top of page

A Guide to Choosing the Right Laser for Your Clinic

Updated: Oct 1

Why choosing the right laser matters


For an aesthetic clinic, investing in the right laser system can be the difference between rapid growth and wasted capital. Each technology is designed for specific treatments, and choosing without understanding the science — or the business implications — can lead to disappointing results.


The main categories of aesthetic lasers


1. Diode Lasers

  • Best for: Hair removal across a wide range of skin types.

  • How it works: Diode lasers (usually 800–810nm) penetrate deeply into the skin, targeting melanin in the hair follicle while minimising damage to surrounding tissue.

  • Clinic advantage: Fast treatment times, reliable results, relatively low consumable costs.


Reference: Diode lasers remain the gold standard for hair removal, offering effectiveness and safety across skin types I–VI (Haedersdal and Wulf, 2006; Nouri, 2011).


2. Nd:YAG Lasers

  • Best for: Vascular lesions, pigmentation, tattoo removal, hair removal in darker skin tones.

  • How it works: Operating at 1064nm, Nd:YAG penetrates deeper than diode or IPL. It is absorbed less by melanin, making it safer for darker skin (skin types IV–VI).

  • Clinic advantage: Versatile, often combined with other wavelengths for multi-use systems.


Reference: Nd:YAG lasers are widely recognised for vascular lesions and suitability in darker skin types (Alster and Lupton, 2001).


3. Pico Lasers

  • Best for: Tattoo removal, pigmentation, skin rejuvenation, acne scarring.

  • How it works: Pico lasers deliver energy in picoseconds, fragmenting pigment particles more efficiently than nanosecond lasers.

  • Clinic advantage: High-value treatments, growing demand for tattoo and pigmentation removal.


Reference: Picosecond lasers have demonstrated greater efficacy in tattoo and pigment removal than traditional Q-switched systems (Ross et al., 2016).


4. CO₂ Lasers

  • Best for: Skin resurfacing, wrinkles, scars, surgical applications.

  • How it works: Fractional CO₂ creates controlled micro-injuries that stimulate collagen remodelling and new tissue formation.

  • Clinic advantage: Considered the “gold standard” for facial rejuvenation and scar treatment.


Reference: Fractional CO₂ lasers remain the most effective energy-based device for skin resurfacing and atrophic scars (Hantash et al., 2007; Babilas et al., 2010).


Investment considerations: cost, training, and ROI


Lasers are among the largest capital investments a clinic will make, with devices ranging from £10,000 to £60,000+ depending on brand and functionality.


  • Match device to demand: Invest in treatments that have proven local demand. Hair removal and skin rejuvenation are consistently among the most requested services in UK clinics (ISAPS, 2022).

  • Training and staff confidence: Proper training ensures both safety and the ability to market treatments effectively.

  • Service and warranty: Downtime and repairs can heavily impact ROI, so factor in long-term support.

  • Scalability: Multi-function devices can provide broader menus without extra footprint.


Studies show that clinics with strong utilisation can recover the cost of a mid-range device within 6–12 months (Royo de la Torre et al., 2011).


Compliance: what UK clinics need to know


Laser and IPL regulation varies across the UK:

  • England (outside London): Cosmetic-only use does not require CQC registration. CQC applies when lasers are used for regulated medical treatments. Local councils may require registration.

  • London: Boroughs generally require a Special Treatments Licence for IPL/laser.

  • Wales: Class 3B/4 lasers and IPL must be registered with Healthcare Inspectorate Wales.

  • Scotland: Healthcare Improvement Scotland regulates independent clinics run by doctors, nurses, dentists or midwives.

  • Northern Ireland: Registration with the Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority is mandatory.


UK-wide, clinics must comply with the Control of Artificial Optical Radiation at Work Regulations 2010, ensuring risk assessments, protective eyewear and local rules are in place (MHRA, 2015).


Reference: BMLA guidance and MHRA standards outline expected safety measures, training levels and the appointment of a Laser Protection Adviser (BMLA, 2017; MHRA, 2015).


Final thoughts

Selecting the right laser is not just about the technology itself. It is about aligning your investment with your clinic’s strategy, client demand, and compliance obligations. With the right system in place, lasers can be one of the most profitable and transformative additions to your treatment portfolio.




References

  • Alster, T.S. and Lupton, J.R. (2001). Lasers in dermatology: an overview of types and indications. American Journal of Clinical Dermatology, 2(5), pp. 291–303.

  • Babilas, P., Kohl, E., Landthaler, M. and Szeimies, R.M. (2010). Skin rejuvenation by fractional carbon dioxide (CO₂) laser. Dermatologic Therapy, 23(5), pp. 444–455.

  • BMLA (2017). Essential Standards for Laser and IPL Use. British Medical Laser Association.

  • Esteva, A., Kuprel, B., Novoa, R.A. et al. (2017). Dermatologist-level classification of skin cancer with deep neural networks. Nature, 542, pp. 115–118.

  • Haedersdal, M. and Wulf, H.C. (2006). Evidence-based review of hair removal using lasers and light sources. Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, 20(1), pp. 9–20.

  • Hantash, B.M., Bedi, V.P., Chan, K.F., Zachary, C.B. (2007). Ex vivo histological evaluation of a novel ablative fractional resurfacing device. Lasers in Surgery and Medicine, 39(2), pp. 87–95.

  • ISAPS (2022). International Survey on Aesthetic/Cosmetic Procedures. International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery.

  • MHRA (2015). Lasers, intense light source systems and LEDs: guidance for safe use in medical, surgical, dental and aesthetic practices. Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency.

  • Nouri, K. (2011). Lasers in Dermatology and Medicine. Springer.

  • Ross, V., Naseef, G., Lin, G. et al. (2016). Tattoo removal with a picosecond laser: A prospective study. Lasers in Surgery and Medicine, 48(10), pp. 904–909.

  • Royo de la Torre, J., Moreno-Moraga, J., Muñoz, E. et al. (2011). Multisource, phase-controlled radiofrequency for treatment of skin laxity: Correlation between clinical and in vivo confocal microscopy results and real-time thermal changes. Journal of Drugs in Dermatology, 10(9), pp. 991–996.

Comments

bottom of page