%0 Journal Article
%A Lee, Kar Wai Alvin Lee
%A Chan, Kwin Wah Lisa Chan
%A Lee, Cheuk Hung Lee
%A Wong, Tin Hau Sky Wong
%D 2026
%J Journal of Cosmetic and Regenerative Medicine

%@ 3107-2933

%V 1
%N 2
%P 17

%T Clinical Application of Intense Pulsed Light: An Update and Critical Review
%M doi:10.65381/jcrm.2026.01010017
%U https://jcrm.jams.pub/article/1/2/27
%X Background: Intense pulsed light (IPL) has evolved from a vascular and pigmentary device into a versatile platform used across medical dermatology, aesthetic dermatology, scar management and ocular surface disease. Recent publications have expanded its recognized utility in rosacea, meibomian gland dysfunction, melasma, post-inflammatory dyschromia, hair reduction, scar modulation, and multimodal rejuvenation. At the same time, contemporary literature has highlighted unresolved issues regarding patient selection, parameter customization, durability of response, and long-term safety. Methods: A comprehensive literature review was conducted covering publications from 2024 to 2026 on the clinical application of IPL. The source framework was based on MEDLINE, PubMed, and Ovid database retrieval. These include randomized controlled trials, comparative studies, retrospective analyses, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, case series, case reports, translational studies, and narrative reviews. All included studies were classified according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine 2009 Levels of Evidence. Results: The most mature recent evidence supports IPL for erythematotelangiectatic rosacea and meibomian gland dysfunction-related ocular surface disease, where randomized trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses generally show improvement in erythema, telangiectasia, tear film stability, meibomian gland function, and symptom burden. Emerging data also support broader roles in facial rejuvenation, melasma, sensitive skin, hypertrophic scars, keloids, post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation, chalazion, and selected reconstructive or hair-reduction indications. Combination strategies appear particularly promising, including IPL with mesotherapy, topical tranexamic acid, collagen dressings, postoperative radiotherapy, microneedling, fractional carbon dioxide laser, corticosteroids, and gland-directed ocular interventions. However, heterogeneity remains substantial across device platforms, filters, pulse structures, treatment intervals, concomitant therapies, comparator groups, and outcome measures. Several studies are retrospective, small, or indication-specific, and some fields remain supported mainly by case-based or narrative evidence. Conclusions: Contemporary evidence positions IPL as a genuinely multipurpose therapeutic platform rather than a single-indication device. Its strongest present applications lie in vascular rosacea, ocular surface disease associated with meibomian gland dysfunction, and selected rejuvenation protocols. Broader indications are increasingly plausible, but many still require standardized protocols, longer follow-up, and higher-quality comparative trials before firm clinical algorithms can be established.