Halo and fractional ablative laser — the technique, and what this Index could match
Ablative / hybrid fractional laser · 8 indexed products · Lasers & Light
Halo is not an alternative to fractional ablative laser. This Index groups it under ablative / hybrid fractional laser, which is the technique itself, alongside 7 other devices. No FDA record could be matched to the brand name Halo by this Index's crosswalk rule, so no clearance number, pathway or date is claimed for it anywhere on this page. The published evidence for the technique — 1,485 papers on PubMed, 229 registered on ClinicalTrials.gov — belongs to all 8 of them, not to any one brand. 7 of the 8 carry an FDA record matched here, cleared under it.
The short name drops words from this Index's modality id — it never adds one. What this measuresThe short name in this page's title is not a synonym written here: it is the product's own modality identifier in this Index with words removed and none added, which is why it reads as the ordinary word rather than the clinical one. The full label this Index gives the technique is printed beside it, and the query behind every evidence figure is published verbatim on the methodology page. Two techniques can shorten to the same ordinary word, and where they do this page names the other one and links to it rather than letting one stand for both.
Methodology →
What the FDA record says about Halo
No FDA record matched this brand, so nothing regulatory is claimed here. What this measuresNo FDA record could be matched to this brand name with confidence, so this page claims no pathway, no clearance or approval number and no date. Nothing here is guessed to fill the gap.
Methodology →
Full record for Halo, every identifier and every source query →
What fractional ablative laser is, as this Index counts it
Ablative / hybrid fractional laser
Counted for the technique, from one fixed query the brand name is not in. What this measuresNumber of PubMed records matching a fixed, hand-written title/abstract query for the MODALITY, not the brand. It measures how much has been PUBLISHED about a technique. It is NOT a quality score, NOT an efficacy measure, NOT a count of randomised trials, and NOT comparable across modalities of different ages -- an older technique has had more years to accumulate papers. Query text is stored next to every count so you can run it yourself. Registration is not completion, not publication and not a result. Counts include studies of any status, size or sponsor, and the recruiting figure is a snapshot taken on the run date. Device studies are under-registered relative to drug studies. Counts are computed per MODALITY, never per brand. Brand-name literature searches reward manufacturers with big marketing departments and punish equally good devices with quieter names. Ranking brands by their own name-hits would be a popularity contest dressed as evidence.
Methodology →
The 7 other fractional ablative laser devices in this Index
| Product | Applicant of record | Pathway | First decision | Identifier |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AcuPulse | Lumenis, Ltd. | 510(k) · cleared | K212703 | |
| Alma Hybrid | Alma Lasers, Inc. | 510(k) · cleared | K251230 | |
| CO2RE | Syneron-Candela Corp | 510(k) · cleared | K181523 | |
| eCO2 | Lutronic Corporation | 510(k) · cleared | K244060 | |
| Halo this page | — | Unverified mapping | — | — |
| SmartXide | El.En S.P.A. | 510(k) · cleared | K240537 | |
| SP Dynamis | Fotona D.O.O. | 510(k) · cleared | K213267 | |
| UltraPulse | Lumenis Be, Ltd. | 510(k) · cleared | K233301 |
Study and trial figures on this site are counted per TECHNIQUE, never per brand. One fixed query is run for the modality and the brand name appears nowhere inside it, so every product that shares a technique carries exactly the same number. That identical figure is EXPECTED and it is not a claim about either product: it is not a finding that they are equivalent, not a measurement of either one, and not evidence that one works as well as the other. It is a fact about the published literature and nothing else. Brand-name literature searches were rejected for the opposite reason — they reward the manufacturer with the larger marketing department and punish an equally well-built product with a quieter name.
Nearby comparisons
Which pairs exist is editorial — observed search demand, not a judgement about any product. What this measuresWhich brands get a comparison page is the ONE editorial decision on this site, and this is it stated plainly. Every brand with a comparison page was observed in a live Google or Bing autocomplete list on 2026-07-26 — that is the entire membership rule, and the seed query each brand was seen under is published in the source of this page. It is a record of what people type, not a judgement about the products: a brand with a page is not better, more popular or more recommended than a brand without one, and a brand without one is missing only because nobody has yet seen it in an autocomplete list. Nothing else on this site is chosen this way; every figure on the page below is copied mechanically from a public record.
Methodology →
Assembled by a program from public records; no figure here was written by hand. What this measuresThis page was assembled by a program from the public records this Index already holds: the openFDA 510(k) and PMA releasable databases, PubMed counts and ClinicalTrials.gov counts, on the run date printed at the top. No sentence on it was written about these products by hand, no figure was estimated, and a value the source does not publish is an em-dash carrying the reason rather than a filled-in guess. Which products appear beside each other is an editorial choice about observed search demand, described in the note beside it. Putting two products on one page is not a recommendation for or against either of them.
Methodology →