Aferição dos equipamentos de laser de baixa intensidade

• Autor(a) principal: Fukuda, Thiago Yukio [UNIFESP]
• Data de Publicação: 2010
• Outros Autores: Jesus, Julio F., Santos, Marcio G., Cazarini Junior, Claudio [UNIFESP], Tanji, Maury M., Plapler, Helio [UNIFESP]
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: por
• Título da fonte: Repositório Institucional da UNIFESP
• Texto Completo: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1413-35552010005000021; http://repositorio.unifesp.br/handle/11600/5860
• topic: low-level laser therapy; gauging; calibration; terapia laser de baixa intensidade; aferição; calibragem

BACKGROUND: Despite the increase in the use of low-level laser therapy (LLLT), there is still a lack of consensus in the literature regarding how often the equipment must be calibrated. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the real average power of LLLT devices in the Greater São Paulo area. METHODS: For the evaluation, a LaserCheck power meter designed to calibrate continuous equipment was used. The power meter was programmed with data related to the laser's wavelength to gauge the real average power being emitted. The LLLT devices were evaluated in two ways: first with the device cooled down and then with the device warmed up for 10 minutes. For each condition, three tests were performed. The laser probe was aligned with the power meter, which provided the real average power being emitted by the LLLT device. All of the data and information related to the laser application were collected with the use of a questionnaire filled in by the supervising therapists. RESULTS: The 60 devices evaluated showed deficit in real average power in the cooled-down and warmed-up condition. The statistical analysis (ANOVA) showed a significant decrease (p<0.05) in the real average power measured in relation to the manufacturer's average power. On average, the most common dose in the clinics was 4 J/cm², and the most desired effects were healing and anti-inflammatory effects. According to the World Association for Laser Therapy (WALT), 1 to 4 J of final energy are necessary to achieve these effects, however only one device was able to reach the recommended therapeutic window. CONCLUSION: The LLLT devices showed a deficit in real average power that emphasized a lack of order in the application of this tool. The present study also showed the need for periodical calibration of LLLT equipment and a better technical knowledge of the therapists involved.