Cutis Lux

Home laser and light devices: what dermatologists found in the evidence

Short answer

This review of home-use laser and light devices, including an FDA database search, found the most published data for IPL hair removal and LED acne treatment. Results were modest, and the authors note a lack of randomised double-blind controlled trials; most support comes from small, uncontrolled, industry-sponsored single-centre studies.

By Cutis Lux editorial team · Updated · How we compare

Study
Hession MT, Markova A, Graber EM. Dermatol Surg. 2015;41(3):307-20.
Design
Literature and FDA database review
People
Review
Topic
Home-use devices
Source
PubMed 25705949 · DOI 10.1097/DSS.0000000000000283

Why it matters

It is a broad, independent look at the whole home-device category covered on this site.

What they did

  • Reviewed the literature on home devices for hair removal, acne, photoaging, scars, psoriasis and hair regrowth.
  • Searched FDA product codes to identify cleared handheld devices.

What they found

  • IPL for hair removal and LED for acne have the most published data.
  • Home IPL and LED showed modest results.
  • Randomised double-blind controlled trials are scarce.

What it cannot tell you

  • Published in 2015; several devices here are newer.
  • Review, not meta-analysis.
  • Focused on handheld devices.

Takeaway

The home-device category has modest, mostly industry-funded evidence. Treat strong marketing claims with care.

Matching devices

Devices whose published technology match this study: CurrentBody Series 3, Dr. Dennis Gross FaceWare Pro, Dr. Renú SpectraLift, LYMA Laser, LYMA Laser PRO, MimiSilk Iris, NIRA Pro 3, Omnilux Contour, Shark CryoGlow and Tria FRX. None of them was the device tested unless the study names it.

Not medical advice. Summary based on the published abstract; read the full paper for detail.

All research