Route · Device-based

Hydradermabrasion: the human trial we opened has no control group

A 12-week, multicentre, open-label study in 20 patients. There is no control group. The proportion with no acne or almost clear skin rose from 20% to 65% by investigator assessment (p = 0.0027) and from 5% to 55% by patient self-report (p = 0.0016). But that is a before-and-after comparison, and the paper itself states that blinding of neither investigators nor patients was feasible. And one author works for the manufacturer.

Last checked Oct 2, 2026

Start here

What it is: A device that runs water and solutions over the skin while suction lifts away dead cells and sebum.
What it is used for: For dead skin, sebum, pores and acne.
How it is said to work: It is said to peel the surface gently, extract what is blocked by suction, and apply a solution.

There are no numbers and no citations in this box. What has been established, and how far, is below.

At a glance

Session length: 30–50 min
Pain: Barely any
Downtime: 0–1 days
Sessions: 6 sessionsReported in a trialThe trial above gave six treatments, one every two weeks over 12 weeks. Read it alongside the fact that it had no control group.
How long it lasts: Not applicable
Relative cost: Lower
How well established: Not established

“Reported in a trial” means a number a study on this page actually reported. “Typical range” is not a measured value but roughly how it is usually done, and it varies by clinic and by person.

Cost is not an amount but a band: where this procedure falls when the ones on this site are lined up per session, or per area treated. Real prices differ several-fold by clinic and by how much is treated, so they are not given here. Surgery is measured on a different scale and cannot be compared with this band.

This is not how large the effect is but how well confirmed it is. It shows the highest grade among the findings on this page.

Korean classification Being checkedThe regulatory class has not yet been confirmed against a primary document. It will be filled in once it is.

Hydradermabrasion is a device that runs water and solutions over the skin while suction lifts away dead cells and sebum. In the market it is better known by a product name.

Among the things on this site, this device is one of the most widely advertised. And the human trial we opened is one, and it has no control group.

First, what having no control group means.

The trial compared the start with the end. But over 12 weeks a great deal happens besides the treatment.

acne improves and worsens on its own — season, daily life, hormones
people enrolled in a trial pay more attention to their skin — washing, sun protection, not touching
going to a clinic every two weeks to be assessed changes behaviour by itself
both raters and participants knew what they had received

Everything this site keeps writing about is gathered here. Endermologie left the other leg alone, HIFU body contouring had a sham arm, nitrogen plasma left the other eye area alone. That kind of design is what lets you separate the device's share out of '20% to 65%'.

And for this device such a design is not especially hard. You can split the face left and right, and a sham of solution without suction is imaginable. But we did not find such a trial.

Finally, what this device actually does. Lifting dead skin and extracting what is blocked are things that physically happen. This site does not deny that skin feels smoother right afterwards. But 'acne improves' is a different claim, and the design to support that claim is not there yet.

On acne, the places with thick evidence here are azelaic acid, adapalene, benzoyl peroxide and salicylic acid, and on the prescription side, isotretinoin.

This site does not deal in prices, clinics or reviews.

What is established

Not established

It is a before-and-after — no control group, and the paper itself says blinding was not feasible

A 2022 study in J Clin Aesthet Dermatol. Twelve weeks, multicentre, open-label.

Twenty eligible adults with mild-to-moderate acne enrolled at one of two sites in the United States and were to undergo six treatments, one every two weeks for 12 weeks.

The treatment occurs in three steps, as the paper puts it.

cleansing and peeling
suction to extract dead skin cells, sebum and debris
application of blue LED light

Acne severity was graded by investigators and by patients using the Global Acne Severity Score (GASS).

The results.

the proportion with no acne or almost clear skin (GASS ≤ 1) — by investigator assessment, 20% at baseline to 65% at final treatment (p = 0.0027)
the same proportion by patient self-report — 5% to 55% (p = 0.0016)
at final treatment, more than 80 to 100 percent of both investigators and patients agreed or strongly agreed there was an improvement in skin appearance across multiple parameters
treatments were generally well tolerated

And the paper writes this in its own limitations: due to the nature of the treatment, blinding of neither investigators nor patients was feasible.

Now how to read it.

First, there is no control group. The most important sentence in this entry. All 20 received treatment, and nobody received nothing. Which means there is no way to separate the device's share out of the move from 20% to 65%.

This site wrote the same sentence on the cryotherapy and intralesional corticosteroid pages. But those at least compared against another treatment. Here the comparison is against one's own past.

Second, a small p does not solve that problem. p = 0.0027 is a value about 'it changed compared with baseline'. It is not a value about 'it changed because of the treatment'. Those are different questions, and only a control group separates them.

Third, the paper itself recorded that blinding was not feasible. This site does not delete such sentences. And '80 to 100 percent agreed there was improvement', when raters and participants all knew what had been done, is not separable from expectation.

Fourth, 20 people, enrolled at two sites.

Fifth, the funding. One author's affiliation is The HydraFacial Company (Long Beach, USA). This site marks that as industry funding.

Sixth, the treatment includes blue LED. One of the three steps. Which means whether the improvement came from the suction and peeling, from the solution, or from the blue light cannot be separated by this design. This site has a separate LED phototherapy page. 'What was it added on top of' is a recurring question here, and here three things went in at once.

Seventh, we carry a 2008 introduction alongside. A piece presenting the modality as an innovative method of non-ablative facial rejuvenation. It is not a randomised trial, so we do not count it as a badge.

So it sits at 'not established'. What that badge means here is not 'it does not work' but 'this design cannot tell'. And a better design is not hard for this device — split the face. That the trial is missing is the content of this page.

Open-label trial in people · 20 participants · 12 weeks · Compared with no control group (before-and-after only) · Funding manufacturer-funded · Endpoint scores from blinded assessors PMID 36569524

Hydradermabrasion: an innovative modality for nonablative facial rejuvenation

Known risks

The trial above reported that it was generally well tolerated. On 20 people over 12 weeks.
Redness and transient irritation are possible. Suction and peeling happen together.
Suction can cause bruising. See the bruising page alongside.
Because dead skin is lifted, what you apply afterwards goes deeper. Do not use irritating ingredients right after. The same principle is written on the laser-assisted drug delivery page.
Ask what is in the solution. Acids are sometimes included, and the concentration and pH decide both result and irritation.
Severe active inflammatory acne, atopic skin, rosacea and broken skin change whether this can be done. That judgement belongs to clinicians.
If you are taking isotretinoin, say so. The timing of peels is to be discussed in a clinic.
Cold sores can be reactivated. Say so in advance if you have a history.
A period of sun avoidance is needed. See sunscreen.

What is not established

We found no trial with a control group. And for this device a split-face design is not especially hard. That such a trial is missing is this page's largest gap.
Which of the three steps did the work cannot be separated. Peeling, suction and blue LED all go in at once.
It is 20 people.
It is 12 weeks, and nothing beyond. There is no material on what happens when treatment stops.
Trials on pores and texture are not on this page. The trial above is on the acne side.
Comparisons with other devices and other solutions we did not find.
A head-to-head against chemical peel or microdermabrasion we did not find. They are used in the same place, and there is nothing to compare them with.
We have not yet opened the primary Korean regulatory classification, so it stays 'being verified'.

Whether to have it done is a decision to make with a doctor.

What this article relies on

PubMed — 미국 국립의학도서관 문헌 데이터베이스National Library of Medicine · Checked on 2026-09-16