Safety / skin rejuvenation
Oncologic safety of PBM for aesthetic skin rejuvenation systematic review
Glass GE. Aesthetic Surgery Journal. 2023.
A focused systematic review of clinical, in vitro, and animal evidence found no clinical-trial signal linking aesthetic PBM to significant adverse events including new or recurrent malignancy.
Evidence grade
moderate
Effect direction
no-clear-effect
Panel relevance
partially-replicable
Key findings
- The review reported no relevant clinical trial data linking PBM with significant adverse events, including new or recurrent malignancy.
- Within established parameters, red and near-infrared light mainly enhanced healthy cell proliferation without a clear harmful tumor pattern.
- The author concluded current evidence does not support avoiding PBM solely because a patient previously underwent cancer treatment.
Protocol details
| Wavelengths | Not reported nm |
|---|---|
| Irradiance | Not reported mW/cm2 |
| Fluence | Not reported J/cm2 |
| Session time | Not reported minutes |
| Frequency | Established skin-rejuvenation parameters in reviewed literature |
| Duration | Established skin-rejuvenation parameters in reviewed literature |
| Treatment area | Skin |
| Device type | Aesthetic PBM skin-rejuvenation devices |
Caveats
- This does not prove safety for direct treatment over active tumors or for every untested device intensity.
- Cancer history and active lesions should remain clinician-screened topics in consumer content.