Soon after the discovery of lasers in the 1960s it was realized that laser therapy had the potential to improve wound healing and reduce pain, inflammation and swelling. In recent years the field sometimes known as photobiomodulation has broadened to include light-emitting diodes and other light sources, and the range of wavelengths used now includes many in the red and near infrared. The term “low level laser therapy” or LLLT has become widely recognized and implies the existence of the biphasic dose response or the Arndt-Schulz curve. This review will cover the mechanisms of action of LLLT at a cellular and at a tissular level and will summarize the various light sources and principles of dosimetry that are employed in clinical practice. The range of diseases, injuries, and conditions that can be benefited by LLLT will be summarized with an emphasis on those that have reported randomized controlled clinical trials. Serious life-threatening diseases such as stroke, heart attack, spinal cord injury, and traumatic brain injury may soon be amenable to LLLT therapy.

ᮀ The use of low levels of visible or near infrared light for reducing pain, inflammation and edema, promoting healing of wounds, deeper tissues and nerves, and preventing cell death and tissue damage has been known for over forty years since the invention of lasers. Despite many reports of positive findings from experiments conducted in vitro, in animal models and in randomized controlled clinical trials, LLLT remains controversial in mainstream medicine. The biochemical mechanisms underlying the positive effects are incompletely understood, and the complexity of rationally choosing amongst a large number of illumination parameters such as wavelength, fluence, power density, pulse structure and treatment timing has led to the publication of a number of negative studies as well as many positive ones. A biphasic dose response has been frequently observed where low levels of light have a much better effect on stimulating and repairing tissues than higher levels of light. The so-called Arndt-Schulz curve is frequently used to describe this biphasic dose response. This review will cover the molecular and cellular mechanisms in LLLT, and describe some of our recent results in vitro and in vivo that provide scientific explanations for this biphasic dose response.

ᮀ Low-level laser (light) therapy (LLLT) has been known since 1967 but still remains controversial due to incomplete understanding of the basic mechanisms and the selection of inappropriate dosimetric parameters that led to negative studies. The biphasic doseresponse or Arndt-Schulz curve in LLLT has been shown both in vitro studies and in animal experiments. This review will provide an update to our previous ) coverage of this topic. In vitro mediators of LLLT such as adenosine triphosphate (ATP) and mitochondrial membrane potential show biphasic patterns, while others such as mitochondrial reactive oxygen species show a triphasic dose-response with two distinct peaks. The Janus nature of reactive oxygen species (ROS) that may act as a beneficial signaling molecule at low concentrations and a harmful cytotoxic agent at high concentrations, may partly explain the observed responses in vivo. Transcranial LLLT for traumatic brain injury (TBI) in mice shows a distinct biphasic pattern with peaks in beneficial neurological effects observed when the number of treatments is varied, and when the energy density of an individual treatment is varied. Further understanding of the extent to which biphasic dose responses apply in LLLT will be necessary to optimize clinical treatments.

Background and Objective Low level light (or laser) therapy (LLLT) is a rapidly growing modality used in physical therapy, chiropractic, sports medicine and increasingly in mainstream medicine. LLLT is used to increase wound healing and tissue regeneration, to relieve pain and inflammation, to prevent tissue death, to mitigate degeneration in many neurological indications. While some agreement has emerged on the best wavelengths of light and a range of acceptable dosages to be used (irradiance and fluence), there is no agreement on whether continuous wave or pulsed light is best and on what factors govern the pulse parameters to be chosen. Study Design/Materials and Methods The published peer-reviewed literature was reviewed between 1970 and 2010. Results The basic molecular and cellular mechanisms of LLLT are discussed. The type of pulsed light sources available and the parameters that govern their pulse structure are outlined. Studies that have compared continuous wave and pulsed light in both animals and patients are reviewed. Frequencies used in other pulsed modalities used in physical therapy and biomedicine are compared to those used in LLLT. Conclusion There is some evidence that pulsed light does have effects that are different from those of continuous wave light. However further work is needed to define these effects for different disease conditions and pulse structures.

Reviewers should insist that the minimum eight most important beam parameters are included, and authors should take care to measure and record these accurately before, during, and after an experiment or clinical trial.

No abstract

Low-level laser light therapy (LLLT) exerts beneficial effects on motor and histopathological outcomes after experimental traumatic brain injury (TBI), and coherent near-infrared light has been reported to improve cognitive function in patients with chronic TBI. However, the effects of LLLT on cognitive recovery in experimental TBI are unknown. We hypothesized that LLLT administered after controlled cortical impact (CCI) would improve post-injury Morris water maze (MWM) performance. Low-level laser light (800 nm) was applied directly to the contused parenchyma or transcranially in mice beginning 60-80 min after CCI. Injured mice treated with 60 J/cm 2 (500 mW/cm 2 · 2 min) either transcranially or via an open craniotomy had modestly improved latency to the hidden platform ( p < 0.05 for group), and probe trial performance ( p < 0.01) compared to non-treated controls. The beneficial effects of LLLT in open craniotomy mice were associated with reduced microgliosis at 48 h (21.8 -2.3 versus 39.2 -4.2 IbA-1 + cells/200 · field, p < 0.05). Little or no effect of LLLT on post-injury cognitive function was observed using the other doses, a 4-h administration time point and 7-day administration of 60 J/cm 2 . No effect of LLLT (60 J/cm 2 open craniotomy) was observed on post-injury motor function (days 1-7), brain edema (24 h), nitrosative stress (24 h), or lesion volume (14 days). Although further dose optimization and mechanism studies are needed, the data suggest that LLLT might be a therapeutic option to improve cognitive recovery and limit inflammation after TBI.

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the effects of postoperative photobiomodulation therapy and physical rehabilitation on early recovery variables for dogs after hemilaminectomy for treatment of intervertebral disk disease. ANIMALS 32 nonambulatory client-owned dogs. PROCEDURES Dogs received standard postoperative care with photobiomodulation therapy (n = 11), physical rehabilitation with sham photobiomodulation treatment (11), or sham photobiomodulation treatment only (10) after surgery. Neurologic status at admission, diagnostic and surgical variables, duration of postoperative IV analgesic administration, and recovery grades (over 10 days after surgery) were assessed. Time to reach recovery grades B (able to support weight with some help), C (initial limb movements present), and D (ambulatory [≥ 3 steps unassisted]) was compared among groups. Factors associated with ability to ambulate on day 10 or at last follow-up were assessed. RESULTS Time to reach recovery grades B, C, and D and duration of postoperative IV opioid administration did not differ among groups. Neurologic score at admission and surgeon experience were negatively associated with the dogs' ability to ambulate on day 10. The number of disk herniations identified by diagnostic imaging before surgery was negatively associated with ambulatory status at last follow-up. No other significant associations and no adverse treatment-related events were identified. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE This study found no difference in recovery-related variables among dogs that received photobiomodulation therapy, physical rehabilitation with sham photobiomodulation treatment, or sham photobiomodulation treatment only. Larger studies are needed to better evaluate effects of these postoperative treatments on dogs treated surgically for intervertebral disk disease.