND), growth factors (GFs), and low-level light/laser therapy (LLLT), here identified as photobiostimulation therapy (PBST) and pulsed electromagnetic field therapy (PEMF), is a hair loss (HL) treatment that needs to be standardized as it seems to have promising effects on hair regrowth (HR-G).

Objectives: The study compared the clinical and instrumental results obtained in patients affected by androgenic alopecia (AGA) and HL related to COVID-19 treated using PEMF combined with PBST with those obtained by only PBST.

Methods: A multicentric, retrospective, observational, case-control study was conducted. Fifty-three patients were initially enrolled (30 males classified as stages I-III vertex by the Norwood-Hamilton scale, while 23 females classified in stages I-II by the Ludwig scale). Forty patients (20 females and 20 males) were analyzed after exclusion and inclusion criteria assessment. Twenty patients were treated with the combined use of PEMF and PBST (study group - SG) while 20 patients were treated with PBST (control group -CG). The HR-G was evaluated through photography, physician's, and patient's global assessment scales, in addition to standardized phototrichograms, during a short follow-up at T0-baseline, T1-16 weeks.

Results: The promising results in SG patients, represented by a hair count (HC) increase of 14 hairs/0.65 cm² at T1 after 16 weeks in the targeted area, compared with the baseline results (41 ± 2 hairs/0.65 cm2 at T1 versus 27 ± 2 hairs/0.65 cm² at baseline), were observed using computerized trichograms. There was a statistically significant difference in HR-G (p = 0.0325) compared with an HC increase of 11 ± 2 hairs/0.65 cm² in the CG.

Conclusions: The comparison between SG and CG indicated that PEMF combined with PBST was a more efficient strategy in HR-G in terms of HC improvement than PBST alone.

Level of evidence iii: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Keywords: Androgenetic alopecia; Hair loss; Low-level led therapy; Micro-needling; Plastic surgery; Pulsed electromagnetic field therapy; Regenerative plastic surgery.