Deep Tissue Laser therapy

Who uses Deep Tissue Laser therapy?
Deep Tissue Therapy Lasers are the preferred therapy lasers of professional sports teams. They are used by team trainers and physical therapists. 


How does Laser Therapy work?
Laser therapy causes chemical reactions at the cellular level. The photon energy accelerates the healing process, increases metabolism and improves circulation at the site of injury. It has been shown to be effective in the treatment of acute pain and injury, inflammation, chronic pain and post-operative conditions. It has been shown to accelerate the healing of damaged nerves, tendons and muscle tissue. 


What will you feel during laser therapy?
Laser therapy treatment is safe, painless and fast. Patients feel a soothing warmth as laser energy gently penetrates the tissue and boosts your body’s own regeneration powers to relieve your pain.  Deep Tissue Laser Therapy treatments are usually administered for 5 to 10 minutes depending on the body location. Results can be immediate but the most observed results are after 4 to 6 treatment sessions.  The body continues to benefit from the effects of the therapy for 18-24 hours after treatment.  During this time, modulated cellular activity leads to decreased pain and inflammation.  Our class IV laser has a power output of 9 Watts! This is in comparison to class III lasers which operate at .5 Watts. This means that our laser is almost 20 times more powerful. We can accomplish in 6 minutes what the class III laser accomplishes in 120 minutes or 2 hours. Check out the video below for more information on the effects of laser.

donna@gigaalaser.com

High power laser therapy versus ultrasound therapy

13.04.2014

Aim

The aim of the study is to evaluate the short-term effectiveness of HILT (High Intensity Laser Therapy) versus ultrasound therapy .

Study type

The study was conducted as a randomized clinical trial in a university hospital.

Patients

The study involved 70 patients with SAIS (Subacromial impingement syndrome) who were randomly assigned to HILT or US therapy treatments.

Study program

Participants received 10 treatment sessions of HILT and ultrasound therapy for a period of two weeks.

Measurement method

The results were determined in Constant Murley Scale (CMS), Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and the Simple Shoulder Test (SST).

In the study group were 42 women and 28 men with the average age of 54.1 years. The baseline value level was 6.4 in the VAS scale. There were no differences between groups at the beginning phase of the study.

After a two-week treatment period HILT group participants showed a significantly greater reduction in pain than participants of the US group.

Study limitations: the study was limited by the small sample size, lack of placebo group and observation period after treatment procedures.

HILT group's treatments were carried out by laser Hiro 1.0. Its high peak power is 1 kW. Treatment parameters were as follows: emitted wavelength -1064nm, maximum energy per single pulse - 150mJ, average power - 6W, energy density - 760mJ/cm2 and duration of a single pulse - less than 150ms. The initial phase of the treatment concerned the manual scanning (sweeping) of the muscular contracture area (100cm2/30s), especially the upper part of the trapezius and deltoid muscles. In this phase, the total administered dose was 1000J. The intermediate phase include application on trigger points to achieve a reduction in pain up to 70-80%. The average energy dose in this case was 50J. The final phase of the treatment consisted of slow manual sweeping (100cm2/60s) of the same area that was subjected to treatment in the initial phase until achieving a total energy dose of 1000J. Energy densities at various stages were respectively 510, 610, 710 mJ/cm2. In this way, the total dose of administered energy was approximately 2.050 J. The time required for the treatment was approximately 10 minutes.

Participants in the ultrasound therapy group were subjected to a treatment with the application of 1 MHz ultrasound head with an intensity of 2W/cm2 and a duty cycle of 100%. The ultrasound head was operated in a slow circular motion in the area of 20cm2.

Evaluation

The initial value of pain sensation in the HILT group was 6.28 determined in VAS scale, after the treatment it decreased to 2.42.

In the US group, the initial value was 6.6. After the above mentioned treatment session it decreased to 4.44.

VAS is an abbreviation of the Visual Analog Scale. This measuring method is related to the assessment of the reported level in relation to two extreme values. They may include the determination of absence of pain and very sharp pain sensation. Respondents specify their sensation level by indicating a position along the scale. Then, the location is measured at a specified point in relation to the length of sections between the determinants. In such a system, the response in the middle of the VAS scale is 5.

The study was also assessed in the Constant-Murley Scale (CMS) and the Simple Shoulder Test (SST), but the descriptions of these

measurement methods are beyond the scope of the article.

Conclusions

A study shows that high power laser therapy was twice as efficient as the ultrasound therapy in the treatment of SAIS.

donna@gigaalaser.com

High power laser therapy versus ultrasound therapy

13.04.2014

Aim

The aim of the study is to evaluate the short-term effectiveness of HILT (High Intensity Laser Therapy) versus ultrasound therapy .

Study type

The study was conducted as a randomized clinical trial in a university hospital.

Patients

The study involved 70 patients with SAIS (Subacromial impingement syndrome) who were randomly assigned to HILT or US therapy treatments.

Study program

Participants received 10 treatment sessions of HILT and ultrasound therapy for a period of two weeks.

Measurement method

The results were determined in Constant Murley Scale (CMS), Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and the Simple Shoulder Test (SST).

In the study group were 42 women and 28 men with the average age of 54.1 years. The baseline value level was 6.4 in the VAS scale. There were no differences between groups at the beginning phase of the study.

After a two-week treatment period HILT group participants showed a significantly greater reduction in pain than participants of the US group.

Study limitations: the study was limited by the small sample size, lack of placebo group and observation period after treatment procedures.

HILT group's treatments were carried out by laser Hiro 1.0. Its high peak power is 1 kW. Treatment parameters were as follows: emitted wavelength -1064nm, maximum energy per single pulse - 150mJ, average power - 6W, energy density - 760mJ/cm2 and duration of a single pulse - less than 150ms. The initial phase of the treatment concerned the manual scanning (sweeping) of the muscular contracture area (100cm2/30s), especially the upper part of the trapezius and deltoid muscles. In this phase, the total administered dose was 1000J. The intermediate phase include application on trigger points to achieve a reduction in pain up to 70-80%. The average energy dose in this case was 50J. The final phase of the treatment consisted of slow manual sweeping (100cm2/60s) of the same area that was subjected to treatment in the initial phase until achieving a total energy dose of 1000J. Energy densities at various stages were respectively 510, 610, 710 mJ/cm2. In this way, the total dose of administered energy was approximately 2.050 J. The time required for the treatment was approximately 10 minutes.

Participants in the ultrasound therapy group were subjected to a treatment with the application of 1 MHz ultrasound head with an intensity of 2W/cm2 and a duty cycle of 100%. The ultrasound head was operated in a slow circular motion in the area of 20cm2.

Evaluation

The initial value of pain sensation in the HILT group was 6.28 determined in VAS scale, after the treatment it decreased to 2.42.

In the US group, the initial value was 6.6. After the above mentioned treatment session it decreased to 4.44.

VAS is an abbreviation of the Visual Analog Scale. This measuring method is related to the assessment of the reported level in relation to two extreme values. They may include the determination of absence of pain and very sharp pain sensation. Respondents specify their sensation level by indicating a position along the scale. Then, the location is measured at a specified point in relation to the length of sections between the determinants. In such a system, the response in the middle of the VAS scale is 5.

The study was also assessed in the Constant-Murley Scale (CMS) and the Simple Shoulder Test (SST), but the descriptions of these

measurement methods are beyond the scope of the article.

Conclusions

A study shows that high power laser therapy was twice as efficient as the ultrasound therapy in the treatment of SAIS.

donna@gigaalaser.com

Ultrasound Vs Laser – The Battle of the Electrotherapies

Laser

Non-thermal and thermal effects 
Use on open wounds
Chronic pain and acute treatment
More research demonstrating efficacy
Safe to use on most populations. 

Ultrasound

Thermal and non-thermal effects
Closed wounds only
Not to be used over the eyes
Potential tissue damage if used incorrectly
Lack of research demonstrating efficacy
Should not be used on those with circulatory or neuropathic conditions, children or the elderly. 

To summarise, Laser can be used on a wider range of injuries and conditions and has fewer contraindications to treatment than ultrasound. Ultrasound poses more of a risk in terms of potential tissue damage, mostly due to the thermal effects and danger of burns. Finally, there is more scientific evidence supporting the use of laser therapy for treating soft tissue injuries.

One study published in the American Journal of Sports Medicine in 2008 (Stergioulas et al) demonstrated a significant improvement in pain levels in those with Achilles tendinopathy when laser was used in conjunction with eccentric strengthening (compared to sham laser and eccentric strengthening).

However, the lack of evidence supporting the use of ultrasound therapy may be due to the wide variation in treatment settings used among different studies which can have dramatic effects on the outcomes. Ultrasound also has a pro-inflammatory effect which may explain why studies looking into the anti-inflammatory effect have shown no effect.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it appears that laser therapy has more applications in treating soft tissue injuries and also poses less risk of cell damage. Whilst many clinicians regularly use ultrasound and have seen positive results in the clinical setting, there is less research to back this up than there is with laser therapy.

....

donna@gigaalaser.com

Ultrasound Vs Laser – The Battle of the Electrotherapies

Laser

Non-thermal and thermal effects 
Use on open wounds
Chronic pain and acute treatment
More research demonstrating efficacy
Safe to use on most populations. 

Ultrasound

Thermal and non-thermal effects
Closed wounds only
Not to be used over the eyes
Potential tissue damage if used incorrectly
Lack of research demonstrating efficacy
Should not be used on those with circulatory or neuropathic conditions, children or the elderly. 

To summarise, Laser can be used on a wider range of injuries and conditions and has fewer contraindications to treatment than ultrasound. Ultrasound poses more of a risk in terms of potential tissue damage, mostly due to the thermal effects and danger of burns. Finally, there is more scientific evidence supporting the use of laser therapy for treating soft tissue injuries.

One study published in the American Journal of Sports Medicine in 2008 (Stergioulas et al) demonstrated a significant improvement in pain levels in those with Achilles tendinopathy when laser was used in conjunction with eccentric strengthening (compared to sham laser and eccentric strengthening).

However, the lack of evidence supporting the use of ultrasound therapy may be due to the wide variation in treatment settings used among different studies which can have dramatic effects on the outcomes. Ultrasound also has a pro-inflammatory effect which may explain why studies looking into the anti-inflammatory effect have shown no effect.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it appears that laser therapy has more applications in treating soft tissue injuries and also poses less risk of cell damage. Whilst many clinicians regularly use ultrasound and have seen positive results in the clinical setting, there is less research to back this up than there is with laser therapy.

....

donna@gigaalaser.com

Ultrasound Vs Laser – The Battle of the Electrotherapies

Laser

Non-thermal and thermal effects 
Use on open wounds
Chronic pain and acute treatment
More research demonstrating efficacy
Safe to use on most populations. 

Ultrasound

Thermal and non-thermal effects
Closed wounds only
Not to be used over the eyes
Potential tissue damage if used incorrectly
Lack of research demonstrating efficacy
Should not be used on those with circulatory or neuropathic conditions, children or the elderly. 

To summarise, Laser can be used on a wider range of injuries and conditions and has fewer contraindications to treatment than ultrasound. Ultrasound poses more of a risk in terms of potential tissue damage, mostly due to the thermal effects and danger of burns. Finally, there is more scientific evidence supporting the use of laser therapy for treating soft tissue injuries.

One study published in the American Journal of Sports Medicine in 2008 (Stergioulas et al) demonstrated a significant improvement in pain levels in those with Achilles tendinopathy when laser was used in conjunction with eccentric strengthening (compared to sham laser and eccentric strengthening).

However, the lack of evidence supporting the use of ultrasound therapy may be due to the wide variation in treatment settings used among different studies which can have dramatic effects on the outcomes. Ultrasound also has a pro-inflammatory effect which may explain why studies looking into the anti-inflammatory effect have shown no effect.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it appears that laser therapy has more applications in treating soft tissue injuries and also poses less risk of cell damage. Whilst many clinicians regularly use ultrasound and have seen positive results in the clinical setting, there is less research to back this up than there is with laser therapy.

....

donna@gigaalaser.com

Questions and Answers about Class 4 Cold Lasers

There is a big difference between class 3 and Class 4 products.

There is a lot of controversy in the cold laser market about class 4 lasers and their performance when compared to lower power cold lasers. Many class 4 lasers are not technically "cold" since they can warm the treatment area once above about 4 watts but there is really no census about what is the best name for lasers used for photobiomodulation but they all serve the same goal so we will call them both cold lasers and class 4 lasers on this site.

One issue manufacturers debate the most about is about how much power works best for photobiomodulation. Class 4 manufacturers would say more power means faster treatment times and higher dosages that make it is worth the extra cost. Class 3 manufacturers, on the other hand, say lower power promotes better healing with no risk of burning anyone. So who is right?

This article will try to clear the air. Manufacturesr tend to highlights their products' advantages and bash everyone else's lasers. All the lasers on the market can provide good results (even some of the lower power systems) but they all try hard to make their laser stand out in the crowd. Truthfully, there is some truth to all the claims, however, they are typically taken out of context so should not effect your decision about what product to buy.

Below is a table that shows some common claims and some of the underlying facts behind the claim. Always keep in mind that almost every class 4 laser has the option to turn down the power when it is appropriate so you have more flexibility with a higher power pulsing/CW class 4 laser.

There is a big difference between class 3 and Class 4 products?

Yes and No.

Yes. Once you get above 5 watts, the laser diodes are installed in a cooled housing and you use a fiber optic cable to transfer the power to the handheld probe. This adds a lot of complexity to the system.

No, the cutoff for a class 4 laser is 0.5 (1/2) watts per beam. This means that, for example, the Avant LZ30 with 2 beams at .450 watts per beam is more powerful than some Class 4 lasers but is a class 3b. The Apollo is Class 4 but uses probes that are extremely similar to the Class 3b probes used byThor. It is just a matter of picking individual laser diodes above or below .5 watt output. The line between class 3 and class 4 lasers is very blurry.

Class 4 lasers are not appropriate for home use?

False, however most class 4 systems do require extra training to make sure the user is safe. Many home users start out getting therapy in a doctor's office but want the convenience of therapy at home. In this case, users can simply adapt the protocol that is already working for use at home to save time and money. Systems like the Apollo cold laser use a divergent beam and a timer as the only variable so less training is required. For pain control, class 4 power lasers, with higher power and continuous wave, are the best.

Too much power is not as effective for healing?

This statement has NOT be proven by an independent study; it has only been shown by studies paid for by lower power laser manufacturers who use the study to discredit class 4 systems. Higher dosages are better for pain control but higher-end Class 4 laser have adjustable power so when you want less power, you simply turn it down. When you need more power for better pain control, you turn it up.

Class 4 lasers are not worth the money?

False. Using a class 4 laser for less than 20 minutes per day, you probably don't need to spend the extra money. That being said, for many people, higher dosages and shorter treatment times are a key to great results. If you are not concerned about therapy times, flexibility or giving your patients the maximum pain relief, then a lower power product is fine. Class 4 lasers are for doctors and home users who want to have every option available without limitations for any condition. State-of-the-art class 4 lasers can be purchased for less than $12,000, however mediocre class 3b laser for over $15,000. You get what you pay for with most class 4 systems

Class 4 lasers are better for pain control?

Class 4 lasers have shorter therapy times?

Class 4 lasers are better for treating larger areas?

Yes to all of these claims. Higher power lasers provide better pain control in a shorter period and can cover large areas much faster than a lower power lasers. The key here is not necessarly the class but the total power output of the system. Higher power allows for more flexibility. Everyone in the market seems to agree that more power is better for pain control, better for larger areas and will shorten the time it takes to get the optimum healing or pain control density.

Class 4 laser are dangerous?

Yes. In the wrong hands, a class 4 cold laser can cause damage just like a scalpel, a bad drug prescription or any of the other tool doctors use every day. This is not a good reason to not have the tool. With proper training and adhearing to safety precautions, class 4 lasers are safe.

...

welcome to contact donna@gigaalaser.com to get more infomation