Background Lasers and intense pulsed light sources (IPLS) are proposed for the treatment of many pigmentary disorders. They are sometimes considered as magic tools able to remove any type of lesions. Although being the best option for several hyperpigmented lesions, they can also worsen some conditions and have potential side‐effects. Objective The aim of this review was to give evidence‐based recommendations for the use of lasers and IPLS in the treatment of hyperpigmented lesions. Methods These recommendations were produced for the European Society of Laser Dermatology by a consensus panel made up of experts in the field of pigment laser surgery. Recommendations on the use of lasers and light treatments were made based on the quality of evidence for efficacy, safety, tolerability, cosmetic outcome, patient satisfaction/preference and, where appropriate, on the experts' opinion. Results Lasers and IPLS are very effective for treating many hyperpigmented lesions such as lentigos, dermal hypermelanocytosis or heavy metal depositions. In the other hand, they have to be considered with great caution for other disorders, such as café au lait macules, melasma or postinflammatory hyperpigmentation. After making the correct diagnosis, if lasers or IPLS are indicated, the optimal wavelengths and parameters will be chosen taking into account the skin phototype, origin and depth of the target pigments. Conclusion Although potentially very effective, lasers and IPLS cannot be proposed for all types of hyperpigmented lesions. In all cases, precise recognition of the disorder is mandatory for choosing between these devices and other therapeutic approaches.

The treatment of xanthelasma by 1064-nm Q-switched Nd:YAG laser is a valuable treatment option to eliminate lesions, with rapid and good quality healing. The absence of any associated skin destruction allows treatment to be repeated when necessary.

This is the largest series of CLH occurring in tattoos. This delayed hypersensitivity reaction may be underestimated and triggered by a specific immunogenic compound of the ink. Its management remains difficult.

We report the case of a 42-year-old woman with concomitant panniculitis and dermatomyositis. Painful, indurated lesions on the buttocks, thighs, arms, abdomen and breasts were associated with proximal muscle weakness. Skin biopsy revealed lobular panniculitis, and vacuolar degeneration of epidermal basal cells. Direct immunofluorescence was negative. Serum muscle enzyme (creatinine-phosphokinase) levels were elevated, and electromyography demonstrated a myositic process. Muscle biopsy showed an inflammatory myositis. These results were consistent with dermatomyositis associated with panniculitis. Only five cases of this association have been reported previously. The relationship between these two conditions is discussed.