Seoul
Chief MD, Gangnam
Duk-ha Kim
The trust our patients have placed in this clinic was built on conviction and principle. We intend to hold to both, unchanged, through the next hundred years.
Hair removal planning guide
Laser Hair Removal (Women)
A laser hair removal plan is built around pigment, skin tone and a measurement date rather than around a device name. The dermatology literature describes the target as melanin in the hair, absorbing light across roughly 300 to 1200 nm, and separates the wavelengths by the skin tones they are described as appropriate for: 1064 nm Nd:YAG penetrates more deeply with less epidermal damage and relatively less melanin absorption across Fitzpatrick I to VI, an 810 nm diode is described as relatively safe in darker skin across types I to V, and 755 nm is absorbed strongly enough by melanin that it is directed mainly at lighter skin. The same literature states that the procedure provides permanent hair reduction rather than removal, and regulatory wording defines that reduction as a long term, stable reduction in the number of hairs re-growing measured at 6, 9 and 12 months after a completed treatment regimen. A Cochrane review of 11 randomised trials and 444 participants, mostly followed to six months, reports a short-term effect of approximately 50% hair reduction with alexandrite and diode lasers up to six months and states that long-term hair removal was not documented with any treatment.
- What the light targets
- Melanin in the hair, which absorbs light across roughly 300 to 1200 nm
- What ‘permanent’ means in the regulatory wording
- A long term, stable reduction in the number of hairs re-growing, measured at 6, 9 and 12 months after a completed treatment regimen
- How far the trial evidence reaches
- 11 randomised trials, 444 participants, most followed to six months; approximately 50% hair reduction with alexandrite and diode lasers up to six months, with long-term hair removal not documented for any treatment
- Paradoxical hypertrichosis by sex in one review
- Reported in 9.0% of 255 women against 33.3% of 63 men in a retrospective chart review of 318 people (p<0.05)
What is a hair removal course actually aimed at?
At the pigment inside the hair. The dermatology reference describes the chromophore for laser hair removal as melanin in the hair, which absorbs light across roughly 300 to 1200 nm — the band that the wavelengths in clinical use sit inside. Two consequences run through every later decision on this page. The first is that the light does not distinguish hair from skin by shape or by position; it is absorbed by pigment, so the pigment in the skin surrounding the hair matters as much as the pigment in the hair itself. That contrast is why skin tone and hair colour appear in every planning question rather than only in a safety footnote. The second is that the amount of pigment available to absorb the light is a property of your hair, not of the equipment, which is why two people booking the identical area can end up with different wavelengths, different settings and a differently shaped course. A plan built only around a device name has left out the part of the problem that varies most between patients.
What does ‘permanent’ mean once it is written down as a definition?
It means a count of regrowing hairs at fixed dates, not the absence of hair. The regulatory wording spells the definition out: permanent reduction in hair regrowth defined as a long term, stable reduction in the number of hairs re-growing when measured at 6, 9 and 12 months after the completion of a treatment regimen. Read that sentence slowly, because three planning rules fall straight out of it. It counts hairs, so the endpoint is fewer hairs rather than none. It measures after a completed regimen, so a course cannot be judged from how the skin looks a fortnight after the first session. And it names three separate dates, which means the question is whether the reduction holds, not whether it appeared. The dermatology literature states the same point in plain words: the procedure provides permanent hair reduction rather than removal. A course that performs exactly as the definition describes still leaves hair in the treated area — fewer of them, counted at 6, 9 and 12 months.
Sources: FDA 510(k) K222064 summary — permanent hair reduction definitionStatPearls — Laser hair removal (NCBI Bookshelf)
Which wavelength does the literature describe for which skin tone?
The three wavelengths in common use are separated by how much the epidermis absorbs on the way to the hair. A 1064 nm Nd:YAG is described as penetrating more deeply with less epidermal damage and relatively less melanin absorption, which is the basis for its use across Fitzpatrick types I to VI and on deeply pigmented skin. An 810 nm diode is described as relatively safe in darker skin, covering types I to V. A 755 nm alexandrite sits at the other end: melanin absorbs it strongly, which is why it is directed mainly at lighter skin tones. Notice what those sentences are and are not. They describe where each wavelength is considered appropriate and how the epidermis fares — they are not a ranking of how much hair each one removes, and none of the sources cited here publishes such a ranking. So the consultation question is not which wavelength is best in the abstract; it is which wavelength the clinic proposes for your Fitzpatrick type, and why that one.
How far do hair colour and thickness decide what a plan can aim at?
They decide whether there is a target at all. Because the chromophore is melanin in the hair, the light needs pigment to absorb; hair that carries little or no melanin — white, grey or blond hair — gives it little to act on, and no source cited on this page documents an effect on non-pigmented hair. That is a limit of the material cited here rather than a claim about your particular hair, and it is worth raising directly at consultation if part of the area you want treated has gone white or is fair and fine. Two further cautions belong here. The sources cited on this page do not quantify how hair colour or calibre changes the size of the result, so any percentage attached to a specific hair type in a sales conversation is not coming from this material. And a single area is rarely uniform: hair colour, coarseness and density can differ across one region of the body, which is one of the reasons a plan is written per area rather than as a single global promise.
How is a course put together area by area?
By fixing, separately for each area, the small set of variables the sources actually identify. Those are the skin tone the light will meet in that area and therefore the wavelength chosen for it; how much pigment the hair growing there carries; how many sessions the regimen contains and at what interval; and the date on which the outcome will be counted, given that the permanence definition is measured at 6, 9 and 12 months after a completed regimen. Everything else on a menu is packaging around those four. It is equally important to say what is missing: none of the sources cited on this page publishes an area-by-area protocol, a per-area session count or a per-area success rate, so where a menu presents one, the right question is what it is based on. As general pre-procedure information rather than a finding of the cited studies, areas differ in how much sun they see, and the skin tone the light meets on the day is the one that matters — which is why an exposed area and a covered one are worth discussing as two plans rather than one.
Sources: StatPearls — Laser hair removal (NCBI Bookshelf)FDA 510(k) K222064 summary — permanent hair reduction definition
How far does the published evidence actually reach?
To about six months, and it is important to know that before a longer promise is made to you. The Cochrane review of 11 randomised trials and 444 participants, in which most participants were followed only to six months after the final treatment, reports a short-term effect of approximately 50% hair reduction with alexandrite and diode lasers up to six months, and states that long-term hair removal was not documented with any treatment. Now set that beside the regulatory definition, which asks for a stable reduction measured at 6, 9 and 12 months after a completed regimen. The horizon the definition asks about is longer than the horizon most of the pooled trials reported, which is exactly why the two sentences have to be quoted together rather than one at a time. Neither source supports a claim that hair is gone for good, and the review’s own wording — long-term hair removal was not documented with any treatment — is the sentence most often left out of a sales conversation.
Sources: Cochrane review — laser and IPL for unwanted hair removalFDA 510(k) K222064 summary — permanent hair reduction definition
How should the number of sessions be decided?
Not from a standard figure, because none of the sources cited here publishes one. What they do establish is the shape of the thing: the regulatory definition is written about a treatment regimen, a course rather than a visit, and its measurements start only after that course is complete; the pooled trial effect is reported up to six months; and long-term hair removal was not documented with any treatment in that review. So a plan that offers a finished outcome from one appointment is not describing what these documents describe. The practical way to handle a quoted number of sessions is to treat it as a proposal to be explained rather than a fact to be accepted: ask how many sessions this quote covers, at what interval, what happens if hair is still regrowing when they are used up, whether re-assessment is included, and on what date the result will be counted. A clinic can reasonably have its own protocol; what it cannot do is present a session count as if a published standard required it.
Sources: Cochrane review — laser and IPL for unwanted hair removalFDA 510(k) K222064 summary — permanent hair reduction definitionStatPearls — Laser hair removal (NCBI Bookshelf)
How long does the effect last?
The regulatory definition on this page measures whether the reduction is stable at 6, 9 and 12 months after a completed regimen — so the question worth asking is not “how long does it last” but “does the hair count stay down at those checkpoints for this device on this skin type.” The Cochrane review’s own tracking mostly stopped at six months, reporting roughly 50% fewer hairs at that point, and it explicitly did not document a long-term result for any laser it pooled. Neither source gives one duration figure that applies to every person, because what holds a reduction in place is the same set of variables built earlier in this plan: wavelength matched to skin tone, a completed series rather than a single session, and hair’s staggered growth phases. At consultation, ask which of these two checkpoints — the six-month mark or the fuller 6, 9 and 12-month definition — your clinic is actually measuring against, and what a follow-up session looks like if the count creeps back up.
Sources: Cochrane review — laser and IPL for unwanted hair removalFDA 510(k) K222064 summary — permanent hair reduction definition
What complications are reported, and what does the record say about women in particular?
Common reactions, a smaller set of severe ones, and one rare paradoxical effect where the reported figures differ markedly between women and men. The dermatology reference lists erythema, pain and a burning sensation as common, with blistering, crusting, dyspigmentation, purpura and sometimes scarring among the severe complications; the Cochrane review records pain, erythema, oedema and pigment changes as adverse events across the trials it pooled. Paradoxical hypertrichosis — hair increasing rather than decreasing — is described as rare, and as more common with skin type III and with intense pulsed light. A 2025 retrospective chart review of 318 people (63 men, 255 women) treated with a 755 nm alexandrite and 1064 nm Nd:YAG system reported it in 9.0% of the women against 33.3% of the men (p<0.05), with extensive multi-site involvement in 1.6% of the women against 17.4% of the men. That is a retrospective review of one cohort on one manufacturer’s equipment, so the numbers describe the difference observed between those two groups rather than a rate for any particular machine or plan — but the direction of the difference is the part that concerns this page directly, and it does not make the effect impossible in women.
Sources: StatPearls — Laser hair removal (NCBI Bookshelf)Cochrane review — laser and IPL for unwanted hair removalMoriguchi S, J Cosmet Dermatol 2025;24(5):e70194 — paradoxical hypertrichosis
What has to be settled before the first session?
Your Fitzpatrick type, the wavelength chosen for it, and a written plan with a date on it. Those follow from the sources: the wavelength literature keys off skin type, and the permanence wording is only meaningful if someone has agreed when the counting happens. Ask for the wavelength in writing, the number of sessions and the interval, and the assessment point. The remainder of this section is general pre-procedure information rather than a finding of the cited studies. Tell the clinic about recent sun exposure or tanning, recent waxing, plucking or electrolysis in the area, photosensitising medication, a history of hyperpigmentation, keloids or other pigment change, pregnancy or breastfeeding, active infection or inflamed skin where you want treatment, and any tattoos or pigmented lesions inside the area. Each of those touches something the sources do cover — pigment in the skin, pigment in the hair, or the severe complications listed above — which is why they belong in the conversation before the first pulse rather than after a reaction.
Sources: StatPearls — Laser hair removal (NCBI Bookshelf)FDA 510(k) K222064 summary — permanent hair reduction definition
What should you ask before agreeing to a course?
Five questions cover most of what can go wrong in the booking rather than in the treatment. Which wavelength will be used on each area, and what is that choice based on for my skin type? How many sessions does this cover, at what interval, and what happens after them? What exactly is being promised — reduction counted how, and on what date? What are the reactions I should expect, and which ones mean I should call? And who will operate the equipment. The rest is general safety guidance rather than a finding of the cited studies: contact the clinic promptly for blistering, crusting, a suspected burn, pain that increases instead of settling, spreading redness or warmth, new darkening or lightening of the treated skin, or hair that increases in or around the treated area. Seek emergency care for difficulty breathing or sudden swelling of the lips, mouth, tongue or throat.
Sources: StatPearls — Laser hair removal (NCBI Bookshelf)Moriguchi S, J Cosmet Dermatol 2025;24(5):e70194 — paradoxical hypertrichosis
Which variables set the plan, and which ones do the sources leave open?
The table sorts the planning conversation into what the cited sources actually state, how each item enters a plan, and what none of them establishes. Nothing here ranks devices or predicts an outcome, and the last column is the part worth reading before a quote is signed.
| Planning variable | What the cited sources state | How it enters the plan | What no source here establishes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Skin tone (Fitzpatrick I–VI) | 1064 nm Nd:YAG penetrates more deeply with less epidermal damage and relatively less melanin absorption, across types I to VI; an 810 nm diode is described as relatively safe in darker skin, types I to V; 755 nm is strongly absorbed by melanin and is directed mainly at lighter skin | Sets which wavelength is proposed for each area and why | Any ranking of how much hair each wavelength removes, or a numeric outcome by skin tone |
| Hair colour and calibre | The chromophore is melanin in the hair, absorbing light across roughly 300 to 1200 nm | Decides whether the light has pigment to act on in the area being planned; raise fair, white or grey hair at consultation | Any documented effect on non-pigmented hair, and any figure tying a result to a particular hair colour or thickness |
| The area itself | No source cited here publishes an area-by-area protocol, session count or success rate | Each area is planned separately, because skin tone and hair pigment differ across the body | Per-area session counts and per-area success rates — where a menu shows one, ask what it is based on |
| Number of sessions and interval | The regulatory definition is written about a completed treatment regimen; the pooled trials report an effect up to six months | A course with a stated interval, not a single visit; ask what happens when the quoted sessions are used up | A standard number of sessions — none of these sources names one |
| How the outcome is judged | A long term, stable reduction in the number of hairs re-growing, measured at 6, 9 and 12 months after a completed regimen; the procedure provides permanent hair reduction rather than removal | Fix the assessment date in writing before starting, not after the last session | That hair is permanently gone; the Cochrane review states long-term hair removal was not documented with any treatment |
| Risk profile | Common: erythema, pain, burning sensation. Severe: blistering, crusting, dyspigmentation, purpura, sometimes scarring. Pooled trials also record oedema and pigment changes. Rare: paradoxical hypertrichosis, more common with skin type III and with intense pulsed light; one retrospective review of 318 people reported 9.0% in women against 33.3% in men (p<0.05) | Shapes what you disclose beforehand and what you watch for afterwards | A complication rate for any specific machine, protocol or clinic — the retrospective review describes one cohort on one manufacturer’s equipment |
Reduction is not removal: the regulatory definition counts hairs that regrow at 6, 9 and 12 months after a completed regimen, and the Cochrane review states that long-term hair removal was not documented with any treatment. No source cited here names a standard number of sessions, documents an effect on white, grey or blond hair, or publishes a per-area protocol.
Sources: StatPearls — Laser hair removal (NCBI Bookshelf)Cochrane review — laser and IPL for unwanted hair removalFDA 510(k) K222064 summary — permanent hair reduction definitionMoriguchi S, J Cosmet Dermatol 2025;24(5):e70194 — paradoxical hypertrichosis
Medical care at Abijou
Care is provided by the medical team at the branch you select. These clinicians lead the three branches linked from this guide; confirm the doctor assigned to your visit with that branch.
Chief MD, Myeongdong
Cheol-su Yoon
I want to be thinking about how the patient feels right up to the last moment of the procedure.
Chief MD, Hongdae
Jae-wook Kim
I will give my best with the attentiveness to catch even the smallest change.
Listed branch medical team — not a medical-review byline for this article.
Frequently asked questions
My course has finished and hair is still coming through — was it supposed to be gone?
No, and the wording behind the treatment says so directly. What is defined is a long term, stable reduction in the number of hairs re-growing, measured at 6, 9 and 12 months after the completion of a treatment regimen — a smaller count of hairs, assessed at three dates after the course ends, rather than bare skin at the end of the last appointment. The dermatology literature puts it the same way: the procedure provides permanent hair reduction rather than removal. So regrowth after a finished course is not automatically a failure of the plan; what tells you whether the plan worked is a comparison against those dates. If nobody agreed when the counting would happen, that is the gap to close first, because without a date there is nothing to judge against.
A quote mentions approximately 50% reduction. Fifty percent of what, and for how long?
Of the hair count, and in the pooled trials, for up to six months. The figure comes from a Cochrane review of 11 randomised trials with 444 participants, in which most participants were followed only to six months after the final treatment; it reports a short-term effect of approximately 50% hair reduction with alexandrite and diode lasers up to six months. Two limits travel with the number. It is a short-term figure from pooled trials, not a promise for your area or your hair. And the same review states that long-term hair removal was not documented with any treatment, which is the sentence that gives the percentage its shelf life. If a quote reuses the percentage without the six-month horizon attached, the horizon is the part to ask about.
Why does the light seem to find some hairs and miss others in the same patch of skin?
Because it is absorbed by pigment, and pigment is not uniform. The dermatology reference identifies the chromophore as melanin in the hair, absorbing across roughly 300 to 1200 nm, so hairs in the same area that differ in how much melanin they carry do not present the same target. Hair that is white, grey or blond carries little pigment, and no source cited on this page documents an effect on non-pigmented hair. Beyond that absorption none of the material cited here publishes a mechanism, so an explanation that goes further — about follicles, cycles or anything else — is not coming from these sources. If part of an area has gone fair or white, it is better treated as a separate conversation than folded into a package price.
Laser or IPL — which should a course be built on?
The sources treat them as two different technologies and do not hand down a winner, but they do say different things about each. The Cochrane review pools laser systems and intense pulsed light sources together, yet the short-term figure it reports — approximately 50% hair reduction up to six months — is attributed specifically to alexandrite and diode lasers, and its closing statement covers both: long-term hair removal was not documented with any treatment. The dermatology reference adds one asymmetry worth knowing: paradoxical hypertrichosis is rare overall but reported as more common with intense pulsed light and with skin type III. Practically, that means an IPL quote and a laser quote are not like-for-like, and the comparison to make is not price per session but which technology, which wavelength and which assessment date each one is offering.
1064, 810 or 755 nm — which one fits my skin tone?
The literature assigns them by how the epidermis fares rather than by how much hair each removes. A 1064 nm Nd:YAG is described as penetrating more deeply with less epidermal damage and relatively less melanin absorption, used across Fitzpatrick I to VI including deeply pigmented skin. An 810 nm diode is described as relatively safe in darker skin, covering types I to V. A 755 nm alexandrite is absorbed strongly by melanin and is directed mainly at lighter skin tones. None of that ranks the three for effectiveness, and no source cited here publishes such a ranking, so a clinic that recommends one should be able to name your Fitzpatrick type and connect it to the choice. Recent tanning belongs in the same conversation as general pre-procedure information, because the tone the light meets on the day is the one that counts.
One clinic advertises hair removal and another hair reduction — what is the difference in what I actually get?
The difference is what gets counted at the end, and only one of the two has a definition behind it. Reduction is defined as a long term, stable reduction in the number of hairs re-growing, measured at 6, 9 and 12 months after a completed regimen. Removal implies nothing grows back, and the dermatology literature states that the procedure provides permanent hair reduction rather than removal, while the Cochrane review of 11 randomised trials found that long-term hair removal was not documented with any treatment. So a course sold as removal is not offering a different technology from one sold as reduction; it is describing the same thing with a word the evidence does not support. Ask what will be counted, and when — that question makes both offers comparable.
Does it hurt more in some areas than others, and what did the studies record?
None of the sources cited here ranks body areas by discomfort, so anyone who tells you an area is the painful one is not quoting this material. What the sources record is the reaction list. The dermatology reference names erythema, pain and a burning sensation as common; the Cochrane review lists pain, erythema, oedema and pigment changes among the adverse events across the trials it pooled. Pain is therefore expected rather than a sign that something has gone wrong, while the severe end of the list — blistering, crusting, dyspigmentation, purpura and sometimes scarring — is what turns discomfort into a reason to call. Because comfort depends on settings as much as on the area, it is a question for the clinic treating you, with your skin type in front of them.
How long between sessions, and what does the gap look like day to day?
No source cited on this page publishes a recovery timetable or a required interval, so both come from the clinic treating you rather than from this material. What the sources fix is the frame around the gaps: the regulatory definition is written about a completed treatment regimen and measures at 6, 9 and 12 months afterwards, and the pooled trials report their effect up to six months, so the calendar that matters extends well past the last appointment. As general post-procedure guidance rather than a finding of the cited studies, ask how long sun protection is expected, what to avoid in the treated area, and how to reach the clinic if you are travelling. Contact them promptly for blistering, crusting, a suspected burn, pain that increases instead of settling, spreading redness or warmth, or new darkening or lightening of the treated skin.
How many sessions should I budget for?
None of the sources cited here names a standard number, and that absence is itself useful when comparing offers. The regulatory definition speaks of a treatment regimen and starts measuring only after it is complete; the Cochrane review reports the pooled effect up to six months and states that long-term hair removal was not documented with any treatment. Between those two, what is established is that this is a course with an assessment afterwards, not that the course has a fixed length. So treat a quoted number as a proposal: ask what it is based on, what the interval is, what happens if hair still regrows once those sessions are used, whether re-assessment is included in the price and when the count will be taken. A quoted number is not wrong for being a clinic protocol — it is wrong only if presented as a published standard.
Which reactions are expected, and which ones mean I should call the clinic?
Expected, in the sources: erythema, pain and a burning sensation, with oedema and pigment changes also recorded among the adverse events in the pooled trials. Flagged as severe: blistering, crusting, dyspigmentation, purpura and sometimes scarring. The dividing line in practice is whether a reaction settles or intensifies. The following is general safety guidance rather than a finding of the cited studies — call the clinic promptly for blisters or crusting, a burn you did not expect, pain that increases instead of fading, spreading redness or warmth, skin that darkens or lightens in the treated area, or hair that increases in or near it, since paradoxical hypertrichosis is described as a rare but real outcome. Seek emergency care for difficulty breathing or sudden swelling of the lips, mouth, tongue or throat.
I have had pigmentation problems before — what does that change, and what else should I disclose?
It moves pigment to the centre of the planning conversation, because pigment is both the target and the risk. Dyspigmentation appears among the severe complications in the dermatology reference, and skin tone already determines which wavelength is described as appropriate — 1064 nm across types I to VI, 810 nm across I to V, 755 nm mainly for lighter skin. This page publishes no verified contraindication list from the sources cited, so suitability is decided in person rather than online. As general pre-procedure information rather than a finding of these studies, tell the clinic about a history of hyperpigmentation or keloids, recent sun exposure or tanning, recent waxing, plucking or electrolysis, photosensitising medication, pregnancy or breastfeeding, active infection or inflamed skin in the area, and tattoos or pigmented lesions inside it.
The word permanent appears in official wording. What does that wording actually authorise?
It authorises a claim with a definition attached, not an outcome. The wording reads: permanent reduction in hair regrowth defined as a long term, stable reduction in the number of hairs re-growing when measured at 6, 9 and 12 months after the completion of a treatment regimen. So the permitted claim is about a measured count at named dates after a finished course — anything phrased as hair never returning is outside that definition. Two further limits are worth holding on to. A regulatory record describes what a claim may say, not how well a course will work on you, which is why the trial evidence sits beside it rather than inside it. And such a record applies only in the jurisdiction that issued it.
Two quotes for the same area differ a lot. How do I compare them honestly?
By lining up the contents before the amounts, because quotes for the same area are frequently not for the same plan. Confirm which technology is being used — a laser or intense pulsed light, since the Cochrane figure of approximately 50% up to six months is attributed to alexandrite and diode lasers — and then which wavelength, and why that one for your skin type. Confirm how the area is defined and how large it is, how many sessions are covered and at what interval, whether re-assessment after the course is included, when the outcome will be counted given that the definition measures at 6, 9 and 12 months, what happens if hair still regrows once the covered sessions run out, and who operates the equipment. Two offers that differ on any of those are different products, not different prices.
Who is this planning approach for — and what if my hair is white, grey or blond?
It suits someone who wants a hair count reduced over a course and is willing to have the assessment date written down before starting. It suits someone less well if the expectation is bare skin at the end of the last session, because the definition behind the treatment is a stable reduction in regrowing hairs at 6, 9 and 12 months and the Cochrane review found that long-term hair removal was not documented with any treatment. On fair hair the honest answer is a limit rather than a promise: the target is melanin in the hair, and no source cited on this page documents an effect on non-pigmented hair. If part of the area has gone white or grey, raise it at the consultation and ask what is being planned for that part specifically, rather than accepting a package that quietly includes it.
How Abijou works
We started in Gangnam in 2006 and the network now runs 17 branches across Korea. The line we work to is skin transformation woven into everyday life — care you can keep up with, rather than one dramatic change.
- Across the 17 branches in Seoul, Gyeonggi, Incheon and Busan: over 1,000 medical professionals and more than 350 certified medical devices
- Authentic products only, in appropriate amounts — the treatment is fitted to the condition, not to a package
- Prices are quoted from each branch’s published price list as it stands
Contact and location
- Phone
- 1544-0377
Free Consultation
Booking happens at the branch
There is no inquiry form on this page. Once you have picked a branch above, open that branch’s site or the official reservation center and choose a time yourself.
- No deposit and no online prepayment — everything is paid at the visit
- Per-treatment prices are published for each branch on the official reservation center
- English, Japanese and Chinese are supported alongside Korean