Hi
Naturaltreatments wrote:I wondered whether anyone had found any impact on pore size using RLT?
Pores often look larger when the skin is inflamed, so reduction in inflammation may help pores to look smaller anyway.
Naturaltreatments wrote:I have seen quite a lot of discussion about buying second hand RLT but I wondered what were the best websites to buy these units new?
I might be wrong but think most people go directly to the site of the chosen manufacturer or main distributor and deal with them.
Naturaltreatments wrote:Is there a good place that reviews the benefits of the different units?
Ah, that would be great! I think it's a bit like lasers - lots of posts on lots of sites praising or criticising one particular machine or system, with discussion about them and attempts at making comparisons with a few other lamps, but nothing like a single page listing all the main RLT lamps, giving the specifications and prices, and grading them objectively and impartially. It's a shame because that would certainly make life easier for prospective purchasers.
The Good Housekeeping Research Institute apparently studied five home LED skin treatment devices earlier this year, but they were testing for wrinkles, which are slow to develop and slow to go. Tests ran for only 4 - 6 weeks, daily to once weekly, and naturally didn't show much progress, although general skin quality was shown to have improved in some cases.
I did find two interesting articles on a web site called consultingroom.com.
http://www.consultingroom.com/News/Disp ... s%20LEDs?#The Future’s Bright...The Future’s LEDs?Highlights:
"
Ideally comparative trials are required in order to assess the clinical differences and efficacy of the competing technologies, although with so many different lasers, IPL and LED systems currently on the market, interpreting any results could be difficult, even if such trials occurred."
"
The range of treatments, intensities and power settings available to the home user is restricted and preset for obvious safety reasons. This means that such devices are intended, in the main, for use as a maintenance tool for both during and after an in-clinic treatment programme for a particular indication whereby the practitioner has been able to set specific treatment protocols with his more advanced professional equipment and the home use device is there as an adjunctive tool.
With fewer and fewer of us wanting to take time out of our lives to recover from cosmetic treatments; the fact that LEDs have been shown to offer improvement in skin rejuvenation and acne without any visible deleterious alteration in the skin’s surface makes them a very attractive proposition and one which we feel is here to stay."
This article focuses on the industry leaders in the UK marketplace, Omnilux and Gentlewave. "
The first LED system to be launched in the UK for photorejuvenation was the Omnilux ..." Used by more than 3300 dermatologists worldwide ... now going into the home market ... Apparently, Dr Perricone has put out an Omnilux under his own brand name, and L'Oreal is going into business with GentleWaves to promote their home devices. Surprising to read that in a clinic, a treatment session with the GentleWaves amber lights "
in terms of time spent in front of the bank of LEDs takes less than one minute". Wow!
http://www.consultingroom.com/News/Cate ... s_Cat_ID=9Home is Where...Your Aesthetic Clinic is! The Rise in Home-Use Medical Aesthetic Devices This considers "
home use electrical and light based devices designed to zap away unwanted hair, acne, wrinkles and sagging faces in the comfort of our own homes", a market expected to top more than a billion dollars by 2012.
They write about the RejuvaWand, launched in February 2007 (US $200, approx. £100) using red and infrared LEDs and "
a gentle massaging action ... to stimulate the production of cellular energy in the skin and increase the circulation to help reverse the signs of ageing". Also the deceptively-named Soft Touch Laser, which uses not laser light but LEDs (US $329, approx. £165).
They say:
"
Devices need to be created to avoid the potential for harm, which could occur with medical grade machines, were they to be used by the layperson. For this reason, some devices are just simply not powerful enough to successfully carry out the job that they are marketed for on the vast majority of people; others will simply take longer to achieve the expected results than if the treatment were to be sought in a clinic environment with stronger energies. Such increased levels of required treatments with an at-home device could tire the patience of the average person and lead to disappointment in the machine quite early on. Persistence is often the name of the game.
For these reasons it is perhaps better to view these at-home devices as adjunctive therapies rather than stand-alone solutions to be used alongside a managed programme of medical aesthetic treatments, as a top-up or maintenance following the in-clinic regime."
Perhaps some day we will have independent, impartial and solid research on how RLT affects
rosacea, just as we need research of that calibre for all forms of treatment being offered for rosacea.
I hope this ramble has been of at least some help.
Kind regards,
Aurelia