What the FDA's Adverse Event Data Actually Says About Energy Skin Devices

What the FDA's Adverse Event Data Actually Says About Energy Skin Devices

Two new studies of the FDA's MAUDE database put radiofrequency microneedling complications back in the headlines. Here is what that data can and cannot tell you before you make any decision about a skin treatment.

What the FDA's Adverse Event Data Actually Says About Energy Skin Devices

Published August 3, 2026 · Reviewed by OcuraLife Skin Experts

What the FDA's Adverse Event Data Actually Says About Energy Skin Devices

Key takeaways

  • The headline numbers come from a complaint database, not a study of your odds. Two teams presented at the ASLMS 2026 Annual Meeting. One counted 86 reports covering 145 adverse events from 2020 to 2025. The other counted 114 reports covering 224 adverse events from 2013 to 2025.
  • The FDA's MAUDE database records what people report. It does not record how many procedures were done. Without that second number, no report count can be turned into a rate.
  • Doctors in the room disagreed with the top finding. That disagreement is the most useful part of the story. E. Victor Ross, MD said he had never seen fat loss in his own patients. He put the reports down to overtreatment.
  • The FDA issued a safety communication on radiofrequency microneedling devices in October 2025. It described burns, scarring, fat loss, disfigurement and nerve injury.
  • Radiofrequency microneedling is an in-office procedure performed by a trained professional. It is not an at-home category, and this news is not about at-home cosmetic tools.

You were researching a skin treatment. Then a headline landed with the words scarring and disfigurement in it. Now you do not know whether to cancel something, buy something, or ignore all of it. Here is the short answer. The numbers being quoted come from a database that collects complaints. A complaint count cannot tell you how likely anything is. Once you know why, you can read this story and the next five like it without guessing.

What happened

Two research teams presented reviews of the FDA's MAUDE database at the ASLMS 2026 Annual Meeting in Savannah, Georgia. ASLMS is the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery. MAUDE stands for Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience. It is the federal system where medical device problems get reported. Both teams looked at reports filed after radiofrequency microneedling. That is an in-office procedure. A clinician delivers heat energy into the skin through fine needles. Medscape covered the presentations on August 3, 2026. You can read the original report on Medscape.

The first analysis came from Isabella Camacho-Hubbard, MD, based in Charlotte, North Carolina. It covered 86 reports containing 145 adverse events between 2020 and 2025. The most reported problem was fat loss. That means indentations or contour irregularities in the treated area. Scarring came next, then erythema, which is persistent redness.

Margaret Chou, MD presented the second analysis. She is with the Dermatology Laser and Cosmetic Center at Massachusetts General Hospital. Her review covered a longer window. It found 114 reports containing 224 adverse events between 2013 and 2025. The most frequent problems here were textural changes and pigmentary alteration, then fat loss. Pigmentary alteration means a change in skin color.

This follows a safety communication the FDA issued in October 2025 on radiofrequency microneedling devices. That communication described reports of burns, scarring, fat loss, disfigurement and nerve injury.

Then came the part that did not make the headlines. Several clinicians in the audience pushed back. E. Victor Ross, MD works at the Scripps Clinic Laser and Cosmetic Dermatology Center in San Diego. He said he had never seen fat loss in his own patients. In his reading, the reports reflect overtreatment rather than the procedure itself. There are, in his words, a lot of ways to use these devices poorly. Used properly, he said, they are "pretty darn safe."

What it means for you

You are not being asked to settle a dispute between dermatologists. Instead you get three things. Each one makes you a better reader of the next skin-treatment story.

A reporting database is not a risk rate

This is the one that does the most work. MAUDE collects reports. It does not collect the number of procedures performed, so there is no denominator. Take 224 adverse events over twelve years. That is a lot if the procedure was done ten thousand times. It is very little if it was done ten million times. Nobody in that room knew which. Reporting is also voluntary in many cases. Some events never get filed. Others get filed twice.

That single gap explains the rest of the story. It is why two careful teams reviewing the same database came back with different leading complications. It is why a doctor with years of hands-on cases can honestly say he has never seen the top-listed problem. Neither side is lying. They are reading a record of complaints, not a measurement of risk.

The reported harm tracks technique and settings

That was the clinicians' own reading, said out loud at the meeting. Energy delivered into skin is dose-dependent. Too much of it, too deep, or in untrained hands is where the reported harm concentrates. It is a different claim from "this procedure is dangerous," and it points somewhere useful.

What it means in practice is that the operator matters as much as the machine. If you are considering any energy-based procedure, the questions worth asking are about the person holding the device. How long have they used this exact system? How do they choose settings for your skin? What do they do if you react badly? Those questions get you further than a headline count ever will.

To be plain about it, this does not mean the procedure carries no risk. Nothing that puts energy into skin does. The honest version is that risk here depends on dose and technique. That is exactly why the operator is not a detail.

Match the tool to what you actually have

Radiofrequency microneedling is a professional in-office procedure. It is used for things like acne and surgical scars, excess underarm sweating, and skin rejuvenation. It is performed by a trained clinician, and it is not a home category at all. So if this news reached you while you were looking at something else, it may not apply to you at all.

The more useful question is the one underneath. What is the spot or the concern that sent you searching in the first place? A raised bump, a flat brown patch and a small red dot are three different things. The right next step depends on which one you have. Identifying it comes first. Choosing what to do about it comes second, and never the other way around.

The honest professional context

Here is where OcuraLife stands, stated once and briefly, because this news is not about our products. We make at-home tools for benign, surface-level cosmetic imperfections. They are not a treatment for moles. They are not for anything changing in size, shape or color. They are never a substitute for having a spot looked at by a qualified professional. That position is the same today as it was before this data was presented.

We are also not going to use a professional procedure's adverse-event reports to say anything about our own devices. Radiofrequency microneedling is a different procedure with a different purpose, performed in a clinic by a trained clinician. Comparing the two would be the exact sloppy reasoning this article is arguing against.

A quick check before you start

Cosmetic care at home is only ever for spots a professional would call benign and stable. See a qualified professional first if something is new, growing, changing color, bleeding or itching. Same goes if you are simply not sure what it is. Identifying the spot always comes before treating it.

The reason to read a story like this carefully is not to become suspicious of everything. It is so the next headline lands in the right place. A count of complaints is a signal worth noticing and a poor basis for a decision. Both of those are true at the same time.

FAQ

Frequently asked questions

Straight answers to what people are asking after the ASLMS 2026 presentations.

How to read adverse-event news without over-reacting

↓ Tap each question to reveal the answer.

What is the FDA's MAUDE database? ▾

MAUDE stands for Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience. It is the FDA system where adverse events involving medical devices get reported. It is a record of what people report, not a study. It does not track how many procedures were performed. So a count of reports cannot be turned into a rate or a personal risk figure.

What did the two ASLMS 2026 studies find? ▾

Isabella Camacho-Hubbard, MD reviewed 86 reports containing 145 adverse events from 2020 to 2025. Fat loss was reported most often, then scarring, then erythema. Margaret Chou, MD reviewed 114 reports containing 224 adverse events from 2013 to 2025. Textural changes, pigmentary alteration and fat loss were reported most often. Both looked at reports filed after radiofrequency microneedling.

Does this mean radiofrequency microneedling is unsafe? ▾

The data does not answer that question, and clinicians at the meeting disagreed about it. E. Victor Ross, MD said he had never seen fat loss in his own patients. He believes the reports reflect overtreatment rather than the procedure itself. Used properly, he said, these devices are "pretty darn safe." What is not in dispute is that energy delivered into skin is dose-dependent. Technique, settings and operator training matter. Anyone considering the procedure should discuss risks with the clinician who would perform it.

What did the FDA say about these devices in October 2025? ▾

In October 2025 the FDA issued a safety communication on radiofrequency microneedling devices. It described reports of burns, scarring, fat loss, disfigurement and nerve injury. A safety communication is the FDA sharing what has been reported and what to be aware of.

Why did two studies of the same database report different leading complications? ▾

Because they covered different time windows and different sets of reports, and because a reporting database has no denominator. One review covered 2020 to 2025 and the other covered 2013 to 2025. There is no count of how many procedures were performed, and reporting is inconsistent. So a small change in the window, or in how an event is coded, can change which complication tops the list.

Does any of this apply to at-home cosmetic skin tools? ▾

The reports covered radiofrequency microneedling. That is an in-office procedure performed by a trained clinician. It is used for concerns such as acne and surgical scars, excess underarm sweating and skin rejuvenation. It is not an at-home category, so this news is about that procedure and not about home cosmetic tools. Separately, at-home cosmetic tools are only for benign, surface-level spots. A professional should have already looked at the spot and called it harmless.

Maybe you started reading about skin treatments because of one specific spot you cannot name. That is the thing worth solving next. Three red marks that look almost identical are not the same thing at all.

Read how to tell a cherry angioma, a blood blister and petechiae apart →

The OcuraLife Plasma Pen is a cosmetic device for benign, surface-level spots and is not a substitute for medical advice or diagnosis. If a spot is changing or you are unsure, check with a qualified professional.

Back to blog