LLT and LED-induced 1st degree burns and flushing
Joined: 10 Jun 2005
| Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2006 8:06 pm Post subject: | |
| David,
In Bio-Medical science where we do benchwork and clinical work on patients, we often state the benefits and side effects. We add numbers and statistics to the information to give it validity. As you can see one physician did back up exactly what I said and he did that for the good of other rosacea sufferers despite the current atmosphere. If anyone where to read both posts, you would just find facts, numbers and warnings. Absolutely no vindictiveness. This is the same way that we would write a manuscript or letter to the editor. There is never ill will between scientists or physicians who scrutinize each others work -- this process is one that makes each of us better. As to categorically stating that these machines are not for rosacea right now. I stand behind that 100%. The simple fact cannot be contorted or misplaced -- photobiomodulation significantly increases blood flow to millions of cellls that it is trying to heal. You cannot get away from this fact. This increase in blood flow can last for hours. If your veins and lymphatic vessels are not working properly, the blood cannot be removed and hence progression of rosacea. These are all sound facts with no agenda. I am the first guy to go out on a limb for any possible new treatments. You have personally seen this for 8 years. That is also not in dispute. I stated that people were getting hurt and they should be very careful. If I sat back and did not be a rosacea advocate and NOT report the many adverse reports from rosacea sufferers -- then you should say shame on me. For me to sit on my hands and let more people get burned because I want this forum to run flawlessly with no disputes would be dishonorable to say the least. A physican has reported two such cases and many others have also, but I will wait for them to post if they want to get involved, as most wont. Thank you Dr. Crouch. Peter, you have seen the atmosphere lately in which no physician would dare post -- but you did on two cases and a serioius warning. To post information like this when it will certainly be under high scrutiny shows your character. I hope that the pro- people re-read the information and take it for what it is. Just factual information. _________________ Geoffrey ------------------------------------------------ Dr. Geoffrey Nase Ph.D. Neuro-Vascular Physiologist Rosacea Specialist and Consultant http://www.drnase.com ------------------------------------------------ |
|
 |
Joined: 12 Jun 2005
Location: Columbus, Ga.
| Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2006 11:10 pm Post subject: | |
| Regards,
If you guys (who tout the efficacy of these light tx devices) want to convince others of their validity, then I'd suggest before and after pics. I would also advise you to convince other, local (to you, that is) rosacea sufferers to do this. Also before and after pics. A sizable patient population showing good results would really and credibility to your claims. Also wouldn't be a bad idea to dig up some studies on this type of thearapy and its effects on rosacea (any done?). If you sincerely want to spread the word, then get in touch with a local Derm and plead your case. If he won't listen (prob. not), then maybe he can put you in touch with someone who will. There was a gentleman once (maybe he is still around) who touted the "cure" for rosacea as being the industrial solvent DMSO combined with the anti-fungal drug fluconazole. Of course, he was a layman and no studies, valid or otherwise had been done. (Sort of like this case, no?) Anyway, he expected to just proclaim this "cure", and that everyone would just "trust" him...although he had not pics, evidence, or even professional credentials to give him some credibility. Just like this. You can't expect, considering this situation, any more positive response than that. |
|
Joined: 14 Sep 2005
| Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2006 11:11 pm Post subject: | |
| DUARFASIESAN - Your name spelled backwards is not very nice, you just joined this afternoon and you have no agenda here?? | |
Joined: 23 Jul 2005
| Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2006 11:25 pm Post subject: Re: LLT and LED-induced 1st degree burns and flushing | |||
Exactly, I think that's the whole point. The people advocating these devices seem to know quite a bit about electronics. The average rosacean, I think, does not. Therefore if the normal, electronically-ignorant rosacean were to attempt to build such a machine, I can imagine the results being disastrous. Oh, wait: that's exactly what a Medical Doctor has testified to having witnessed in his own practice. How can advocating caution be considered a bad thing?? Especially when the possible harm is supported by sound theory and actual case reports? I realize some of the pro-red-light folks consider Dr. Nase to be a histrionic/hypochondriac, and the "ego" factor is quite evident in most of the back-and-forth posts, each defending his own. But quite apart from anyone's ego, I think that the more information that is available the better, and I am glad that two medical professionals have followed their own moral compass in sharing that information, despite the potential flaming. |
|||
Joined: 11 Jun 2005
Location: British Columbia, Canada
| Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2006 12:43 am Post subject: | |
| I like to see both sides to ALL treatments - good reports and bad. I'm glad for those that have had good results with the red light treatments, and equally glad to see the reviews to the opposite. This lets me make decisions, one way or another, with a balance of information - which way I choose to go is up to me.
I have had very good results with treatments with Dr Darm and will likely do more this spring - but I am none-the-less, appreciative of posts to the contrary - this helps achieve some realistic balance. The same go for those that have good and bad results with Dr Soldo, and those that have good and bad results with new products like the Neocutis cream. What I would like to see is less "personal attacks" in these posts. If you disagree with something - then post the facts and leave the personality part of it out - I know it hard, but it is worth trying to achieve. Is it so much to ask that someone simply say "I disagree with this and this is why" and state the facts? Share your personal experiences and any facts and leave it at that - let us all support one another by giving information so we can all make the decisions best for us. I have to say that lately I don't envy the moderators - tough job guys but it is appreciated (even if doesn't seem so at times). I have greatly appreciated the information all members who have shared of their experiences, and I will also say once again - I appreciate all the information Dr Nase has shared about current and upcoming treatments - it gives me hope (and information I wouldn't get elsewhere) and from that point, I can investigate and make decisions as to what to try if and when it is available (I do realistically realize that perhaps all future treatments may not come to pass). One great personal example for me is Lyrica - I do get nerual burning, although it is less now than it used to be due to the treatments I have had from Dr Darm, but it is still there, but this is something I would not know about (and my GP sure wouldn't know  ) - this gave me an option to follow up - if I choose to do so. I did some searching on it - and decided yes it was something for me. And while I have only been on it a little over a week - so far I do see some small improvements. I've also utilized some of the great information on supplements that all in this group (and others) have posted. I've chosen what I felt was most important/best for me - but many I would never have known about if I hadn't read them on one of these support groups.
I have no problem with anyone disagreeing with anything anyone posts (including those posts by Dr Nase) - but not when it is directed against the individual rather than the treatment/facts. Posting oposition to something simply because of "who" posted it rather than the content of the post itself only creates these uproars that cause various members to leave. Controversy is OK, that's life as no two people (let alone a group) will always agree - but it should be on the treatment/product - not the individual. We know there are factions but the rhetoric is getting old on both sides - let it go. Maybe one thing to keep in mind before posting content directed more against an individual that what they have said is that we need to depend on each other - and one of those that gets "driven away" by one of these uproars may be the one who has the information to share that YOU need. Sorry to rant a bit here  , but I've been saddened to see what has been going on lately and I've been reminded very often of something I heard former US President Jimmy Carter say in an interview (and I am Canadian, not American) - "debates were much more polite and productive when we began with my honorable opponent" . . . I can very much see his point (it was said whether the opponents felt it or not).
For those that like such things . . . here is a quote I've always like . . ."if wisedoms way you wisely seek, five things observe with care, of whom you speak, to whom you speak, and why and when and where" Here's to a good year for all Rosacea suffers! _________________ Diane Vancouver Island, BC |
|
Forum Moderator
Joined: 07 Jan 2006
Location: Australia
| Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2006 3:08 am Post subject: | |
| Sure, most of us wouldn’t have the time, energy or inkling to build our own red light machine. I truly think Iowa David has shown great ingenuity and is a very brave man to be a pioneer for us Rosaceans. Of course, if we don’t want to make our own machine, there are commercially made ones available.
What appeals to me about this idea is that it would be a one-off investment. I have been reading so much about this medication or that topical and like most Rosaceans, it becomes overwhelming at times. This is what has lead me to start reading about red light therapy. That and the link with Rosacea and inflammation. BTW, I have checked out how to purchase a commercially made machine from the company mentioned. There is no little box that asks for the name of the person referring you to them. How in the heck is someone going to know if I buy one or not? I’m not going to put a post up advertising my name and when I purchased it, so that someone can ring the company and get commission for my purchase. Come on, it’s absolutely ludicrous to even suggest this! We all know that what works for one Rosacean may or may not work for another. How many have had a fantastic result from the standard approach of Rozex Gel (MetroGel in America)? Yet, it appears to be the first thing a GP will prescribe, along with antibiotics. So, surely if red light therapy is working for some people with Rosacea, it is worth at least considering instead of slam dunking it?! Surely it is up to the individual to decide what to try or what not to try. Getting a good feel for the pros and cons of anything touted to be helpful with Rosacea is the best way we can make an informed decision. As the saying goes: Don’t believe everything you read on the Internet. THIS is why people feel so strongly about the ‘politics’ surrounding the on-line world of Rosacea. It’s just that some people don’t see what’s happening! Red |
|
Joined: 12 Jun 2005
Location: Iowa, U.S.
| Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2006 4:05 am Post subject: | |||
Here, I just took this picture now. I didn't use a flash because that tends to white-out color differences. 
Here is me after an especially aggressive Gemini treatment. Use of the red light therapy helped me bounce back from this state after about a week. 
Here I am before going into the hospital (this is summer of 2003; I started using the red light in spring of 2005). 
Here I am in the hospital (sept. 2003): 
I don't have any digi pics of me hanging around from 2004 or 2005 that I know of. Like most rosaceans, I don't particularly like the way my skin looks so I avoid being a camwhore. To clarify: The red light therapy has been helpful mostly in reducing my resting diffuse rednes, the intensity of my flushes, and has raised the bar on what triggers cause me to flush. It doesn't get at any of those permanently dilated or very stubborn diffuse red areas. You need an in-office laser treatment for that, as far as I know. Also, I have raynaud's along with the rosacea, so my nose is bit red in that current pic, partially from rosacea, partially from the raynaud's. Anyway, I have a laser treatment tomorrow, so I figured I should post these now. David _________________ 28 year-old male Erythmatotelangiectatic rosacea & Ocular 20 + laser treatments. Toleraine Soothing Light Facial Fluid for moisture, clarith. 500 XL @ 1/..... Using homemade red light LED array. Clonidine daily; klonopin sometimes. |
|||
Joined: 12 Jun 2005
Location: Iowa, U.S.
| Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2006 4:09 am Post subject: | |||
Again, Dr. Nase, I ask you: What devices were used, what wavelength was used, and how much energy was delivered to these patients' skin that were harmed? You're not stating facts here, you're making statements and assuming we'll take your word for it. Facts would be if you showed me some sound references and specifically stated the details I asked for (device used, wavelength, energy level). I'm getting a little tired of this repetition--it seems like an effort to obfuscate the debate rather than clarify it. Thanks, David _________________ 28 year-old male Erythmatotelangiectatic rosacea & Ocular 20 + laser treatments. Toleraine Soothing Light Facial Fluid for moisture, clarith. 500 XL @ 1/..... Using homemade red light LED array. Clonidine daily; klonopin sometimes. |
|||
Joined: 13 Jun 2005
| Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2006 4:20 am Post subject: | |
| Dr. Crouch, first I'd like to thank you for posting here and giving us your feedback on this. Kind of like walking into a den of sharks, which makes me appreciate the time you spend with us all the more.
David, I can understand why you're so pro-redlight therapy as it's obviously working for you. Dr. Nase though has brought up some very valid points about them and why we should be cautious and I personally am quite thankful. I am a red light user, have been for the last 4 months and I cannot say for sure whether it's working or causing harm or neither. My skin does seem calm afterwards with no visible redness, and cool to the touch. I'm wondering, Dr. Nase, if there are no obvious signs of damage (flushing, redness warm skin ect...), do you think I am ok or do could I be doing harm to my skin at a deeper level? I purchased it from www.acnelamp.com and I have no idea what the output is. I use it for about 20 minutes a day (divided) and make sure to stay 6 inches away and wear goggles. Tricia |
|
Joined: 12 Jun 2005
Location: Columbus, Ga.
| Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2006 4:51 am Post subject: | |
| IowaDavid,
It was very, very courageous of you to post the pics. We all appreciate the effort. Your skin looks great now, a 180 degree turn from your earlier ones. I mean, that is just fabulous. I envy you and hope for your continued improvement (though doesn't seem you need much more improvement). Regards, Perry Jones |
|
Joined: 10 Jun 2005
| Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2006 5:51 am Post subject: | |||||
This will be the last time because no one likes to see this kind of back and forth useless banter: David ....... it does NOT matter what device, wavelength or energy level used because these all have photobiomodulative actions. Period. My goal before I left here was to simply leave one message of caution to people that this form may turn into an LED LLT forum and that many reports are not good. Again David, my degree was actually obtained at the Department of Physiology and Biophysics at IU School of Medicine. Biophysics. Exactly what these machines are and do. My post doctorate in this area. Every single device that I have seen will increase blood flow to the surface of the facial skin. Some will be lucky and it will dissipate quickly and help ........ others will stay red and inflamed ....... and progress to the next stage of rosacea. If you are using a low energy system than the point is mute because it does not have a biological action on a cell and thus does not signal a blood flow response. You dont have to make a very simple system seem hard and complex -- at this level, you should be making hard and complex systems simple. We can do that with these machines across the board (we are not talking about acne lamps). Looking back David, we have been friends on three boards for at least 4 years. I like you. I think your a heck of a guy. But, my reporting bad reactions to these lights caused an instantaneous split. So be it. I wont please all the people all the time. But, I will always look out for rosacea sufferers as a whole. Always. You also need to really emphasize that the lamp system was NOT the main cause of your improvement as I can document great changes well before the lamp -- this can be misleading. I have chosen to continue to be a leader in this field and keep on climbing that rung. I am personally heading up oral and topical rambazole studies on rosacea patients at IU School of Medicine with a famous Dermatologist. There is a saying that is well known -- when you are at the top of the game or pop your head out to help continually there is a basic principal of percentages on how many will like you. 33% will love you 33% will be indifferent depending on the day 33% will dislike you There does not have to be any reason. But, for 8 years, my levels have been off the charts and continue to. 7,102 members now for the forum. Almost a hundred new members in my forum every day now. I have a job to do and Im going to do it. I am no ones yes man, I work for no one, I earn my own keep and I have already added Neuropathic Rosacea officially into the rosacea books single handedly. This gets the burners known and opens up thousands of doors for laser and treatment coverage. These systems that you are detailing will help few and hurt more. By the way, Dr. Crouch and I are good friends and we have discussed everthing that has happened in detail up front. He knows whats happening. We already have a UK party set up this summer when I travel out to Dr. Crouch to perform a laser study to help enhance results. I will be meeting many of my friends from the UK there. The dbs have had no effect on my life, profession and have started pushing more people to my site -- thank you. My job here is done. Remember that when the famous duo come back on once I leave it will be all about these lights. Buyer Beware. You burn your face and there are few things that can reverse that on rosacea skin. _________________ Geoffrey ------------------------------------------------ Dr. Geoffrey Nase Ph.D. Neuro-Vascular Physiologist Rosacea Specialist and Consultant http://www.drnase.com ------------------------------------------------ |
|||||
| |
Joined: 12 Jun 2005
Location: Iowa, U.S.
| Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2006 6:20 am Post subject: | |
| So, you have no data? No studies? No specifications on the devices used?
What you're doing is asking us to take your word for it because you have a degree? Even people with degrees need to be kept honest and provide data. Otherwise, you could be selling the same sort of snakeoil or false claims like the stem cell researcher in Korea who recently stepped down to national disgrace. He had a degree. He made claims. But he was wrong. I can't see any reason to believe anything you are posting right now because you are providing no evidence. David _________________ 28 year-old male Erythmatotelangiectatic rosacea & Ocular 20 + laser treatments. Toleraine Soothing Light Facial Fluid for moisture, clarith. 500 XL @ 1/..... Using homemade red light LED array. Clonidine daily; klonopin sometimes. |
|
Forum Moderator
Joined: 07 Jan 2006
Location: Australia
| Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2006 6:36 am Post subject: | |||
When one has a professional standing in a large community, one does not need to provide actual data. One can simply rest on one's laurels. |
|||
Joined: 12 Jun 2005
Location: Iowa, U.S.
| Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2006 6:40 am Post subject: | |
| Light Emitting Diode-Based Therapy
William Abramovits, MD; Peter Arrazola, BA; Aditya K. Gupta, MD, PhD, FRCP(C) SKINmed. 2005; 4 (1): 38-41. ©2005 Le Jacq Communications, Inc. Introduction Several lamps that generate visible light, many of them using light-emitting diodes (LEDs), have recently found their way to the dermatologic armamentarium. Claims of their value in the treatment of a variety of conditions ranging from cosmetic (antiwrinkle) to acne, rosacea, and skin cancer are made to market them. The literature promoting these claims is limited and often questionable, however, dermatologists who own these units often report demand for their use, high customer satisfaction, and a sense that they deliver on their promises, despite a lack of clinical evidence from properly controlled studies. This article reviews promotional as well as relevant scientific literature (indexed on Medline) regarding LED-based devices and other units that deliver visible light at sub-intense fluences. Both types of literature were evaluated for their scientific validity of content. Photodynamic therapy used with exogenous photosensitizers such as aminolevulinic acid is beyond the scope of this review. Acne/Rosacea Blue light (407-420 nm) and red light (633- 660 nm) are promoted for the treatment of acne. They work by exciting high amounts of intracellular porphyrins naturally generated by Propionibacterium acnes (P. acnes). These endogenous porphyrins (mainly coproporphyrin III[1]) photosensitize the bacterium and, upon illumination, result in the formation of singlet oxygen, which combines with cell membranes to destroy the P. acnes. This process is dependent on the rate of production of excited porphyrin molecules, which is influenced by the concentration of porphyrins, the concentration of photons, the temperature, and the wavelength of the photons.[2] Blue light and blue-red combinations have demonstrated efficacy in mild to moderate inflammatory acne, having a physical modality comparable to treatment with topical clindamycin but inferior to benzoyl peroxide plus clindamycin.[3] The viability of 24-hour in vitro P. acnes cultures was reduced by four and five orders of magnitude after two and three illuminations, respectively, with intense blue light (407-420 nm).[4] In a randomized controlled trial evaluating the use of blue light (peak at 415 nm) and mixed blue and red light (peaks at 415 and 660 nm, respectively) in the treatment of mild to moderate acne vulgaris, a mean improvement of 76% in inflammatory lesions was achieved by the combination blue-red light phototherapy after 12 weeks of daily treatment. This result was statistically superior to that achieved by blue light at Weeks 4 and 8 ( p =0.02); benzoyl peroxide at Weeks 8 ( p =0.02) and 12 ( p =0.006); and white light at all assessments ( p <0.001)[5] (See Table 1 for sources of blue and red light). Wound Healing/Antiaging The wound-healing process has been used in the rejuvenative model. This process consists of overlapping phases of inflammation, proliferation, and remodeling. During inflammation, neutrophils, leukocytes, monocytes, and/or macrophages migrate to the site of the wound; monocytes differentiate into phagocytic cells to phagocytose debris and secrete growth factors. Complement system proteins are activated, stimulating mast cell degranulation and attracting more neutrophils. Macrophages release platelet-derived growth factor, which stimulates the chemotaxis and proliferation of fibroblasts. Leukocytes and macrophages also secrete fibroblast growth factor, which promotes the recruitment and growth of more fibroblasts, establishing the proliferative phase of the wound-healing process.[6,7] Leukocyte numbers decrease, and macrophages begin to diminish slowly as fibroblast levels peak days later. The remodeling phase begins with a fall in the number of fibroblasts; active fibroblasts either differentiate into myofibroblasts or dedifferentiate into dormant fibrocytes. The fibroblast plays a key role in the dermis during the second and third phases: it not only synthesizes collagen and elastin but also regulates the homeostasis of the ground substance in addition to maintaining the collagen fibers. Myofibroblasts position themselves along collagen fibers and exert a longitudinal force that tightens and aligns the latter. Remodeling may take 3-6 months or longer. The end result is the deposition of new collagen fibers in a better organized cellular matrix accompanied by elastogenesis and angiogenesis. A layer of new, tightly-organized collagen runs below and is attached to the basement membrane of the dermoepidermal junction. Red light (633 nm) may aid in effectively healing long-term torpid ulcers and may enhance angiogenesis in the rabbit ear chamber model.[8] Six hundred thirty-three nm light significantly stimulates a faster and better linearly-oriented monolayer formation of fibroblasts in vitro as compared with controls. It accelerates mast cell degranulation and increases the synthesis of fibroblast growth factor from photoactivated macrophage-like cells.[9,10] Irradiation with low-level narrowband 660 nm red light induced the release of growth factors from macrophages in vitro and significantly improved postoperative wounds in vivo.[11,12] Red light, in the absence of a wound, may be beneficial as an antiaging therapy. Mast cells are always present in the dermis; 633 nm red light may have the same effect on them regardless of their involvement in the inflammatory process. The surrounding tissue recognizes this degranulation as inflammation, and so the wound healing process is jump-started. Visible yellow light (588 nm) may also be beneficial as antiaging therapy through mechanisms similar to the action of red light (see Gentlewaves, Light BioScience, LLC, Virgina Beach, VA; please see Table 1 for sources of red light). Instruments The Omnilux system (Alderm, NA, LLC, Irvine, CA) uses a panel of 2000 focused diodes in interchangeable heads to deliver 408 nm blue or 633 nm red light. These two can be used alone or in sequence. The red module may be beneficial in aging via the preferential degranulation of mast cells; release of glucosamines, heparin (a glycosaminoglycan) and histamine, which induce vasodilatation; the "strengthening" of capillaries; increased tissue oxygenation; promoting epithelial remodeling; and stimulation of fibroblasts to produce collagen and elastin. Glycosaminoglycans replace water between collagen and elastic fibers, firming the skin. The use of the blue and red modules concurrently is claimed to be beneficial in acne as the red light module targets deeper-seated lesions. Treatment usually consists of two sessions per week for 4 weeks. A typical session takes ≈20 minutes. The Delphia del SOL (Edge Systems Corp., Signal Hill, CA) is a three-in-one system that combines microdermabrasion, lymphatic massage, and LED light therapy. The LEDs can emit light at 430 nm (blue), 600-700 nm (red), and 700-1000 nm (infrared) in a nonpulsed, continuous wave. The LEDs are positioned on two handpieces. TheMax7(Flip4Inc.,Sainte-Julie,Quebec,Canada) unites LED technology with an automated robotized arm. It can deliver seven wavelengths of visible light, ranging from 420 nm to 700 nm. The manufacturers claim that each chosen wavelength has a customized modulation program that ensures maximum skin rejuvenation. It has seven programmed polychromatic treatments and seven programmed monochromatic treatments designed for various skin types and various skin treatments, respectively. Manufacturers recommend a minimum of six treatments for most common skin conditions. The Medilite (Inner Act LLC, Reno, NV) system delivers 405 nm blue light for the treatment of acne and 627 nm red light for skin rejuvenation in a tabletop unit. The light modules are removable and interchangeable with mixable blue and red wavelengths. The red light module is used to increase new tissue growth, speed healing, stimulate collagen, and reduce lines and wrinkles. It incorporates a computerized controlpanel for ease of use. Gentlewaves is marketed as a photomodulation device that uses low-intensity LEDs in a proprietary pulsed "code" as antiaging therapy. It delivers pulsed visible yellow light (588 nm ± 10 nm) from two contiguous LED panels. It is claimed to "energize" mitochondria, send cell signals to cell receptors, increase/decrease gene activity in DNA, and thus reverse the appearance of aging and photoaged skin. It incorporates a skin care kit designed to enhance and maintain the results of the treatment, which includes a cleanser, a daily facial lotion, a nightly facial lotion, and sunscreen. The effectiveness of this device is documented by histology exhibiting new collagen formulation, high resolution ultrasound, and PRIMOS digital surface profilometry.[13] The LumiPhase-R system (OPUSMED Inc., Montreal, Canada) features 18 linear LED array modules that deliver high power density 660 nm visible red light for skin rejuvenation. It uses a proprietary sequential mode that is claimed to trigger significantly higher procollagen secretion vs. control in human reconstructed skin models. It also claims to improve skin roughness, depth of rhytides, skin tone, texture, pore size, dyspigmentation and erythema; pre-and posttreatment PRIMOS 3D-micro-topography was used for these measurements. It has an optical positioning system to ensure optimal placement of the LED modules. The Revitalight system (Skincare Technology Inc., Chicago, IL) claims to be a safe and effective way to help diminish the visible appearance of fine lines, wrinkles, and age spots on the face, neck, and hands by promoting collagen firmness by using LED photo pulsation technology. It delivers four specific wavelengths of light (420 nm, 590 nm [yellow], 625 nm, and 940 nm [infrared]) via handheld "pulsators." It uses an optical lens to focus the LEDs. The Soli-Tone system (Silhouet-Tone, St. Albans, VT) is a two-in-one system that includes LumiLift and LumiFacial. LumiLift involves delivering 640 nm red LED light from handheld pieces placed on the skin. These pieces also deliver a "micronized current" and a "high-frequency polarized current" via electrodes placed in the handpieces. LumiFacial is comprised of a 400-LED panel situated above the skin. This panel can deliver four wavelengths of light: 470 nm, 525 nm (green), 590 nm, and 640 nm. It has a computerized control panel with preprogrammed treatments. Conclusions The level of evidence for the use of sub-intense fluences of visible light in dermatology is weak. As few randomized controlled trials have assessed the safety and efficacy of these devices, the dermatologist is left to infer the worthiness of incorporating LED-based technology from in vitro observations, anecdotal evidence, and commentaries appearing in trade (mostly non-peer-reviewed) publications. The uncontrolled proliferation of services based on these devices at cosmetic/aesthetic locales where the personnel have little if any knowledge of dermatology and photobiology may be dangerous. Regulations that apply in many states to the use of lasers and intense pulsated light sources should be expanded to include these devices as the benefits (and risks) of their use in acne, rosacea, wound healing, aging, etc. (mostly medical diagnoses) relate to altering the structure and function of the skin, which constitutes the practice of medicine. ____________________________________ While there's no specific data for rosacea, I don't see any clear evidence for what Dr. Nase is maintaining, either. Of course, this was hunted up by someone over at the r-s site. David _________________ 28 year-old male Erythmatotelangiectatic rosacea & Ocular 20 + laser treatments. Toleraine Soothing Light Facial Fluid for moisture, clarith. 500 XL @ 1/..... Using homemade red light LED array. Clonidine daily; klonopin sometimes. |
|
Forum Moderator
Joined: 07 Jan 2006
Location: Australia
| Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2006 7:14 am Post subject: | |
| Fascinating read, thanks David. I was interested in the mention of yellow light too. Have you looked into yellow light at all youself? The antiaging effects sounds appealing.
Red |
|
| Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next |
|