Featured Testimonials
THOR on Facebook
THOR on Twitter
THOR on LinkedIn
THOR on Instagram
THOR on YouTubeIf you are familiar with many of the light therapy arguments today this should make you smile; I stumbled across a book published in 1946 called Electrotherapy and Light Therapy and I quite enjoyed the cautious speculation and many accuracies that we still discuss today.
The book is 694 pages long, the section on light and infrared therapies is 26 pages, here some samples for you.
35 papers for you this month: a trial on oral complications in patients with H&N cancer, a meta-analysis of LLLT for oral mucositis, an LLLT neck pain systematic review, a review of laser in orthodontics, a clinical trial on hair growth with LED and laser, and finally another attempt to big up “class IV laser” by misleading readers about parameters. See my rant here.
Continue reading
In October a paper was published claiming that class IV laser is more effective than class 3B for oral mucositis. The authors attempt to con the reader by asserting they used a “standard” 3B laser protocol, but instead they set up a weak protocol delivering just 15% of the recomended energy in order to make a “class IV laser” product appear more effective.
As you know the marketing claim for class IV devices is that they have more power so should go deeper, should reduce treatment time and should be more effective, well guess what, most of their power is using wavelengths that do not penetrate (970-980nm) [1]. All the evidence on dose consistently shows that over treatment reduces effectiveness [2][3], treatment times are longer due to the scanning technique [4] and when you look at the small handful of clinical trails done with class IV lasers they use the same irradiation parameters used by 3B lasers anyway![4]
Such misinformation is intended to direct a doctor / therapist away from what is proven to work in favour of something more expensive. If you you see a manuscript with “HILT” or “class IV laser” in the title watch out for the marketing spin.
I wrote a letter to the journal editor. I will post a link when it is published.
The title of last months PMLS editorial was Low Level Laser Therapy (LLLT) and World Association for Laser Therapy (WALT) Dosage Recommendations. Written by the Scientific Secretary Prof. Jan Bjordal. He describes how far we have come and the importance of the WALT dosage recommendations. No abstract is available for editorials so I have prepared one for you below. Continue reading
The good news is I received an invite from NICE to go see them.
NICE are the UK’s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Their guidance helps British health professionals deliver the optimal care based on the best available evidence. It seems they like what we do and want me go show them LLLT. Watch this space. 8-)
A paper titled ”The Effectiveness of Therapeutic Class IV (10 W) Laser Treatment for Epicondylitis” [ref] showed that 10 Watt Class IV laser (mixed 8W 970nm, 2W 810) was successful in reducing pain and improving function in an RCT with 15 patients, and that there was good statistical significance at 6 months following a course of 6 treatments.
The claim by class IV laser manufacturers is that class IV lasers are better (faster, deeper and more effective) than Class 3b and LED systems. Conversely the 3B laser and LED manufacturers argue that less power density is more effective because delivering energy too quickly can overdose tissues and class IV lasers might burn the skin.
Throughout this paper there are marketing messages claiming the advantages of shorter treatment times than low power LLLT systems and of course the title shouts “10 Watt Class IV laser” just in case the reader is in any doubt that more power is what you need.
Regular readers of this column know my obsession with irradiation parameters, particularly dose rate effects (W/cm2) and will not be surprised to learn that I deconstruced the irradiation parameters used in this trial . Surprise, surprise they were the same low irradiance levels typically used by 3B lasers and LED systems, if not less and the treatment time was longer too.
Yes, it was a 10 Watt laser and yes, 3,000 joules was delivered, however it had a large beam area and treatment was delivered over (45cm2) in a “painting fashion”. The fluence (dose) was 6.6 Joules/cm2 and the power density was a tiny 22mW/cm2, consequently treatment time was a hefty 5 mins.
The average irradiance was not disclosed in the paper and the reader is directed to think that more power is quicker.
P.S. research trials with 3B lasers are typically 30 seconds to 3 mins and our recommended treatment is 1 min with a large LED cluster to the lateral epicondyle and 30 seconds for any related trigger points.
UK and Ireland dates
USA and Canada dates
Australia and NZ dates
Rest Of World dates