In short
- The best-documented risk is not to the skin, it is to the eye. The pigmented iris absorbs light in the same range that IPL emits, and anterior uveitis, synechiae and permanent iris atrophy have been described after facial treatments.
- That is why eye protection is compulsory —corneal shields or well-fitting goggles—, and closing your eyes is no substitute.
- On the skin, the risks described are burns and blistering, pigment changes in both directions and temporary worsening of redness.
- In skin types IV to VI, a meta-analysis of 43 studies and 1,654 subjects puts post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation at 8.1% for non-ablative devices as a whole, and concludes that IPL carries a minimal risk compared with diode and erbium lasers.
- Home devices are not the small version of the professional ones: in a technical analysis, one device turned out to be hazardous to the naked eye at its two highest settings.
- Asking which machine is used, who makes it and who operates it is reasonable, and no serious centre takes offence.
Intense pulsed light has a reputation as a harmless treatment, and in good part that is because it is not a laser. That idea, however, is exactly what produces the accidents: the very literature describing eye damage from IPL points out that the fact that it is not a laser can give a false sense of safety. It is a device that emits enough energy to damage tissue, and that is why it has real risks: burns, pigment changes and, when it is used near the eyes without proper protection, eye injuries that can be permanent.
This page brings together what has been described, how often, and what questions are worth asking before the first session.
This page sets out the safety of intense pulsed light. Which marks can be treated —and which have to be investigated first— is in IPL for sun spots and lentigines.
The eye: the risk almost nobody talks about
It is the most important section on this page and the one that rarely appears in sales information.
The mechanism is simple and for that very reason worrying: the pigmented structures inside the eye, and the iris in particular, absorb light in the range of wavelengths that IPL emits. The same physical principle that makes intense pulsed light work on a mark on the skin acts on the iris if the energy reaches it.
The consequences described are not theoretical. A 2011 publication records two cases seen at a leading ophthalmology institute:
- A 36-year-old woman presented with eye pain, marked miosis and anterior uveitis one hour after a facial IPL session. Within a month the picture progressed to posterior synechiae and iris transillumination defects. Years later she still had pain and severe photophobia from permanent iris atrophy.
- A 27-year-old woman presented with severe eye pain, visual disturbance, pupillary defects and anterior uveitis three days after IPL on a freckle on the eyelid. At two months, the iris and pupil defects were still permanent.
A narrative review published in 2025 on ophthalmological complications of aesthetic medicine procedures confirms the same pattern —anterior uveitis, iris atrophy, synechiae, chronic photophobia— and is explicit in its conclusion: strict eye protection, with metal corneal shields or well-fitting goggles, is compulsory in any IPL procedure around the eyes. That same review points out that many of the injuries occurred when patients were not wearing adequate opaque protection.
Two practical consequences worth taking on board:
- Closing your eyes is not protection. The eyelid does not stop the energy.
- The closer to the eye the treatment is, the greater the demand. Treating an eyelid lesion with IPL is precisely the scenario of the second case described.
At ICPM eye protection is used during intense pulsed light sessions, and the treatment is given by the centre’s doctors or by a specialist technician. Saying so this plainly is not a sales argument: it is the information that makes comparison possible, because in this field centres with very different standards coexist and the patient rarely has any way of telling which is which.
Burns and blistering
It is the most characteristic adverse effect on the skin, and it almost always has one of these three causes behind it:
- Tanned skin or recent sun exposure. The melanin of tanned skin competes as a target: it absorbs energy that was meant for the mark or the vessel.
- Excessive settings for that skin type or that area.
- Use of fake tan or of photosensitising drugs not declared at the prior consultation.
That is why the history taken before the first session is not a formality: the list of what you take and where you have been over the last month changes the settings.
Pigment can go in both directions
After treatment there may be hyperpigmentation —more pigment than there was— and, less often, hypopigmentation, which is harder to correct.
On how great the risk is in darker skins there is a figure worth knowing because it qualifies a very widespread idea. A meta-analysis of adverse events with non-ablative lasers and energy-based technologies in skin types IV to VI, with 43 studies and 1,654 subjects, puts post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation at 8.1% and prolonged erythema at 0.6% for the devices analysed as a whole. Comparing between technologies, it concludes that IPL and radiofrequency carry a minimal risk of post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation, significantly lower than that of diode and erbium lasers in that population.
That said, this does not make IPL a treatment indifferent to skin type: it means that, compared with other devices, it comes off well on that particular point. A high skin type still means adjusting settings, preparing the skin and being cautious with expectations.
Home devices
It deserves a section of its own because many of the burns that reach the consulting room do not come from a centre, but from a home device.
A technical analysis compared three of the main home hair-removal devices, measuring their fluence, their spectrum and their energy distribution with equipment traceable to national standards. Its conclusions:
- There are no international standards dedicated specifically to IPL devices.
- The parameters measured were significantly different between the three systems, despite being sold for the same purpose.
- One of the devices turned out to be hazardous to the naked eye at its two highest settings.
- Although they all include a mechanism that prevents firing if the head is not resting on the skin, eye safety may be inadequate if that primary mechanism fails.
On the other side, and so as not to give a one-sided reading: a post-marketing surveillance analysis of a home device recorded 1,692 cases reported between 2016 and 2021, at a rate of 67 cases per 100,000 devices distributed. The most reported effects were skin pain (27.8% of those cases), thermal burns (18.7%) and erythema (16.0%), with no unexpected events among the twenty-five commonest; the authors conclude that the data support the safety of that low-fluence home technology.
That figure is worth reading carefully, because it is often quoted wrongly: the 18.7% is the proportion of burns within the reports received, not the percentage of users who get burnt. They are voluntary reports, with all the under-reporting that implies.
The honest conclusion from putting both sources together is not “home devices are dangerous”, but something more useful: they are low-fluence devices, with less capacity to do harm and also less capacity to resolve a real problem, with nobody to diagnose what is being treated or to match the settings to your skin.
Which machine treats you, and who operates it
Intense pulsed light is offered today at centres of very different kinds, some without medical supervision. Two reasonable checks:
The machine. In September 2025, the Spanish Agency of Medicines and Medical Devices (AEMPS) reported the detection of a forged CE marking certificate attributed to the manufacturer Beijing Globalipl Development Co., Ltd., which produces intense pulsed light machines combined with diode lasers and fractional CO₂ laser systems. The document falsely attributed the certification to the German notified body TÜV SÜD and manipulated the validity dates, extending them to the end of 2027 when the original certification expired in October 2023.
The AEMPS’s instruction is specific, and for that reason worth knowing: professionals must check the date of manufacture of these machines and stop using those made after 27 October 2023; distributors must cease marketing them and report adverse incidents through the NotificaPS portal.
Who operates it. It is legitimate to ask who is going to give the treatment and what qualifications they hold, and who answers if a complication arises. At ICPM intense pulsed light is given by the centre’s doctors or by a specialist technician, within a plastic surgery clinic with its own medical team. The framework for who may carry out each type of aesthetic procedure in Spain is explained in who may carry out each aesthetic procedure.
What to ask before the first session
- Who is going to look at the mark before treating it? An undiagnosed pigmented lesion is not treated.
- What eye protection are you going to use? The right answer mentions shields or well-fitting opaque goggles, not “close your eyes”.
- With which machine and from which manufacturer?
- Who gives the treatment and who supervises it?
- Is there a test patch beforehand or an adjustment of settings according to my skin type?
- What happens if a complication arises and who do I call?
When it is not indicated
- Tanned skin, recent or planned sun exposure, or use of fake tan.
- Taking photosensitising medication.
- Active infection in the area.
- Undiagnosed pigmented lesions.
- Pregnancy, as a precaution and because of the pigmentary instability of that period.
- An expectation of treating texture, scarring or laxity: that is a different indication.
Warning signs
Seek advice without waiting if you develop:
- eye pain, photophobia or visual disturbance after a facial session: this does not wait, you go for an ophthalmological assessment;
- a blister;
- increasing skin pain;
- a crust that is not changing;
- an area behaving differently from the rest.
Book an appointment
You can book your own appointment. Pick the day and time from the free slots in the diary, in a panel that opens right here, without leaving this page.
Frequently asked questions
Can intense pulsed light damage your sight?
Yes, and it is the risk least known to the public. Anterior uveitis, posterior synechiae and permanent iris atrophy have been described after facial sessions. The pigmented iris absorbs light in the same range that IPL emits.
Is it enough to close your eyes during the session?
No. The eyelid does not stop the energy. The published recommendation is strict eye protection with metal corneal shields or well-fitting goggles in any procedure around the eyes.
Can it burn the skin?
Yes, especially with tanned skin, with excessive settings or with photosensitising drugs. It is the most characteristic adverse effect on the skin.
Is it dangerous if I have dark skin?
A meta-analysis in skin types IV to VI puts post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation at 8.1% for non-ablative devices as a whole and concludes that IPL carries a minimal risk compared with diode and erbium lasers. Even so, a high skin type means adjusting settings and preparing the skin.
Are home intense pulsed light devices safe?
They are low-fluence and their profile of reported effects shows no unexpected events, but a technical analysis found that there are no dedicated international standards, that the parameters vary a great deal between models and that one of those assessed was hazardous to the naked eye at its highest settings. And above all: nobody diagnoses what you are treating.
Does the fact that it is not a laser mean it is safer?
It means it is less selective, not that it is harmless. That confusion is precisely what the literature identifies as the cause of a false sense of safety.
How do I know the machine is legal?
By asking for the manufacturer and the model. The AEMPS has gone as far as reporting a forged CE marking certificate on IPL and fractional CO₂ laser machines.
And if I get a blister?
Seek advice without waiting for the next session, and do not touch it.
Sources
- Lee WW, Murdock J, Albini TA, O’Brien TP, Levine ML. Ocular damage secondary to intense pulse light therapy to the face. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;27(4):263-265. Two cases of anterior uveitis with posterior synechiae and permanent iris atrophy after facial IPL; the pigmented iris absorbs in the same range as IPL and the fact that it is not a laser can give a false sense of safety. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21346668/
- De-Pablo-Gómez-de-Liaño L, Ly-Yang F, Burgos-Blasco B, Fernández-Vigo JI. Ophthalmological Complications of Aesthetic Medicine Procedures: A Narrative Review. J Clin Med. 2025;14(15):5399. Strict eye protection —metal corneal shields or well-fitting goggles— is compulsory in any IPL procedure around the eyes. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40807018/
- Hu S, Atmakuri M, Rosenberg J. Adverse Events of Nonablative Lasers and Energy-Based Therapies in Subjects With Fitzpatrick Skin Phototypes IV to VI: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Aesthet Surg J. 2022;42(5):537-547. Forty-three studies and 1,654 subjects; post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation 8.1%; prolonged erythema 0.6%; IPL and radiofrequency carry a minimal risk compared with diode and erbium lasers. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35019139/
- Town G, Ash C. Are home-use intense pulsed light (IPL) devices safe? Lasers Med Sci. 2010;25(6):773-780. There are no international standards dedicated to IPL devices; the parameters measured differ significantly between models; one of the devices turned out to be hazardous to the naked eye at its two highest settings and eye safety may be inadequate if the primary mechanism fails. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20625788/
- Hattersley AM, Kiernan M, Goldberg D, Dierickx C, Sliney DH, Haedersdal M, Nash JF. Assessment of adverse events for a home-use intense pulsed light hair removal device using postmarketing surveillance. Lasers Surg Med. 2023. One thousand six hundred and ninety-two cases reported between 2016 and 2021; 67 cases per 100,000 devices distributed; skin pain 27.8%, thermal burns 18.7% and erythema 16.0% of the reports; the authors conclude that the data support the safety of that low-fluence technology. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36883997/
- AEMPS. The AEMPS reports the detection of a forged CE marking certificate from the company Beijing Globalipl Development Co., Ltd. Notice of 12 September 2025. Certificate G1.002325.0002 Rev.01 falsely attributed to TÜV SÜD, with the validity dates altered; users are asked to stop using machines manufactured after 27 October 2023. https://www.aemps.gob.es/informa/la-aemps-informa-sobre-la-deteccion-de-un-certificado-de-marcado-ce-falsificado-de-la-empresa-beijing-globalipl-development-co-ltd/
Book your consultation
If you are considering intense pulsed light and want to know what risk it carries for your skin, or if you have already been treated and something has not turned out as you expected, an assessment in person is what makes it possible to answer: the skin is examined, history and medication are reviewed, and it is decided whether to treat, adjust or do nothing.
Clinical confirmation by the surgeon
Registration no. 46/4624077
Registration no. 46/4624503
Last reviewed: 23 August 2026. This content is for information only and does not replace an individual assessment by a healthcare professional.
