Hey expert laser guys and gals,
I am a medical student in need of some direction in terms of low level laser therapy for soft tissue (muscle/ligaments/fascia/etc).. As you might know there are a gizillion “cold laser” companies that charge in upwards of $20,000 for their equipment. If my undergrad physics still serves me correct, really the importance of a therapeutic laser is the wavelength and power (most studies have been done using lasers <300m, infrared). In theory would one of the 808nm laser pointers (High Power Laser Pointers | 808nm IR Laser Pointers | SKYlasers) or (InfraRed Laser Pointer --- IR Laser Pen ----- Viper Series Lasers :: Handheld Lasers :: Dragon Lasers) have similar therapeutic affects on soft tissue as some of the spot treatment studies? If I keep my treatments within the WALT’s dosage limits (http://www.walt.nu/images/stories/fi...-780-860nm.pdf) it still would be safe, right? I understand many studies use equipment with many lasers diodes but in generalities is my thinking correct? Thanks for your time.

I have no real idea of the therapeutics uses of lasers, however, if you want cheap IR lasers, go O-like.com, they have a handheld 200mW 808nm laser under 50$ IIRC.

I saw that since WALT seems reputable, then if you stay inside their 780-860nm and <500mW, keep the size of the laser dot and the amount of energy absorbed by the patient within their bounds for the specific application, then you're good.

Then again, I don't know anything about the medical uses of lasers and that chart was last updated 5 years ago, so I take no responsibility if your patient gets transported to a different dimension because of my advice.

There is some loose info floating around here. You'll have to search, its been a while. IR is invisible, so safety goggles are a must. I dont know if it would work well. If it did, I'm sure they would already be using cheap set ups.

I am unsure what possible health benefits these lasers can provide, but safety seems a very real problem here.

If you're talking about near-ir lasers (808 or 1064 nm or so), keep in mind that while hardly visible lasers of enough power (100s of mWs as i figure from this) pose a very serious eye hazard.

The combination of being hardly visible, yet properly collimated by the eye onto the retina is a recepi for disaster without protection.

Other tissues are less likely to suffer damage from such lasers - party because the power is very limited to start with.

I've heard some stories that some of those medical laser treatments are nothing more than a placebo, so look up any proved effect of what you're looking for just to be sure.
A lot of wavelengths and powers can be easily made without spending huge amounts on medical lasers that do pretty much nothing more than a pointer with the right wavelength. A member may even be able to make a fancy looking device witht he right specs for a fraction of the price. Even I could.
So light is light, if a simple pointer has the same properties as an expenive unit, use it to your advantage.

Why not use LEDs? The issue is wavelength and power, not coherence.

Laser treatment cost waaay more money LOL.

You are correct, as long as the laser is focused out and not into a fine point it would be safe for that kind of use. The debate about the energy from a laser for medical and theraputic uses is no longer relavant because it has been proven affective many times over however, the latest debate about modulation or different frequencies being useful still stands and if you're still researching it you will see that is the biggest selling points with the high dollar ones.

I suppose you have point there.. leds in the near-IR can be very efficient and operated at much higher power to cost ratio than lasers.

Perhaps the selling point of these therapies is that they use lasers, which sounds very high tech, advanced and precise. If you want to just get a whopping big load of near-IR light at a good price, power LED's would be the way to go.

But to be honest, i dont see any benefit in such near-ir treatment for most ailments. Any effect would be thermal with these wavelengths - not something very sophisticated since it essentially no more functional than a warm compress. On the other hand, if there is market demand for such treatments you could supply that with rather simple means.

One major advantage of such psychological effects is that they will work as long as the patient believes in it - no matter if your IR source is a LED, laser, or not even present at all.

Most of the studies I've seen seem to support it, but none know why it works. (probably psychosomatic, but I don't know) I'll look into it further...

Psychosomatic explanations should be viable.

But since this forum is about laser safety, all answers will still stand, regardless if there is any scientific merit to the beneficial effects of such therapies.

Non Surgical Laser treatment is a grey area out of control.

Start by looking for the NASA studies using LEDs, deep red at 660 nm, 750 nm red, and 880 nm red in COMBINATION, Those numbers are from memory and the 750 one may be way off. But the NASA 3 wavelength system had proven results for deep penetration treatment.

One vendor of a modified NASA device: Quantum Devices Inc

One other thing, laser devices are usually defocused. Why? because the spot size, if focused, is too small for deep penetration and may burn surface tissue. Coherent light does make it deeper into tissue then incoherent light.. If you spot size is too small, you can't get deep because a small piece of adsorptive tissue may get in your way.

Also look at optical tomography , the technology is similar in penetration depth.

I no longer have access to wonderful Scifinder Scholar to find you the Nasa study. Sorry!! I'm pretty sure its Marshall Space Center that did it.

Steve

Am I missing something very obvious here, or... why?

I found a copy of it through my university database. The wavelengths are 680, 730, and 880nm. Is anyone going to sue me if I post a copy here?

Not likely, but you can just put the pubmed link to the abstract here to be on the safe side

Self focusing effects... And a much better scattering mechanism ..

Since its NASA sponsored, this is one of those loopholes where nobody is going to be so concerned, use the "educational use" loophole..

Steve

Fine by me.

Here it is in a zip (forum doesn't accept large PDF)

I'm glad to see some open minds here these days. One of the oldest LLLT sites is at laser therapy internet guide - LaserWorld - The Low Level Laser Therapy - LLLT - Internet Guide . It is the Swedish Medical Laser Society. Dr. Jan Tunér, a board member of WALT, co-wrote the first, big, thorough, laser therapy book for clinicians and doctors about fifteen years ago. On their main page, they have a link that says: Laser pointers for home use. The link goes to a book that tells people how to use laser pointers for home care. If laserpointerforums.com is a site that focuses on laser safety, you may need to come up with a policy statement about how far one may go in this direction. It is not a fad, it is a trend, and this board is going to become more inundated with such questions as time goes on.

I am MD and study acupuncture for 4 years, at my 35 years old (58 y/o now) I am using lasers devices since 20 years ago, -with eye protection of course, for me and my patients- if you put in acupuncture points has a effect like stimulation, or in wounds or degenerative tissues, the same: stimulation of repair, I am using a device one physicist friend of mine made, 100 mW, 905 nm and pulsed, several pulses, in fact this science in LLLT is very new and all this stuff about pulsed lasers is new terrain, some one of the forum tell the important fact is the mW and the nm, agree with that, if is continuous regimen like the pointers, the user can move the ppointer or flahlight like he wish and do properties of pulses, very low frecuency like 0.5 Hz or maximum of 5 Hz ---the limit is the fast you can move your hand---- the prices are very high if the manufacturer said: "medical lasers", I appreciate a lot if some one of the forum can made to me, or modify with little modifications one model in existence ---(like put conection to electricity instead of bateries), 808 nm 100 mW, 850nm in continous regimen, will be OK, I assume all legal responsability of the application, my e mail is drmacor@gmail.com (I don't know the rules about put my web site and e mail on this post), I can share my medical experience with my laser with the community

about acupuncture I study a professional course for MDs, include traditional concepts and scientific approach, this scientific approach allowed me understand partially how the input of several wavelenghts of lasers ----LEDs are not studied so much but this lack of research don't imply don't has effect on living systems---activate the cellular metabolism by activation of mollecules photoacceptors in the mitochondria (cytochromes) increasing the production of ATP and in some way stimulate the tissue where the laser is applied

I find it confusing why you would need to use laser in the near-IR (say 1000-800nm) laser for any kind of therapy. Both sunlight and incandescent bulbs output large amounts of light at these wavelenghts, probably more than you could ever safely apply using a laser.

As far as i know there is no reason a specific wavelength is required for biointeraction, so using a laser would only increase the amount of danger compared to using IR LEDs, lightbulbs and whatever other non-collimated source operates in this range.

the use is in acupuncture, acupoints are small areas of the body, in this tradition before electricity the acupuncturist in China use heat with "moxibustion" -search the word in the web- or heat the acupuncture needles, I heat the needles with halogen lamps, with cigarette lighter, hair dryer, but I don't like smoke in my office not either have time to stay with the dryer, so I use laser to provide energy, the indicatios are the same like "moxibustion", this can substitute heat, in my experience has worth, is easy and fast, for example the acupuncturist can provide 1 J in 10 seconds (100 mW x 10 sec) for acupoint
how I explain?? if you stimulate the acupoints with laser is very specific and precise the stimulation, if you put a lamp is very wide and don't penetrate, may be the LEDS are cheap option but are less studied, but you are righ, I am searching
1) cheap options to expensive medical lasers
2) fast stimulation options
3) acupuncture needles substitutes ---this only to the stimulation modalities of puncture with needles, the needle is very versatile and isn't replaced with lasers of any wavelenght
4) this kind of laser use is for professionals in acupuncture or rehabilitation/physical medicine ---of course with professional preparation---
5) about 4) I am professional in health but may be you members know better the technical details of light and devices and I know better the effect in clinical ground
5) we are in 21 century, we should evolve and....the health professionals and the patients like technology, trust me, we the MDs use more dangerous devices and thecnologies and drugs...the point is we prepare to use this ---this is nothing if use with appropiate caution

OF COURSE the use of medical lasers has legal issues and need aprove of the health authorities of each country, this is important in commercial intention, so so....let this devices in the intention was made....but appreciate any comment to my posts

I am roughly familiar with acupuncture - i have no idea about any viable mechanism of action, but the general procecdure is familiar. I suppose its difficult to integrate the concepts of accupuncture with the general ideas of laser safey and laser effects on tissue.

If you want any valuable advise on what laser to use under which circumstance, it should at least be clear what the biochemical target is, so we can consider if the laser will actually be able to reach this target, and if so interact with it.

If the target is, for example, a mitochondrion on the surface of a bone, you need to aim extremely well to concentrate laser power on that particular spot, 'missing' all mitochondria in the skin, adipose tissues etc on the way there. Such aiming techniques are available for radiotherapy of cancer, but i think that may be beyond the scope of this forum.