The use of low levels of visible or near infrared light for reducing pain, inflammation and edema, promoting healing of wounds, deeper tissues and nerves, and preventing cell death and tissue damage has been known for over forty years since the invention of lasers. Despite many reports of positive findings from experiments conducted in vitro, in animal models and in randomized controlled clinical trials, LLLT remains controversial in mainstream medicine. The biochemical mechanisms underlying the positive effects are incompletely understood, and the complexity of rationally choosing amongst a large number of illumination parameters such as wavelength, fluence, power density, pulse structure and treatment timing has led to the publication of a number of negative studies as well as many positive ones. A biphasic dose response has been frequently observed where low levels of light have a much better effect on stimulating and repairing tissues than higher levels of light. The so-called Arndt-Schulz curve is frequently used to describe this biphasic dose response. This review will cover the molecular and cellular mechanisms in LLLT, and describe some of our recent results in vitro and in vivo that provide scientific explanations for this biphasic dose response.

Background: Dose and beam parameters are critical for successful laser, LED, and other light therapy treatments; however, in our experience, researchers frequently make critical errors and omissions when submitting papers for publication. Journals frequently publish studies with missing data, mathematical errors, and no reported verification of beam parameters. This makes reproducibility impossible, and further confounds an already complex subject. Objective: This article is intended to be a reference document for non-physicist researchers conducting low-level laser therapy (LLLT) laboratory studies and clinical trials to help them design and report the beam and dose aspects of their trials. Recommendations: It provides a checklist to help LLLT researchers understand and report all the necessary parameters for a repeatable scientific study. It includes the eight most important beam parameters to report, which are: wavelength, power, irradiation time, beam area at the skin or culture surface (this is not necessarily the same as the aperture size), pulse parameters, anatomical location, number of treatments, and interval between treatments. The three commonly used dose parameters are time, energy, and energy density. In addition, more thorough reporting would include coherence, application technique (contact, projection, scanning, pressure), beam profile, and spectral width, as these may also be considered important. Beam power often decreases as the device warms up and as the device ages; therefore, this should be checked routinely during an experiment/trial. Measurements of beam area and beam power require special instruments and trained technicians to operate them. Power measurements should be taken before, after, and at frequent intervals during research trials. Conclusion: Reviewers should insist that the minimum eight most important beam parameters are included, and authors should take care to measure and record these accurately before, during, and after an experiment or clinical trial.

Low-level laser light therapy (LLLT) exerts beneficial effects on motor and histopathological outcomes after experimental traumatic brain injury (TBI), and coherent near-infrared light has been reported to improve cognitive function in patients with chronic TBI. However, the effects of LLLT on cognitive recovery in experimental TBI are unknown. We hypothesized that LLLT administered after controlled cortical impact (CCI) would improve post-injury Morris water maze (MWM) performance. Low-level laser light (800 nm) was applied directly to the contused parenchyma or transcranially in mice beginning 60–80 min after CCI. Injured mice treated with 60 J/cm² (500 mW/cm²×2 min) either transcranially or via an open craniotomy had modestly improved latency to the hidden platform (p<0.05 for group), and probe trial performance (p<0.01) compared to non-treated controls. The beneficial effects of LLLT in open craniotomy mice were associated with reduced microgliosis at 48 h (21.8±2.3 versus 39.2±4.2 IbA-1+ cells/200×field, p<0.05). Little or no effect of LLLT on post-injury cognitive function was observed using the other doses, a 4-h administration time point and 7-day administration of 60 J/cm². No effect of LLLT (60 J/cm² open craniotomy) was observed on post-injury motor function (days 1–7), brain edema (24 h), nitrosative stress (24 h), or lesion volume (14 days). Although further dose optimization and mechanism studies are needed, the data suggest that LLLT might be a therapeutic option to improve cognitive recovery and limit inflammation after TBI.