Events 2010, Tuesday, March 09, 2010

Mike Barbour, President and Founder of MicroLight Corporation of America has many conference presentations scheduled in 2010. Check back frequently to see what’s coming up!

IndeFree Conference Series

Location: Las Vegas, NV

Date: April 23-24

Contact 800-801-4511 for additional information.

Doctor Mitch Mally

Location: Manchester, NH

Date: March 20

Location: Newark, NJ

Date: March 27

Location: Minneapolis, MN

Date: April 10

For more information about Dr. Mitch Mally’s events, please call 563-343-0394.

American Academy of Pain Management, Monday, February 15, 2010

American Academy if Pain Management

Las Vegas, Nevada

September 22-26, 2010

For more information contact:

shelia@aapainmanage.org

MicroLight’s FDA clearance for the ML830© , Sunday, February 14, 2010

February 6, 2002: MicroLight received FDA clearance for the ML830©. To see the 510(k) premarket notification summary statement, click here.

MicroLight receives new FDA clearance for the ML830©, Sunday, February 14, 2010

December 13, 2004: MicroLight received new FDA clearance for the ML830©. Click here to see the 510(k) PREMARKET NOTIFICATION SUMMARY.

Development of the Diode Laser System, Saturday, February 13, 2010

Abstracted from the work of T. Oshiro in Low-Reactive Level Laser Therapy – Practical Applications, 1991.

Oshiro explains how early diode lasers were made of gallium arsenide (GaAs), a material that usually produced a beam at 904 nm which was difficult to operate for long periods of time because the diode had a tendency to overheat.

Beginning in 1979, however, experiments were carried out with a new type of diode made of gallium aluminum arsenide (GaAlAs) from which a variety of wavelengths ranging from 720 to 904 mn could be operated in a continuous wave without overheating.

It was learned from the data that there is an optimum wavelength for GaAlAs diodes to be used on human tissue at between 820 and 840 nm because of low water absorption rates in that wavelength zone.

Further wavelength experimentation showed a peak penetration effect at 820-840 mn with a corresponding therapeutic effectiveness of laser beams within that waveband. Experiments also showed that power levels of more than 60 mW per laser diode do not increase effectiveness and add the potential for some undesirable side-effects such as exacerbation of the pain, involuntary muscular spasms, and nerve syncope.

Oshiro reports that a battery-powered hand-held 15mW 830 nm continuous wave “system” containing a GaAlAs diode was first introduced at an international congress known as “Laser Tokyo ’81.”

Article by Dr. Paul J. Silbert Featuring ML830®, Saturday, February 13, 2010

Read Dr. Silbert’s article featuring the ML830®, published by Meridian HealthViews Magazine. To view the article “Surgery-Free Treatment for Carpal Tunnel Syndrome,” click here.

Unauthorized MicroLight Dealers, Saturday, February 13, 2010

The FDA warns the public to avoid buying laser devices on the internet because those devices may not have proper FDA clearance for sale. For more information about the FDA’s position click here.

MicroLight Corporation of America acknowledges its FDA obligation to monitor the sale of ML830© units through authorized dealers. While complying with FDA rules and regulations, MicroLight may not provide warranty service for ML830© units purchased from unauthorized sources. (ML830© units purchased from authorized dealers enjoy 100% parts and labor warranty [excluding mishandling] for one year after the dealer’s purchase date.)

All MicroLight ML830© laser units are serially numbered when they leave our factory, as required by the FDA, and all ML830© units are sold only under prescription from licensed clinicians, also an FDA requirement. (Prescriptions are required because of the Class IIIb standing of the ML830© unit, as opposed to the Class IIIa designation of the competitors’ lower-power “laser pointer” devices.) MicroLight meets its FDA obligations under the FDA regulations by tracing the marketplace entry and legitimate ownership of all genuine ML830© units.

There are reports that counterfeit or “knockoff” ML830© lasers are offered for sale on the internet. MicroLight urges suspicious or cautious prospective purchasers to contact MicroLight through Contact Us to ensure that those who offer the ML830© are in fact authorized dealers. But, for example, you may be assured that no authorized MicroLight dealer sells the ML830© through eBay, because of the buyer’s need to show a prescription from a licensed clinician at the time of ML830© purchase.

In summary, MicroLight warns prospective purchasers to beware of the situation and protect themselves from unauthorized dealers by avoiding discount sellers, including any that may appear on eBay, because of the risk that the genuine article may not be what is purchased and because of the lack of product warranty that may result from the purchase of an ML830© from any unauthorized person or entity.

ML830® vs. STIM, Ultrsound, Saturday, February 13, 2010

Product Comparison

ML830® vs. STIM and Ultrasound

The status quo in injury recovery involves ice, heat, and electronic stimulation in some form, primarily

TENS ( transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulators) and rehab.

Dangers of Heat from LED Therapy, Saturday, February 13, 2010

Sellers of LED devices must warn customers of the hazards of heat generated by their modality, unlike low-wattage lasers that heal without tissue heating.

Here is one example of how LED sellers give necessary warning to their customers in the instruction booklet that accompanies each of the LED devices.

MEDICAL PRECAUTIONS

• Consult your doctor prior to using heat
• Do not apply to an open wound, as heat may stimulate circulation and cause bleeding.
• Use cautiously, as burns may result from improper use
• The Light ReliefTM unit is not to be used by incapacitated, sleeping or unconscious persons.
• Do not leave small children unattended.
• Do not allow children to use – this is not a toy.
• Do not use on infants.
• Do not use over bruised, broken or insensitive skin.
• Do not sit on or against, fold, crush, or lay on this device.
• Do not use with liniments, salves or ointments that contain heat-producing ingredients, as skin burn could result.
• Do not look directly into LEDs or place unit in direct contact with eyes.
• Do not use over areas of poor circulation, as burns may result
• If the Light ReliefTM unit is operated with the heat on and the temperature begins to feel too warm, turn the head off immediately. If the heat causes any discomfort, stop using immediately.
• Never operate the unit for more than 30 minutes at a time.

Not all Light is Equal – Laser vs. LED, Saturday, February 13, 2010

Laser Therapy Surpasses LED Therapy

Not all light is the same, and not all monochromatic light can provide the same medicinal benefit. Substantial controversy exists in the field of low level power laser therapy over the values of true laser light when contrasted with lesser proven therapeutic values of LED’s (Light Emitting Diodes).

The two forms of light, laser light and light from LED’s, should be scientifically compared to show the completely different biological effects of each, particularly where a number of medical devices are available with LED’s and super luminescent LED’s (SLLED’s) as light emitting components. LED’s and SLLED’s are frequently falsely advertised and promoted as lasers when they are not lasers. A meaningful comparison of benefits requires clarification.

Literally hundreds of reported clinical and scientific studies and papers on the subject of light therapy are available. Almost all these studies involved laser light, exclusively, as the light source that provided the reported medically benefit. However, the clinical and scientific sources and references listed on the web sites for leading LED light devices are not from the use of LED therapy, they are from the use of laser therapy. Manufacturers of LED devices such as Bioflex, Anodyne and the Dynatron Solaris units (clearly all LED therapy devices), primarily use laser light studies to justify their advertised claims of LED medical efficacy.

A number of independent studies compare the effectiveness of laser light to LED light. The majority of those studies prove that laser light is far more effective than LED light, particularly when treating tissue at any significant depth. Although LED light therapy has some undeniable beneficial effect, that effect is actually rather limited to certain superficial tissue treatment.

Authors of most leading and widely used laser therapy textbooks unanimously opine that there are significant differences between laser light and LED light, differences that prove the biostimulative effects of each of the devices are far from equal. The clear consensus is that laser light (LLLT) achieves greater and deeper stimulative and therapeutically beneficial results. For example, the following quotation is from a highly respected laser therapy textbook used today, “Laser Therapy”, by Turner and Hode:

“Many producers of therapeutic instruments claim that LED treatment is as effective as laser treatment. However, in light of the clear lack of peer-reviewed studies to support these claims, LED producers make references to laser research in their marketing materials. A significant effect was observed with lasers, which was not achieved with the other, less narrow-band light sources (LED). Conclusion: Either all the investigators who conducted the research cheated, or the effects are specific to laser light.

In the literature there is good support for the hypothesis that at least some of the biostimulative effects in-vivo are laser specific. In fact, we have not yet found one single study indicating that non-coherent light (LED) is as efficient as coherent light. This does not mean non-coherent light (LED) is not useful, only that it (LED) is less efficient and probably only efficient on superficial structures.” emphasis added

Other international laser experts and researchers agree that in comparison, laser light therapy is far superior to LED therapy, all as indicated by the studies of these researchers’ published work. Here are a few of those other studies:

Bihari – LED’s, when compared to lasers, demonstrate a much lower efficacy.

Kubota – no difference between control and LED 840 nm groups.

Berki – the positive effects from laser therapy were not seen when irradiating the cell cultures with normal monochromatic (LED) light of the same wavelength and doses.

Muldiyarov – Analyzed cases where the rats were treated with ordinary red light and found there was no essential differences from the control group.

Haina – compared to the 22% increase in positive laser effects, the increase in the incoherent (LED) group was less than 10%.

Laakso – ACTH and B-endorphin levels were significantly elevated in the LLLT groups but not in the LED group.

Pöntinen – 670nm laser induced a temporary vasodilation and increased blood flow; however, LED at 635nm with doses between 0.68 and 1.36 J/cm2 decreased blood flow at least for 30 minutes after irradiation.

Lederer – found that incoherent light of the same wavelength and power density showed no influence.

Rosner – found that non coherent infrared light was ineffective or had adverse effect.

Nicola – Non-coherent light of the same wavelength and dose was less favourable.

Onac – The therapeutic window appears to be narrower for monochromatic non-coherent light.

Zhou – laser showed the best effect while the non-coherent LED light showed the poorest. Coherency does not influence the transmission; rather, because of interference in the scattered light field, coherency influences the microscopic light distribution into tissue. While it is easier to achieve higher power density with lasers than with LED’s, this is not the general reason for the better results with lasers; the coherency of the laser light source is the most important factor behind the superior results of laser light.

Laser Use Certification, Saturday, February 13, 2010

Please click on the link below for the written test that MicroLight uses at the conclusion of each training course on the proper and safe use of MicroLight’s ML830® Laser System. If student/applicants score more than 70% on this test, the American Society For Laser Therapy issues a certificate of attendance in a course that explains laser physics, laser tissue interaction and laser safety.

If you can pass the Laser Certification test, MicroLight will certify that you have shown a comprehension in the use of low-level lasers.

If you need to study for the test, we suggest that you order MicroLight’s training syllabus. You can obtain that comprehensive material for $30, postage and handling included, by contacting Judy Irvine, 713-520-0668.

Laser Certification

Dr. Altshuler writes a book on Arthritis Treatment, Saturday, February 13, 2010

Dr. Larry Altshuler, M.D., has published a book on conventional and alternative treatments, including cold laser therapy, for arthritis. More information about the “The Balanced Healing Guide for Arthritis” is available here. Further information on Dr. Altshuler and other books he has written is available at his website.

Infrared Detector now available over the Internet, Saturday, February 13, 2010

MicroLight often receives questions about how a practitioner can check to see if the diodes in the laser probe are functioning. Below is a link to a company that sells infrared detector cards. By shining the laser onto the active area of this card, one can determine if the diodes are functioning.

Infrared Detector Card

Looking for Marketing Material for the ML830®, Saturday, February 13, 2010

Click here for some suggestions.

Using LLLT to treat fibromyalgia, Sunday, January 31, 2010

A New Approach to the Treatment of Fibromyalgia