Barry Keoghan’s XERF Treatment: Radio Frequency Skin Tightening Explained

A treatment chosen around the work

For Barry Keoghan, the appeal of XERF is practical: it promises a firmer, more rested look without taking him off a busy film schedule. The Oscar-nominated actor recently had his second session at Dermaspa, the UK clinic run by skincare practitioner Nilam Holmes. Holmes says the non-invasive treatment uses radio frequency to support collagen production while avoiding facial fat loss, a concern often raised in discussions of facial tightening procedures.

That distinction helps explain why a treatment’s downtime can matter as much as its intended result. An actor working long days may have limited room for recovery, visible irritation or a change that needs time to settle. XERF is being presented here as a way to pursue a subtle effect within those constraints. It’s a scheduling decision as much as a skincare one.

Holmes says Keoghan is currently filming a major project and can’t accommodate the recovery time associated with more intensive procedures. “That’s why I chose XERF for him,” she tells GQ. “It gives a firmer rested look to his face without interrupting his work.” Her explanation centers on fit: what Keoghan wants, what his skin needs and what his work calendar allows.

What XERF can—and can’t—do

XERF is sometimes described as a “non-surgical facelift,” but Holmes cautions against expecting a dramatic transformation. She sees it as a fit for people with mild skin laxity who want subtle, natural-looking results. That framing sets a useful boundary around the treatment’s pitch: tightening is not the same as changing the underlying structure of a face, and the phrase “facelift” can imply more than the clinic says this procedure is meant to deliver.

The clinic’s website estimates results last 12 to 18 months and lists prices at about $3,300 for one session or $6,000 for two. Those figures describe the clinic’s offer, not a guarantee that every client will see the same result or keep it for the same length of time. In this category, outcomes can depend on a person’s skin and treatment plan, so the estimate is best read as a guide to the clinic’s stated expectations.

That restrained promise matters. Skin tightening treatments aren’t interchangeable, and the right choice depends on a client’s skin and schedule. Holmes says she adjusts Keoghan’s appointments to what his skin needs at the time, rather than following one fixed regimen. That kind of tailoring is a reminder that a menu of procedures doesn’t amount to a standard prescription.

A routine built around filming

Keoghan has been a client for “a while now,” Holmes says, and typically visits every four to six weeks. When filming leaves him looking tired, she may use radio frequency skin tightening or lymphatic drainage. The examples suggest that his appointments address changing, immediate concerns as well as longer-term goals; they don’t establish that every visit includes the same treatment.

If makeup has irritated his skin, she might opt for a mild laser treatment alongside a deep-cleansing HydraFacial. For anyone working under lights, wearing makeup for long stretches or facing an irregular schedule, skin irritation can become part of the practical picture. Here’s the thing: a treatment plan that sounds appealing in the abstract still has to make sense for the skin in front of the practitioner that day.

His regular appointments may also include SkinPen microneedling, which is used to address fine lines, acne scars and uneven texture. About once a year, Holmes says, they consider a more intensive treatment: Ultraformer III HIFU, which uses ultrasound, or Morpheus8, which combines microneedling and radio frequency. Both involve some downtime. That contrast helps clarify XERF’s role in the routine: it’s described as one option among several, with more intensive procedures reserved for occasions when the likely benefit and recovery burden fit.

Not a single treatment doing everything. A set of choices.

Care, appearance and public scrutiny

Keoghan has spoken publicly about online abuse targeting his appearance, saying in a March interview with SiriusXM that it can make him “not want to go outside.” In a voiceover for Holmes’s Instagram video, he says, “I feel better about myself; I look better.” Those statements point to two different pressures: the emotional cost of public scrutiny and the personal satisfaction he says he gets from treatment. They don’t establish that one caused the other.

Holmes frames her clinic visits as skincare, rather than an effort to change his identity. That distinction matters in a conversation where any visible treatment can be treated as evidence of insecurity or conformity. Keoghan’s own words describe a change in how he feels and looks; the available account doesn’t support a larger claim about what motivated him to seek care.

She also describes a shift in her clientele: more young men are asking about appearance-focused treatments amid the rise of “looksmaxxing.” The term covers a broad interest in improving one’s appearance, but the account gives no figures on how widespread that interest is or how much it has changed demand. That said, a practitioner seeing more inquiries is a useful signal of changing conversations around men’s grooming, even if it doesn’t prove a broad cultural trend by itself.

What the choice says about aesthetic care

Keoghan’s case shows why treatment choice often comes down to fit—his schedule, the condition of his skin and how much change he wants. If you’re working in this space, the most relevant detail may be the modesty of the stated goal: a rested appearance that won’t interrupt filming. That’s a different proposition from promising a dramatic transformation, and it sets a more realistic standard for judging whether the treatment suits a particular person.

This is more significant than it looks. Aesthetic care is often discussed in terms of before-and-after results, while recovery time, comfort and the ability to keep working receive less attention. For people whose work depends on being camera-ready, those practical limits can shape the decision. XERF’s pitch is modest by design: visible tightening with minimal interruption to work.

And yet, a low-interruption option still has to earn its place through the result it delivers for an individual client. Holmes’s account offers a case study, not proof that the same regimen will suit others. The useful takeaway is narrower: when a treatment is chosen around a real schedule and a specific skin concern, convenience can be part of the value—but it doesn’t replace clear expectations about what the procedure can achieve.