Our IRPL® innovation

IPL technology offers numerous advantages over laser treatment, using less energy for the same clinical results. Patient safety is thus considerably enhanced. On the other hand, there have been few overall advances in IPL technology over the past 15 years. One of the major shortcomings is the absence of regularity and uniformity of the light emitted in flash treatment, resulting in a lack of control of the thermal impact upon the target area. The results achieved, although correct in the majority of cases, are not ideal.

IRPL® technology developed by E-Swin’s engineers brings an entirely new dimension to conventional IPL: “regulation”. Regulated flash technology enables the instantaneous luminous power output to remain constant throughout the duration of the flash. This uniformity allows complete control of the heat generated in the target area – further enhancing the safety of flashes emitted.

It should be noted that IRPL® can go even further in the precise configuration of flashes. It’s possible, within a single flash, to generate sub-flashes of different intensity. This offers unprecedented therapeutic possibilities that are inconceivable with conventional IPL. New therapeutic possibilities will open up as a result, specifically in the following fields: dry eye syndrome, pigmentation disorders and acne treatment. These will supplement existing applications for permanent hair removal and collagen stimulation.

In short, IRPL® represents the ultimate in terms of the control of light emitted by a flash lamp.

Key stats

Permanent hair removal at home with E-One: 92,000 users all over the world, 1,500 sessions every day, 3,300 flashes every hour, 100% efficiency from the 1st session.


Treatment of dry eye syndrome with the E-Eye professional device: 84% efficiency from the 1st session, Clinical study conducted on over 300 people, More than 100% increase in the break-up time, 100% satisfaction amongst users.

Our focus areas

E-Swin provides healthcare solutions in many areas: dry eye, pigmentation, acne, collagen stimulation and permanent hair removal. Some of these therapeutic possibilities are novel, such as dry eye.

E-Swin not only addresses these focus areas but goes much further by offering – for each of them – expert treatments with incomparable results.

These exceptional performances were only made possible by the challenges undertaken by E-Swin’s research department in the various applications of pulsed light, along with close collaboration with specialist doctors and researchers in each field.

Our clinical studies

The development of each new device results in clinical studies to test its efficiency and safety based on a given condition. Most of our devices for individual and professional use thus benefit from a medical certification (CE Medical).

Clinical tests on E-One have been carried out over a period of 3 years.

Year 1:

Comparative tests between E-One and waxing (efficiency and safety)

Hair removal sessions were performed every 7 weeks over a period of 12 months (8 hair removal sessions in total). After each hair removal session, both clinicians had to express their preference (E-One or waxing) based on the efficiency of these two techniques, and the results show that the rate of consistent responses was very high (between 90% at week 7 and 100% from week 35).

The volunteer participants were asked about their preference regarding these 2 hair removal techniques. After the first session, there was a distinct lack of preference between E-One and waxing, but this indecision (no preference) became marginal as from the next session (week 7) until the end of the 1st year. From the 2nd session (week 7) the results were in favour of hair removal by E-One, initially in 85% of cases against 15% for waxing (week 7 and week 14), then in 95% of cases against 5% for waxing (week 21 to week 35) and in all cases (100%) during the last two sessions (week 42 and week 49). These differences were highly significant (p <0.0001).

Tolerance for both techniques was generally good. Erythema was the most frequently reported side effect. In some cases, erythema was intense immediately after wax was applied.

Overall, the intensity of the irritation was low with E-One. Compared to waxing, E-One significantly decreased the frequency of erythema (p = 0.01).

Year 2:

Testing the effectiveness of E-One

Taking into account the preferences noted above, hair removal by waxing was abandoned and hair under both armpits was removed by E-One. As E-One is longer lasting than waxing, the interval between sessions could be increased. Hair removal was carried out every 8 weeks for 12 months (7 hair removal sessions in total).

The criteria for judging were the same as those in the first year. The agreement percentage between the two clinicians on the preferred hair removal method (1st or 2nd year) was comparable from one session to another and was excellent (≥ 95%). Both clinicians preferred the 2nd year (armpit hair had already been removed by E-One for a year) in 90% of cases from week 1 to week 18, but in only 75% of cases by the end of the 2nd year. Decreasing preference for the 2nd year was linked to an increase in the response "no preference", which went from 10% to 25% between week 18 and week 54.

From the beginning to the end of the 2nd year of hair removal by E-One, 95% of participants were satisfied with this hair removal method. In the case of contralateral armpit hair, previously removed by waxing, the percentage of satisfied participants steadily increased during the first year of hair removal by E-One and became similar to the percentage observed during the second year: the difference between the two rates, which were very significantly in favour in the second year until week 36, was no longer significant between weeks 45 and 54.

Year 3:

Effectiveness and safety of E-One

The safety of E-One is confirmed. Nearly 700 hair removal sessions were performed by E-One during the third year. Thirty-one cases of low intensity erythema were noted, i.e. 3.4% in total (5.2% for the first year and 3.7% for the second year: a non significant difference). Only two cases of transient hyperpigmentation were reported.

Hair removal sessions were performed every 8 weeks for 12 months (7 hair removal sessions in total) on armpits that had been treated for 1 year, and every 4 months (S9, S27 and S45) on armpits that had been treated for 2 years.

After the second year, the remaining hair was generally very weak on both sides. The judging criteria (preference) thus became inappropriate and was replaced by a semi-quantitative assessment: hairiness almost zero (absent or very weak), low or relatively moderate.

Yet again there was no discrepancy between the two clinicians in the classification of participants. From week 9, the residual hair during the second year of hair removal by E-One was comparable to that of the 3rd year. There was no significant difference between the 2nd and 3rd year from week 9 to week 54.

Overall, hair density was almost zero in 71% of the participants, low in 21% of the participants and relatively moderate in 8% of the participants. At the end of the 3rd year (week 54), the distribution among the 3 categories – almost zero, moderate and low – was 75%, 20% and 5% respectively.

Good and very good results were therefore obtained in 95% of participants. A lesser response appeared in a minority of participants (5%), but these participants are not considered to be a failure because they still experienced a significant reduction in their underarm hair.

In addition, 96% of participants were satisfied.

Our professional devices E-Eye, E-Clean and P-O75 have also been the subject of clinical data studies or evaluations, which are available on our website.


Our certifications

E>Swin has been an ISO 9001 and ISO 13485 certified company since 2008.

Every device we sell carries the European "CE" marking, which is usually attributed by the manufacturer. With regards to E-Swin, we chose a medical focus for our devices. As they’re designed to be used on your skin, we decided that they should belong to the "medical devices" category.

This decision brings with it a range of additional constraints compared to a conventional CE marking: firstly, obtaining the label "medical device" (or "CE under Directive 93/42/EEC") means having to go through an independent international notified body. The manufacturer can thus no longer grant itself its own CE marking.

The second constraint is that all materials covered by this Directive must be manufactured by a company that meets ISO 13485 – a standard adhered to by E-Swin (whose certification was renewed in 2015).

Manufacturing a product in line with the requirements of ISO 13485 as well as ISO 9001 allows for full traceability, not only of all of our devices sold but also of all of their components. Quality control of each of the components of our devices carrying the medical certification is carried out during the manufacture of each component, at the time of delivery of these components and via numerous tests following their integration into the final device.

Our direct sales strategy through our online store, without using any middlemen, allows us to maintain low prices while offering quality devices.