Red light therapy for eyes - MGD
Just wondered if anyone had used red light therapy to treat MGD?
I know blue light and possibly infrared light can damage eyes, but red light might be very good?
Something like an All-red until from LEDman?
PS - not sure if different types of light, yellow etc, might work better/worse?
I've been using red light for almost a year. It hasn't gotten rid of my recurrent corneal erosions in my right eye but my face got extremely smoother right away and mostly cleared up my breakout areas. A year of Azasite had already made a big difference in my MGD, so I'm not sure what effect it has on my meibomian glands. I bought it to see if it would help my erosions and keep my meibomian glands open. I came across information on its healing properties when I was googling IPL when people started posting about it here. With red light there's no heat, just light. No UV.
Great. Thank you. What is Azasite?
Originally Posted by Diana
When I was looking through the sticky thread on the Rosacea Forum (which I have with Ocular Rosacea too (MGD/Bleph)): Which RLT/LLLT unit?
- I found a few references to eyes. Here is one:
I had also read that infrared damages eyes. I know it penetrates the eyes to about 8-10mm but I wonder if this is the same effect as looking at the sun directly with your eyes closed? Blue light has been shown to damage eyesight too, and again I wonder if the same applies.
Originally Posted by Twickle Purple
I was looking at the Brightbox Revive: http://www.britebox-led.co.uk/rosacea/ which has a mix of red and infrared. No good if infrared damages the eyes and I can't turn them off!
On that subject they make a pretty bold claim on their website;
Our home use rosacea treatments utilise LED wavelength technology to cure rosacea fast or your money back.
Also - seems red light is not so good for SD. Which colour light do you think would be best with SD?
Risk to eyes of different light wavelengths
This article may be of interest as it includes a graph showing the risk to eyes from different light wavelengths.
If I understand the graph correctly, it is saying that 1000 is the highest risk and 1 is the lowest risk.
I know blue light can damage eyes and is a lower light band (475nm) then infrared (790nm). Therefore, the higher the light band the lower the risk to eyes.
It seems to suggest that in the article the Infrared is about 100 times less hazardous. then blue light.
So to round up, it seems based on this, that it is actually less harmful to your eyes using infrared then red for example. Contray to some of the assumptions made on this forum.
Now I'm no expert, so if I have got any of this wrong, please tell me!!
PS - we're talking about LEDs here not lasers which a lot of the research relating to damage to eyes from infrared is on.
This article seems to back up the first post: http://www.plaintree.com/pdf/Plaintr...vs%20Laser.PDF
Although again, it's still slightly unclear...In one line it says that Infrared CAN damage the retina by means of heat, but much less the lasers (3 to 4 magnitude less)...then later says 'currently it's systems use 830nm which are unconditionally safe"
So complicated. The lower the wavelength the higher the risk, until you get to higher infrared, but not low infrared?
Last edited by moore778899; 20-Dec-2010 at 07:46.
Originally Posted by moore778899
I have been using light therapy for years now, In various forms.... The only trouble with infra red is that because it is not visible your iris does not respond to the light in the same way as it would towards visible light, therefore more of the infrared light passes onto the retina.
Low powered leds of 475nm and above pose no risk to your eyes if you have your lids shut IMO.
Originally Posted by lamarr
Good to hear your doing well!!
I though blue light operated at 470nm and can cause damage to your eyes?
Or is that just if you stare at the LED?
If so, does that apply to infrared too?
Azasite is azithromycin, a next-generation erythromycin that kills staph aureus and a few other bacteria. Staph aureus is the normal bacteria that is on the skin and mucous membranes of the body. Staph is the main culprit in colonization of the meibomian glands caused by oils that move more slowly from the glands, thereby becoming a food source for the bacteria. The bacteria's waste products then further harden and stop movement of the oils, so that they're solid at room temperature when they should be liquid at room temperature. (kind of like trans-fats--naturally liquid but altered in the lab to be solid at room temperature) Colonization takes a long time to eradicate but I think I finally killed off enough of the staph by being on Azasite long term to be comfortable again with improved flow of liquid oils.
Great. Thanks for the explanation.
Originally Posted by Diana
I wonder then, could light treatment kill off the bateria on it's own? It's a shame blue light damages eyes!
PS - any side effects of that medication Azasite?
When I bought my red light unit I bought a blue one too. You usually see red light advertised for skin rejuvenation (anti-aging) and some say for any healing. Blue is advertised on acne websites to kill bacteria, but I also found a lot of talk that blue light really doesn't do anything. I used both at first, but for some reason I quit using the blue early on.
Azasite drops don't feel great. I have to put the drops in right before I close my eyes for sleep because it's an oily, slightly burny (at first) drop. If any gets around the lashes, it dries to a hard sticky film. It's pretty hard to squeeze out of the bottle and it totally blurs my vision. For me, it takes several hours of sleep before I feel like the Azasite is not in my eyes anymore. I guess it acts more like an ointment even though it's a drop.
Just to let you know, I've started a survey of 10 questions on the effectiveness of red light therapy here: http://www.rosaceagroup.org/The_Rosa...eic-dermatitis
Will be great if you could participate!
Will be interesting to see the results.