TABLE 5.
Studied Involving Wound Healing
| Refs. | Subject | CW | PW | λ (nm) | f (Hz) | Other reported parameters | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Schubert [63] | Humans | X | 637, 956 | 8.58, 15.6, 31.2, 78, 287, and 702 |
Irradiance: 21 and 55 W/m2; duty cycle: 80% |
PW > untreated controls | |
| Kymplova et al. [24] | Humans | X | X | 670 | 10, 25, and 50 | Power: 20 mW; energy density: 2 J/cm2 | PW > CW |
| Longo et al. [31] | Rats | X | 904 | 1,500 and 3,000 | Power: 20 W; power density: 5 mw/cm2 (1.5 kHz), 10 mw/cm2 (3 kHz); energy density: 3 J; pulse duration: 200 nanoseconds |
PW > untreated controls; only 3,000 Hz was effective in promoting wound healing |
|
| Braverman et al. [61] | Rabbits | X | X | 632.8 (CW), 904 (PW) |
4,672 | Power: 10 mW (CW), 50 mW (PW); energy density: 1.65 J/cm2 (CW), 8.25 J/cm2 (PW); pulse duration: 200 nanoseconds |
Both CW and PW improved tensile strength, and no statistically significant difference between the two |
| Korolev and Zagorskaia [32] | Rats | X | 850–910 | 500 and 3,000 | N/A | PW > untreated controls; 500 Hz more effective |
|
| Al-Watban and Zhang [28] | Rats | X | 635 | 100, 200, 300, 400, and 500 |
Power density: 0.89 mW/cm2; energy density: 1.0 J/cm2 |
CW > PW; of the pulsed frequencies used, 100 Hz was most effective (but less so than CW) |
|
| Vasheghani et al. [65] | Rats | X | X | 890 | 80 | Power: 75 W; energy density: 0.396 J/cm2; pulse duration=180 microseconds |
PW > untreated controls |
| Hopkins et al. [66] | Humans | X | 820 | 700 | Energy density: 8 J/cm2 | PW > untreated controls | |
| Kucerova et al. [67] | Humans | X | 670, 632.8 | 5, 292, and 9,000 | Power: 20 mW; energy density: 1.5 J/cm2 |
PW > untreated controls | |
| el Sayed and Dyson [33] | Rats | X | 820 | 2.5, 20, 292, and 20,000 |
Power: 800 mW/cm; energy density: 21.6 J km; pulsing duration: 360, 45, 3, and 0.045 milliseconds for 2.5, 20, 292, and 20,000 Hz respectively; duty cycle: 90% |
PW > untreated controls; 20 and 292 Hz most effective |