red light for rosaacea?

[NickJeter]

from what i read it seems that red lgiht would be bad for roscaea, since it grows new blood vessels and increase facial blood flow two things that are opposite of what you want to do for rosacea.

so why do some use it?

[orangehrzn]

It seems to be anti-inflamatory - may supress pimples and calm down skin which in case of rosacea is usually quite inflamed. I have been using red diode lamp for a month - haven't grown new capillaries.

[sdguy]

How long are your sessions with the lamp? Are you only using it for inflammation or other functions as well?

[orangehrzn]

10 mins/day, split face test

I'm evaluating the alleged affect on skin texture and enlarged pores - 1.5 months so far and my pores are still there.

[sdguy]

I assume you're using an LED bulb to test the efficacy of a device like the Omnilux Revive (phototherapeutics.com/index.asp?AccessID=&sectionID=15). Were you able to get a bulb at the targeted wavelength (633nm ±6nm) and with similar output specs? 1.5 months is a bit of time, any positive effects at all to report? Have the pores on the exposed side shrunk in relation to the unexposed side?

[orangehrzn]

My red light diode bulb is L-80S:

goldengadgets.com/product_info.php?cPath=12&products_id=329

The wavelength, judging by the red color that is away from orange but closer to deep red, is most probably around 660nm.

I apply on the right cheek only. I don't breakout there at all, the only problems are large pores and patchy redness due to diffuse blood vessels. So far I don't observe any difference from the untreated site.

I've read the study of Gentle Waves light diode therapy - they use pulsed yellow light 590nm, they claim continuous doesn't work. They measured '10% improvement in skin texture' which relates to skin roughness/bumpiness, not pore size. Now 10% improvement is something hardly noticeable to naked eyes, yet some of their pictures show visible smoothing of the skin. So either they selected the best pics or the lighting conditions weren't cotrolled very well - it's very hard to show objective before/after pics for skin texture with digital pics, the slightest change in lighting conditions and parameters of the camera can wipe off any effect or simulate imaginary effect. In general I don't trust manifacturer studies for the obvious financial interest involved.

[sdguy]

Your bulb may be close to the Omnilux's 633nm range, but I wonder how important it is to be right on.

I checked out the Gentle Waves site, thx for the link. Not a ton of substantial info on the site and it's frustrating that the useful data, the clinical studies, are only available if you contact them. I think I'll do that now.

So Gentle Waves uses pulsed yellow light at 590nm and Omnilux uses both red light at 633nm and infrared at 830nm. I'm curious about the pulse times and why that's necessary. The Omnilux product doesn't mention pulsing and takes 45 minutes, compared to just a minute for the Gentle Waves product.

[orangehrzn]

Do Omnilux or any other manifacturer of red light devices cite any studies in vivo for photorejuvenation?

I tried to search but constantly bump on the GentleWave studies.

[sdguy]

I found a link to this one on their website, but they don't list direct links on their site so I emailed for more information:

phototherapeutics.com/downloads/Journal%20of%20Photochemistry%20and%20Photobiology%20B%20Biology.pdf

The bottom of this page shows that their 633nm and 830nm units were approved by the FDA in August of '05:

salesandmarketingnetwork.com/news_release.php?ID=2014069

Those are a few of the things I found when googling. I'm kinda new to this, what are some of the better ways you use to find studies?

[sdguy]

One more

blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1473-2165.2007.00329.x

Original Contribution
The use of light-emitting diode therapy in the treatment of photoaged skin
Fabien Baez, MBBS, FACCS, MCPSA, FRACGP, MAACS 11International Center for Cosmetic Medicine, Sydney, NSW, Australia, & Laurence R Reilly, MBChB 22Walsall Manor Hospital, Walsall, UK1International Center for Cosmetic Medicine, Sydney, NSW, Australia2Walsall Manor Hospital, Walsall, UK
Correspondence: Dr Fabien Baez, MBBS, International Center for Cosmetic Medicine, Level 14, 187 Macquarie Street, Sydney, NSW 2000,
Keywords: LED (light-emitting diode), photoaging, light therapy, rejuvenation
Dr Baez acted as the principal investigator in the trial. All subjects were screened, treated, and reviewed under supervision of Dr Baez.

Dr Reilly collated data from all subjects in the trial and structured write up of the clinical work.

Summary

Background Light-emitting diode (LED) therapy is an increasingly popular methodology for the treatment of sun damage. Combination use of light wavelengths reported to stimulate collagen synthesis and accelerate fibroblast–myofibroblast transformation may display a composite rejuvenative effect.

Objective To clinically assess reduction in sun damage signs following a 5-week course of LED therapy and to assess subject's perception of the treatment.

Methods Thirteen subjects with wrinkles or fine lines in the periorbital and nasolabial region and those presenting Glogau scale photodamage grade II–III received nine 20-min duration light treatments using the Omnilux™ LED system. The treatments combined wavelengths of 633 and 830 nm at fluences of 126 and 66 J/cm2, respectively. Sun-damage reduction was assessed at 6, 9, and 12 weeks by clinical photography and patient satisfaction scores.

Results The majority of subjects displayed "moderate" (50%) or "slight" (25%) response to treatment at investigator assessment. Treatment of the periorbital region was reported more effective than the nasolabial region. At 12-week follow-up, 91% of subjects reported improved skin tone, and 82% reported enhanced smoothness of skin in the treatment area.

Conclusion Good response to LED therapy has been shown in this modest sample. Larger trials are needed to assess optimum frequency of light treatments and overall treatment time.

[sdguy]

There are a number of good videos on the Photo Therapeutics site, contact them through their site for a password to the secure area. From what I've watched thus far I think your simple LED bulb solution has a few issues.

[orangehrzn]

What are the videos about?

[sdguy]

They're basically just powerpoint presentations with audio but they're given by doctors who use the systems and discuss how they use the different wavelengths, some science behind PDT, photos, etc. Some is on cancer, other acne, and parts on skin rejuvination. One thing I noticed was from a pic of the 633nm unit being used; the amount of light they bombard a person with looks significant and they mentioned the proper intensity being important, which leads me to believe your LED bulb may not be the best choice.

[orangehrzn]

Why don't you give me the password: summertanAThotmail.com

[sdguy]

What'd you think of the presentations?