Co2 Laser Treatment Recovery

I went and did a consult for CO2 laser therapy and microneedling. I’m going to do them together as soon as I find 10 days in my schedule where I can just hide and not be seen since the recovery is brutal to say the least. CO2 is a hell of a treatment from what it looks like though

Had anyone tried Solaria CO2 laser (face/neck treatment)? What did you think? How was the recovery? submitted by /u/Overall-Nobody8933 to r/45PlusSkincare [link] [comments]

I did CO2 fractional laser done today to treat seborrheic keratosis (dark spots) that appear due to aging. The circles you see in the photo appeared after the procedure. On top of that, I also got regular CO2 fractional resurfacing done for skin rejuvenation. I am quite worried that there are very dark spots on my face. I was told that I will recover in less than a week - but I don't if that will be possible. I have a very important event coming up in 2 weeks, they assured that it is plenty of time for full recovery. I wanted to ask if this is normal? And is it realistic that I will recover within 2 weeks. submitted by /u/catlovespeach to r/SkincareAddiction [link] [comments]

Hey, not sure what to do and would appreciate some honest opinions. I’ve had some redness for years (pretty sure it’s rosacea, my dad has it too). It’s not always super red, but it’s definitely there. That’s my main issue - not really texture. My pores (nose/cheeks) are visible, but honestly they don’t bother me that much. Probably without them it would be better but yeah i am scared to have scars or some stuff in my face. About 3 years ago I did a peeling/extraction and got Skinoren, but I never really used it consistently. I always felt like my skin got a bit more red after that extraction though. I just went to a derm for the first time in years and she basically said creams won’t do anything for me and suggested fractional CO2 laser + TCA peel in about 2 weeks (for now just a spot test, but still). I told her I have sensitive skin and slight rosacea, and she said that’s exactly the kind of skin they treat with this. Idk… it just feels kinda aggressive, especially since: my main goal is reducing redness my skin is pretty sensitive I still have a small mark from that extraction 2–3 years ago (on my nose) Also I’ve seen CO2 recovery pics and they look pretty intense, which makes me nervous about messing up my skin even more. So I’m wondering: Is CO2 + TCA actually normal for mild redness/rosacea? Anyone here with sensitive/redness-prone skin done CO2 and regretted it? Any other treatments. Would really some hones opinions :) submitted by /u/ilyadynin to r/SkincareAddiction [link] [comments]

Interested in laser skin resurfacing but unsure of the reality of the experience? Social media can make laser treatments look like a daunting ordeal, often showing photos and videos of red, swollen faces for days or even weeks. Traditional CO2 laser skin resurfacing is known for significant downtime, which often keeps well-suited candidates from moving forward with treatment. Luckily, 2026 has brought new advances in technology, and the UltraClear laser is leading the way. UltraClear offers a more comfortable experience and shorter downtime compared to traditional CO2. In fact, patients who have experienced both note that UltraClear is less painful while delivering comparable, if not superior, results. UltraClear vs. CO2 Laser: Downtime The difference in recovery time is a primary reason patients choose Cheng Plastic Surgery, one of the first practices in the San Francisco Bay Area to offer the UltraClear laser. While we offer both options, most patients in 2026 are choosing UltraClear. Our doctors and nursing team have over two decades of experience in the medspa and plastic surgery space. Having treated a wide range of skin tones and ages, our medical staff is highly experienced in managing healing timelines for patients of all ethnicities and lifestyles. Comparing the two side-by-side: UltraClear Advanced Skin Correction: Minimal downtime (1–5 days) that resembles a mild sunburn. Patients often describe the post-treatment feeling as "trapped heat" rather than pain. Some report minor trouble sleeping the first night due to avoiding side-sleeping. CO2 Laser: Significant downtime (7–14 days) involving heavy peeling and redness. Patients often report a deep throbbing sensation and may not feel comfortable in social situations for the first week following treatment. https://preview.redd.it/cr28ejqh47xg1.png?width=1080&format=png&auto=webp&s=ab186cf3bdd42ba5bc38e763752b244fe4d831a1 UltraClear vs. CO2 Laser: Comfort When choosing between UltraClear and CO2, comfort is a major factor. To truly understand the patient experience, our nurses, as well as Dr. Elbert Cheng and Dr. Jacqueline Cheng, have personally undergone both treatments. UltraClear Comfort: High; typically requires only topical numbing. Patients report a "pricking" sensation that is mostly tolerable on 3D MIRACL to Advanced settings. Higher levels, such as Laser-Coring, may require additional numbing for optimal comfort. CO2 Laser Comfort: Moderate to Low; often requires sedation or nerve blocks. It feels like a snapping sensation on the skin and can be accompanied by a singed, smoky aroma. Afterward, patients may feel a deep burning sensation, occasional itchiness, and throbbing. While UltraClear is generally more comfortable, its highest settings can feel similar to CO2, but with significantly less downtime. Your provider will guide you in deciding which level is right for your goals. https://preview.redd.it/wxcojc4o47xg1.png?width=1080&format=png&auto=webp&s=c2bf176da0a030f5e7198cdb65848ab124ec0950 UltraClear vs. CO2 Laser: Results While both are excellent resurfacing tools, they serve different purposes. At Cheng Plastic Surgery, we are constantly refining our techniques to help patients achieve their goals with the fewest treatments possible. UltraClear Results: Most often results in progressive, natural-looking rejuvenation. It is popular for "prejuvenation" (slowing the aging process) but is also highly effective for intensive correction. We may suggest an initial series of 2–3 treatments, followed by annual maintenance. It is best for fine lines, texture, sun damage, and large pores. CO2 Laser Results: Offers more dramatic, transformative results in a single session. While it can be performed as a series, most patients choose a single, intensive treatment for deep correction. It is best for deep wrinkles, severe scarring, and advanced skin laxity. https://preview.redd.it/i2plwrxo47xg1.png?width=1080&format=png&auto=webp&s=7b16e0aa33c1d50b36c8c7dd1bdde3e0377f9c05 UltraClear vs. CO2 Laser: Skin Tone Safety In our Bay Area offices, we treat a diverse variety of skin tones. Many patients come to us with concerns about hyperpigmentation. With deeper skin tones, dark spots are a common side effect of traditional CO2 lasers. UltraClear with Cold Fiber Technology significantly reduces the risk of hyperpigmentation, making it safe for all Fitzpatrick skin types. Our nursing team is trained and overseen by our double board-certified facial plastic surgeons. This transmission of knowledge ensures you receive the best care from every member of our team. Our decades of experience with large patient bases of Asian, Indian, and Caucasian skin types provide a level of expertise that only twenty-plus years in the field can offer. Book Your Consultation Ready to see why UltraClear is the most searched laser of 2026? Call our Saratoga or Redwood City office today. Cheng Plastic Surgery offers the most modern technology and expertise for hyperpigmentation, dark spots, and total skin rejuvenation. Saratoga: 12945 Saratoga Ave, Saratoga, CA 95070 | (408) 741-9982 Redwood City: 100 Arch Street, Suite 4, Redwood City, CA 94062 | (650) 227-9693 submitted by /u/ChengPlasticSurgery to r/ChengPlasticSurgery [link] [comments]

Hi everyone, :) I’m looking for honest advice because I’m worried about my skin after CO2 laser. I had fractional CO2 on December 28, and now it’s April 13 (over 3 months later) but the square/grid pattern is still clearly visible, especially on my lower face. Context: - I have mixed skin (my mom is Black and was present at the consultation, I read about how mixed skin is more prone to hyperpigmentation ) - I had active acne at the time - I actually wanted PRP, but the doctor convinced me to do CO2 The issue: - The doctor made it sound like a very simple treatment and said I’d look normal again after ~2 days - I was not informed how aggressive this procedure is or how long recovery can take Now: - Skin is still red/pink and patchy - Grid/square marks haven’t faded - I’m also breaking out again I contacted the doctor, but he just suggested isotretinoin, which doesn’t address my concern. I’m currently in the US for studies, but will be back in the EU in May so I want to address it personally as soon as I’m back My questions: - Is it normal that the grid pattern is still visible after 3+ months? - Do these marks usually fully fade, and how long does it take? - Anyone with mixed/lighter skin experienced this? Also: could this be an issue of lack of proper informed consent (EU)? Would really appreciate any insight 🙏 submitted by /u/Sad_Sleep_8998 to r/LaserDamageSupport [link] [comments]

I want to focus on something that gets less attention than lift vectors and neck anatomy in most deep plane facelift discussions: skin quality as a surgical outcome variable, not a skincare outcome variable. This case also documents what a tension-free deep plane closure looks like at the scar level, what a properly executed endoscopic upper face approach produces without visible incisions, and why the chin-down positional view is the most honest documentation test of any neck lift result. This post covers: deep plane facelift technique, Vectara vector planning framework, endoscopic temple lift, scarless endoscopic blepharoplasty, endoscopic vertical midface lift, mastoid crevasse neck lift, submandibular gland excision, structural fat grafting, nanofat stem cell transfer, two-stage CO2 laser resurfacing, RF microneedling, medical-grade topical skin protocol, tension-free closure and scar outcomes, and chin-down positional documentation. What was performed The structural foundation of this case was a comprehensive deep plane face and neck lift planned within the Vectara framework, a system for individualized vector elimination and architectural restoration in three dimensions. Deep plane release was complete. The SMAS-platysma composite flap was suspended along vectors identified intraoperatively through palpatory feedback following full retaining ligament release, not borrowed from population averages. The closure was tension-free throughout at every layer. The neck required full architectural management that goes substantially beyond what standard deep plane neck dissection addresses. Deep neck dissection included direct submandibular gland excision and the mastoid crevasse maneuver, seating the lifted platysma-SMAS unit into a three-dimensional recess at the anterior mastoid wall. This provides a stable posterior-superior fixation endpoint with measurable gonial angle depth, uses the gonial angle as a mechanical fulcrum to vertically suspend the submandibular triangle and submental contents, and eliminates tension concentration at the postauricular incision. Published data across 79 patients demonstrates a mean gonial angle depth gain of 8.1mm beyond standard mastoid suspension using this technique, statistically significant at P less than 0.0001 (Talei, Shauly, Marxen, Menon, Gould. Aesthetic Surgery Journal 2024). The cervicomental angle visible in the lateral and chin-down views is not a skin redistribution result. It is structural repositioning of deep cervical anatomy anchored at a mechanically advantageous fixation point. Scarless upper face access: endoscopic temple lift, endoscopic blepharoplasty, endoscopic vertical midface lift The entire upper face and midface in this case was accessed without a single preauricular or visible hairline incision. This is worth explaining in detail because the combination of procedures performed through hidden endoscopic access is not standard, and the results it produces are meaningfully different from what open approaches provide. An endoscopic temple lift was performed rather than a traditional coronal or hairline brow lift. This offloads lateral tension from the upper face and lateral brow without elevating the medial brow and without producing the surprised or arched appearance that overaggressive brow elevation creates. The incisions are within the hairline and are not visible. A scarless blepharoplasty was performed through the endoscopic approach, addressing the upper lids without a visible lid crease incision. For patients who do not want the faint but permanent scar of a traditional upper blepharoplasty, this approach provides meaningful upper lid improvement while preserving the natural lid crease architecture entirely. An endoscopic midface lift provided vertical repositioning of the malar fat pad along a superior vector. This distinction is clinically significant and underappreciated in most facelift discussions. Standard midface techniques, including many marketed as deep plane midface approaches, produce primarily lateral vectors that flatten anterior facial projection and contribute to the swept appearance. A true vertical midface vector restores the anterior projection of the malar eminence, rebuilds the ogee curve that aging displaces inferiorly, and produces the three-dimensional midface restoration that a lateral pull cannot replicate regardless of how complete the deep plane release is below it. Structural fat grafting, nanofat stem cell transfer, and regenerative sequencing Structural fat grafting was performed in layered micro-aliquots to the tear troughs, lower lids, brows, temples, malar and submalar cheeks, nasolabial folds, pre-jowl sulcus, and chin using a blunt 18-gauge cannula. This was performed before the facelift dissection began, following the fulcrum-first sequencing strategy that increases the bulk and load-bearing capacity of the SMAS-platysma composite unit before it is mobilized, distributing traction forces across a larger cross-sectional area and reducing stress concentration at fixation points (Shauly, Gould. In preparation). Nanofat was placed subdermally throughout using a processed emulsified fat preparation enriched with adipose-derived stem cells and growth factors. Structural fat and nanofat are not interchangeable treatments delivering the same biological signal through different volumes. Structural fat restores mechanical bulk and topographic convexity. Nanofat delivers regenerative cellular signals to the subdermal layer that improve tissue vitality, dermal thickness, vascular density, and skin quality over the months following placement. The skin quality improvement visible in these photographs is partly a function of what the laser did to the surface and partly a function of what the nanofat did to the biology underneath it. Two-stage CO2 laser and RF microneedling protocol CO2 laser resurfacing was performed at the conclusion of surgery at the time of maximum structural access. A second stage of CO2 laser combined with RF microneedling was performed at three months, timed to the resolution of primary structural swelling and the beginning of the final dermal remodeling phase. This two-stage approach is deliberate and sequenced rather than additive. The first treatment addresses the skin surface at the moment the underlying scaffold has just been restored and the dermal blood supply is maximally active from the surgical dissection. The second treatment addresses the skin as an independent surface once the structural healing is sufficiently complete to tolerate aggressive resurfacing without competing inflammatory signals from the deeper layers. The combined effect on collagen remodeling, surface texture, pigmentation, and dermal thickness is substantially greater than either treatment produces alone. Medical-grade topical prescription protocol Every patient I operate on is placed on a prescription topical regimen as a standard component of postoperative management, not as an optional add-on. The protocol includes tretinoin, hyaluronic acid, vitamins D and E, niacinamide, resveratrol, and turmeric delivered in a ceramide base. Tretinoin accelerates keratinocyte turnover, stimulates collagen synthesis, and normalizes melanocyte activity, producing measurable improvements in surface texture, fine lines, and pigmentation with consistent use. Niacinamide addresses barrier function, reduces inflammatory hyperpigmentation, and improves ceramide synthesis. Resveratrol and turmeric provide antioxidant and anti-inflammatory activity at the dermal level. The ceramide base restores and maintains barrier integrity throughout the resurfacing and remodeling period when the skin is most vulnerable to transepidermal water loss and environmental oxidative stress. The skin you see in these after photographs is the product of the surgical restoration, the laser protocol, the nanofat regenerative treatment, and six-plus months of consistent topical support. These are not independent variables producing independent effects. They are sequenced interventions working on the same biological system in a planned and coordinated way. On the scars: why tension-free closure produces categorically different scar outcomes The postauricular incisions in these photographs are present. They are not absolutely invisible. But they are as close to undetectable as this surgery allows, and understanding why requires understanding what determines facelift scar quality in the first place. Scar quality in facelift surgery is determined primarily by closure tension, not by suturing technique. When skin is asked to hold structural load at the closure, the mechanical stress concentrates at the incision line. The scar widens. The earlobe displaces inferiorly, producing the pixie ear deformity that is one of the most recognizable signs of a tension-based facelift result. The postauricular skin bands visibly under load and the scar becomes progressively more visible as it matures under sustained tension. When the deep structural work is complete and the skin is redraped over a restored architecture without tension, the incision heals as a fine line in the natural postauricular crease at the correct anatomical position. The earlobe sits naturally. The scar matures to near-invisibility because it is not being mechanically stressed during the healing process. The scars in these photographs are the direct product of a tension-free closure. They are not the result of scar treatment or special suturing. They are the result of structural work that was complete enough that the skin had nothing to do but heal. On the chin-down positional view as the definitive test of neck lift outcomes Every photograph in a standard facelift result series is taken in a neutral forward-facing or slightly elevated chin position. This is the position in which every neck lift looks its best regardless of how it was performed. It is the position that most effectively conceals residual submental laxity, incomplete platysmal correction, and the soft tissue redundancy that persists when the deep neck anatomy was not fully addressed. The chin-down position is the opposite. It places the cervicomental skin and underlying platysma under direct gravitational and mechanical load in the direction opposed to the surgical correction vector. A result built on skin tension fails this test immediately. The submental skin bunches. The platysmal bands reappear. The submandibular fullness that appeared corrected in the upright photograph reasserts itself under positional load. In this patient the chin-down view shows a clean submental contour with maintained cervicomental definition and no bunching or banding under positional stress. This is a biomechanical outcome, not a photographic one. The structures responsible for maintaining this architecture under load are the deep neck anatomy addressed surgically, the near-vertical platysmal suspension anchored at the mastoid crevasse, and the gonial angle fulcrum that converts the posterior-superior fixation force into vertical submental support. The chin-down position should be standard documentation in every neck lift result series published anywhere. Its consistent absence from facelift result photography is not an accident. On skin quality as an integrated surgical outcome When the deep structural layer is properly restored, the skin sitting over it changes in ways that topical treatment and laser resurfacing alone cannot produce. The mechanical relationships between the dermis, subdermal fat, and underlying SMAS-platysma layer are normalized. The tension vectors that aging distributes across the skin in unfavorable patterns are resolved. The dermal blood supply, maintained through the intact dermal plexus in a preservation-technique deep plane lift rather than disrupted through skin delamination, supports dermal healing and regenerative cellular activity throughout the recovery period. The CO2 laser, nanofat, and topical protocol in this case are working on a skin envelope that has had its structural foundation restored. That is a categorically different substrate than treating skin that is still compensating for an unresolved structural problem underneath it. The regenerative treatments amplify a structural result. They cannot substitute for one. Procedures performed in this case Deep plane face and neck lift with Vectara vector planning framework. Mastoid crevasse neck lift with submandibular gland excision. Endoscopic temple lift. Scarless endoscopic upper blepharoplasty. Endoscopic vertical midface lift. Structural fat grafting with fulcrum-first sequencing. Nanofat stem cell and growth factor transfer. Intraoperative CO2 laser resurfacing. Second-stage CO2 laser and RF microneedling at three months. Medical-grade prescription topical protocol including tretinoin, hyaluronic acid, vitamins D and E, niacinamide, resveratrol, turmeric in ceramide base. References Talei B, Gould DJ, Ziai H. Vectorial Analysis of Deep Plane Face and Neck Lift. Aesthetic Surgery Journal. 2024;44(10):1015-1022. Talei B, Shauly O, Marxen T, Menon A, Gould DJ. The Mastoid Crevasse and 3-Dimensional Considerations in Deep Plane Neck Lifting. Aesthetic Surgery Journal. 2024;44(2):NP132-NP148. Shauly O, Gould DJ. Structural Fat Grafting as a Mechanical Fulcrum in Deep Plane Facelift and Neck Lift. In preparation. Tonnard P, et al. Nanofat Grafting: Basic Research and Clinical Applications. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 2013. Happy to answer technical questions on endoscopic upper face access, the two-stage laser protocol, the topical prescription regimen, chin-down positional documentation, or how I think about skin quality as an integrated rather than adjunctive component of the surgical plan. See This Result in Motion — and Hear From the Patient Directly Static photographs are the standard documentation format for surgical results and they are the least informative format available for evaluating a facelift outcome. A face lives in motion. The test of a structural result is not how it looks in a standardized forward-facing photograph taken under controlled lighting. It is how it moves, how it holds under positional stress, how it responds to expression, and how the patient experiences living in it every day. For this case, all of that documentation exists and I want you to see it before forming an opinion from the stills alone. The patient's own account of her experience, in her words, without prompting or scripting: https://www.instagram.com/dr.gouldplasticsurgery/reel/DVMBSjhgRD0/ The result in full motion across multiple angles and lighting conditions, showing the neck, jawline, skin quality, and facial dynamics that photographs cannot capture: https://www.instagram.com/dr.gouldplasticsurgery/reel/DUqi8PfgXDd/ Extended video documentation including profile and oblique views in motion: https://youtube.com/shorts/CeoZN_OOLWs?si=wYv7cn5fdKzjUAsh Additional still documentation across all standard views at this time point: https://www.instagram.com/dr.gouldplasticsurgery/p/DUJnQ5IErV1/ I post video alongside every case I document here for a specific reason. The comment threads on static photograph posts consistently produce debates about whether the result is real, whether the lighting is matched, whether the makeup is equivalent, and whether the change is meaningful. Almost every one of those debates resolves immediately when you watch the patient move. The neck holds its architecture when she turns her head. The skin moves naturally over the restored structural layer. The cervicomental angle is present and defined in every position, not just the one captured in the standardized lateral photograph. Video should be standard documentation in facelift surgery. The consistent absence of motion documentation from most surgeons posting results anywhere online is not a coincidence. A result that holds in motion is a result built on structural architecture. A result that only holds in a photograph is a result built on surface tension. You can tell the difference in about thirty seconds of watching someone move their head. Watch the videos. Then look at the photographs again. The stills will mean something different. submitted by /u/DrDanGould to r/deepplaneresults [link] [comments]