Top nail fungus innovations: which one earns a place in your clinic?

A practical comparison of Clearanail, photodynamic therapy, hot laser and cold laser for onychomycosis — how each works and what it means day to day.

The past decade has produced more onychomycosis technology than the thirty years before it. For a clinic owner that is good news and a headache at once: each option carries a different price, chair time, staffing model and evidence base. Here is how the four most common contenders actually behave in practice.

Clearanail — micro-penetration plus topical

A hand-held drill creates roughly 0.4 mm channels through the nail plate, stopping automatically when it senses a change in tissue density, after which terbinafine is applied topically. Fenestration is well established as a way to improve drug delivery, and studies suggest a multi-fold increase in penetration.

The trade-off is operator dependence: results track with how many holes are drilled and how evenly they are spaced, at around five seconds per hole, and outcomes are strongest when paired with oral medication that many patients cannot take.

PACT — photodynamic antimicrobial therapy

A photosensitising gel is applied to the prepared nail, left to absorb, then activated by a light source that triggers a reaction against the fungal cells. It is drug-free and well tolerated, but it is a multi-step, consumable-driven protocol: gel, incubation time, light exposure, repeated across sessions.

Hot laser — thermal ablation

Thermal lasers work by heating the nail bed to a temperature the fungus cannot survive. Effectiveness depends on delivering that heat, which is exactly what makes it uncomfortable — patients commonly report heat and pain, the practitioner must operate the handpiece throughout, and the thermal load itself is the mechanism, not a side effect.

Lunula — non-thermal cold laser

The Lunula uses two low-level wavelengths, 405 nm and 635 nm, delivered by a rotating line generator across both feet. There is no heat and no sensation, so there is no pain, no anaesthetic and no downtime. Crucially it runs unattended: the patient's feet go in the device for 12 minutes while staff work elsewhere.

So which is the better investment?

Judge each option on four axes: clinical evidence, patient comfort, practitioner chair time, and ongoing consumable cost. Devices that need an operator present for the whole treatment cap how many patients you can see; devices with consumables erode margin on every session. A non-thermal, unattended, consumable-free protocol scores well on all four — which is why it tends to scale inside a busy podiatry practice.