No abstract

The low level lasers currently in the market vary in wavelength, dosage, and frequency. These devices are used with much different clinical pathology. Most notably, some studies claim that wounds heal faster with low level laser therapy due to the fact that bacteria commonly found in wounds are killed by laser light. Systemic and meta-analysis studies found the difficulty of comparison of numerous research studies because of differences in the intensities and frequencies of low level laser treatment (LLLT). The purpose of this study was to determine the effectiveness of LLLT on controlling bacterial growth. Design: Cross-sectional study. Methods: Variables included LLLT dosage and wavelength on 3 bacteria commonly seen in wounds, strains of Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa were used on commercially available 5.0-cm agar plates. Blue, green, and red, ultraviolet (UV) and infrared laser light sources were adjusted to either low or high intensity settings. Five Petri dishes at a time were placed directly beneath laser light sources with the exception of UV which was placed six inches below the suspended light and infrared which was placed directly on top of the Petri dish lid. Each group of five Petri dishes was irradiated for 15 minutes. Results: The results showed no effect of any of 9 different LLLT intensities or colors on bacteria growth compared to sham light. Conclusions: At least for claims of bacterial growth inhibition with LLLT, no support for this claim can be found here.

The findings of this study indicated that healthy young female participants carried a heavy double-pack with less energy cost (normalized by the entire system weight, i.e., the participant's weight plus the weight of the pack) compared with their male counterparts during a 10-min walking exercise.

Objective: Low level laser treatment (LLLT) is widely used in physical therapy practice. It is combined with physical therapy or LLLT alone. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of LLLT on patients' perception of general wrist pain. Design: Longitudinal study. Methods: Forty-eight subjects with wrist pain who were in the age range of 18-70 years old were examined. The subjects were asked, via an interview and a visual analog scale, to grade their wrist pain. They were asked to rotate their wrists through full range of motion and the angle at which any pain occurred was assessed. Each subject was then exposed to one of the following: 1) treatment with an infrared laser with the power turned off (placebo), 2) treatment with an infrared therapeutic laser, 3) treatment with a red therapeutic laser, 4) treatment with an ultraviolet laser, 5) treatment with a blue laser, 6) treatment with a Mickey Mouse flashlight. The duration of the treatment was 3 sessions in 3 days. Results:The results of the experiments showed that while pain was reduced both immediately after and the next day after laser therapy (p<0.05), there was no significant difference between the laser groups and the placebo group. However, the Mickey Mouse flashlight treatment groups had a greater range of motion than the laser groups (p<0.05). Conclusions: While pain was reduced in all laser groups, it was probably a placebo effect. The Mickey Mouse flashlight group probably received benefit from the heat of the flashlight.