This site is intended for healthcare professionals only

The Diabetic
Foot Journal


Share this article

Photobiomodulation therapy for diabetic foot ulcers

Patricia Vice, Jane Humphreys, Vivien Wheatland, Moulinath Banerjee

A number of studies have suggested that low-level polychromatic, coherent light, described in the clincial setting as “photobiomodulation” therapy, may improve wound healing. In this retrospective cohort study, photobiomodulation therapy was applied to a series of diabetic foot ulcers as an adjunct to traditional diabetic foot ulcer care. Photobiomodulation therapy was well tolerated by the participants, and a wound closure rate of 48.2% by study end was observed. These results suggest that photobiomodulation therapy may be a beneficial adjunct to traditional treatments for diabetic foot ulcers.

It has been estimated that an ulcer will develop on the foot or ankle of 15% of people with diabetes during their lifetime (Boulton, 2004). Various adjunctive physical therapeutic modalities, including ultrasound, electrotherapy and electromagnetic therapy, have been proposed for the treatment of lower-limb ulcers in people with diabetes (Cullum et al, 2001).

Photobiomodulation therapy is a technique whereby low-level polychromatic, coherent light is applied to injured dermis in an attempt to improve wound healing. The non-thermal effects of light between 1–10 J/cm2 on biological tissues has been shown to be beneficial in cell culture studies (Brondon et al, 2005).

Using National Aeronautics and Space Administration-developed light-emitting diode (LED) technology, Whelan et al (2001) reported in vitro increases in the growth of mouse fibroblasts, rat osteoblasts, rat skeletal muscle cells and human epithelial cells. Using the same light source, clinical reductions in wound size in rat studies, and reductions in healing time in human volunteers from the US Navy, were also reported (Whelan et al, 2001). However, data on the use of photobiomodulation therapy to treat diabetic foot ulcers are limited. In their review, Forney and Mauro (1999) concluded that further research is required to evaluate the role of lasers and photobiomodulation therapy in diabetic foot ulcer closure.

The retrospective cohort study reported here assessed the efficacy of photobiomodulation using LED (PLED) on the closure of diabetic foot ulcers.

Methods and participants
Twenty people who presented with diabetic foot ulcers between October 2000 and June 2002 at the Royal Preston Hospital were included in this study. Data were taken from podiatry and general medical records.

Participants were treated according to a standard protocol for diabetic foot ulcer management (Jeffcoate et al, 2004). This included regular sharp debridement of calluses surrounding the ulcer, use of walking or total-contact casts for off-loading and regular moist dressing. In addition to the traditional management protocols, participants received PLED therapy every 1–3 weeks until their ulcer healed, or until the end of the study period was reached (June 2002). Healing was defined as complete epithelialisation without discharge.

Foot care and PLED therapy were delivered by a trained podiatrist under the supervision of the clinic’s consultant physician. Ulcer size was taken as the diameter at its widest point. All participants underwent radiological assessment to exclude underlying osteomyelitis. Wagner’s scores (Wagner, 1981) were used to grade the severity of ulceration. Cellulitis was defined as an acute spreading infection extending at least 10 mm beyond the wound margin, with or without purulent discharge, and with or without evidence of systemic infection (e.g. fever, leucocytosis). Those diagnosed with cellulitis had wound swabs sent for bacterial culture and sensitivity testing and were treated with broad-spectrum antibiotics until the results of sensitivity testing allowed for narrowing to a more appropriate agent.

PLED therapy was delivered using the THOR-LX photobiomodulation unit (THOR Photomedicine, Chesham, UK; Figures 1–2). This unit incorporates two LED treatment probes: a single-point probe, and a cluster probe. The cluster probe comprised 34 × 660 nm 10 mW (power density 50 mW/cm2) and 35 × 950 nm 15 mW LEDs (power density 75 mW/cm2), with an average power density for the whole cluster probe of 62.5 mW/cm2. The single-point probe comprised 1 × 660 nm 10 mW LED (power density 50 mW/cm2) (THOR Photomedicine, 1998). 

Treatment time was typically 60 seconds/cm2, with the cluster probe delivering 3.75 J/cm2 to each treatment site, followed by treatment with the single-point probe around the wound margin at 1 cm intervals. The probes were held as close to the wound as possible without touching its surface. Treatment with the appropriate probe continued until all of the wound, and the surrounding intact tissue, had received a complete dose.

Data were analysed for computing odds ratio, 2-tailed Student’s t-test and Chi-squared test for P-values and Spearman’s Rank correlation test using SPSS software, version 11.5 (SPSS, Chicago, IL, USA). P-values <0.05 were considered to be statistically significant.

Participant characteristics

Baseline participant characteristics are summarised in Table 1. Ulcers occurred most frequently in men aged 60–70 years (22.0%), and in women aged 80–90 years (15.0%). In this series, 25.9% of participants had type 1 diabetes, 66.7% had type 2 diabetes and 7.4% had diabetes secondary to chronic pancreatitis.

Of the 20 participants, nine (33.3%) had two ulcers and the rest (66.7%) had solitary ulcers. Analyses were conducted based on episodes of foot ulceration. A participant with more than one foot ulcer was considered “healed” only when all ulcers present during that episode of ulceration had healed. A total of 27 episodes of foot ulceration were treated during the study period.

Mean ulcer size was 15.7 ± 9.8 mm, taken at its widest point. Episodes of ulceration were most commonly limited to soft tissue (Wagner’s score 2; 77.8%), while 22.2% extended to bone (Wagner’s score 3). Ulcers were frequently located on the plantar aspect of the foot (92.6%), with the most common site of ulceration being the first metatarsal head (30.3%). Sixteen (59.3%) episodes of ulceration were painless. Seven (25.9%) episodes of ulceration were neuropathic, three (11.2%) were ischaemic, and 17 (62.9%) were neuro-ischaemic. There was a history of trauma in one (3.7%) episode.

Cellulitis was present in 33.3% of episodes of ulceration and resolved in an average of 1.9 ± 1.6 weeks. Wound swabs taken from ulcers with cellulitis revealed pathogenic microbes in 15 (55.6%) episodes of ulceration, the most common isolate being Staphylococcus aureus (48.3%).

Non-healing versus healed ulcers
Participant characteristics associated with those episodes of ulceration that healed, and those that did not, are summarised in Table 2.

In the cohort reported here, the main factors influencing healing were similar to those reported in previous studies investigating PLED therapy, namely peripheral neuropathy, arterial disease, poor vision, foot deformity and previous ulceration (Boyko et al, 1999; Abbott et al, 2002). Baseline ulcer size, described elsewhere as being a risk factor for non-closure (Oyibo et al, 2001; Sheehan et al, 2003; Zimny et al, 2004), was significantly larger in those that failed to heal, compared with those that healed (P=0.02). The other significant indicator of non-closure was cellulitis, which took significantly longer to resolve in those ulcers that failed to heal (P=0.04). Ulcer depth has similarly been reported to be a risk factor for non-closure (Oyibo et al, 2001; Treece et al, 2004), but was not found to be significantly different between the healing and non-healing groups in this cohort.

In a meta-analysis of ten randomised clinical trials of neuropathic ulcers receiving standard treatment, the closure incidence was 24.2% at 12 weeks and 30.9% at 20 weeks (Margolis et al, 1999), and Harrington et al (2000) found the overall incidence of closure for all diabetic foot ulcers to be 31%. In the cohort reported here, with its high overall incidence of lower-limb ischaemia (77.8%), the incidence of closure was 22.2% at 12 weeks, 29.6% at 20 weeks, and 48.1% by study end. These closure incidences, coupled with the fact that none of the participants underwent an amputation, suggest that PLED therapy improved wound healing in these diabetic foot ulcers.

The limitations of this study are that it was not a randomised control trial, and that the number of participants was small. Larger studies investigating the use of PLED therapy for the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers are required.

Given the well-established association between ulcers, amputation and morbidity, any measure that aids closure of diabetic foot ulcers is positive. 

PLED therapy is a safe, well-tolerated adjunct to standard wound care treatment for diabetic foot ulceration. While the efficacy of low-level phototherapy has yet to be confirmed by large randomised control trials, the results reported here suggest a positive role for PLED therapy in the promotion of healing of diabetic foot ulcers.

The authors would like to thank James Carroll of THOR Photomedicine for providing detailed technical specifications of the Thor LX photobiomodulation unit and for supplying photographs of the unit in use. The authors would also like to thank Professor Rayaz Malik of the Manchester Royal Infirmary for his advice on the preparation of this manuscript.


Abbott CA, Carrington AL, Ashe H et al (2002) The north-west diabetes foot care study: Incidence of, and risk factors for, new diabetic foot ulceration in a community-based patient cohort. Diabet Med 19: 377–84
Abergel RP, Lyons RF, Castel JC et al (1987) Biostimulation of wound healing by lasers: Experimental approaches in animal models and in fibroblast cultures. J Dermatol Surg Oncol 13: 127–33
Al Watban FA, Andres BL (2003) Polychromatic LED therapy in burn healing of non-diabetic and diabetic rats.  J Clin Laser Med Surg 21: 249–58
Al Watban FA, Andres BL (2006) Polychromatic LED in oval full-thickness wound healing in non-diabetic and diabetic rats.Photomed Laser Surg 24: 10–16
Boulton AJ (2004) The diabetic foot: From art to science. The 18th Camillo Golgi lecture. 
Diabetologia 47: 1343–53 
Boyko EJ, Ahroni JH, Stensel V et al (1999) A prospective study of risk factors for diabetic foot ulcer. The Seattle Diabetic Foot Study. Diabetes Care 22: 1036–42
Brondon P, Stadler I, Lanzafame RJ (2005) A study of the effects of phototherapy dose interval on photobiomodulation of cell cultures. Lasers Surg Med 36: 409–13
Byrnes KR, Barna L, Chenault VM et al (2004) Photobiomodulation improves cutaneous wound healing in an animal model of type 2 diabetes. Photomed Laser Surg 22: 281–90
Capon A, Mordon S (2003) Can thermal lasers promote skin wound healing? Am J Clin Dermatol 4: 1–12
Cavanagh PR, Lipsky BA, Bradbury AW et al (2005) Treatment for diabetic foot ulcers. Lancet 12: 1725–35
Cullum N, Nelson EA, Flemming K et al (2001) Systematic reviews of wound care management: (5) beds; (6) compression; (7) laser therapy, therapeutic ultrasound, electrotherapy and electromagnetic therapy. Health Technol Assess (online journal). Available from: (accessed 21.02.09)
Forney R, Mauro T (1999) Using lasers in diabetic wound healing. Diabetes Technol Ther 1: 189–92
Greene D, Egbert BM, Utley DS et al (2000) In vivo model of histologic changes after treatment with the superpulsed CO2 laser, erbium: YAG laser, and blended lasers: A 4- to 6-month prospective histologic and clinical study. Lasers Surg Med27: 362–72
Grey JE, Enoch S, Harding KG (2006) Wound assessment. BMJ 4: 285–8
Harrington C, Zagari MJ, Corea J et al (2000) A cost analysis of diabetic lower-extremity ulcers. Diabetes Care 23: 1333–8
Jeffcoate WJ, Price P, Harding KG (2004) Wound healing and treatments for people with diabetic foot ulcers. Diabetes Metab Res Rev 20(Suppl 1): S78–S89
Kawalec JS, Hetherington VJ, Pfennigwerth TC et al (2004) Effect of a diode laser on wound healing by using diabetic and nondiabetic mice. J Foot Ankle Surg 43: 214–20
Landau Z, Schattner A (2001) Topical hyperbaric oxygen and low energy laser therapy for chronic diabetic foot ulcers resistant to conventional treatment. Yale J Biol Med 74: 95–100
Lyons RF, Abergel RP, White RA (1987) Biostimulation of wound healing in vivo by a helium-neon laser. Ann Plast Surg18: 47–50
Margolis DJ, Kantor J, Berlin JA (1999) Healing of diabetic neuropathic foot ulcers receiving standard treatment. A meta-analysis. Diabetes Care 22: 692–5
Oyibo SO, Jude EB, Tarawneh I et al (2001) The effects of ulcer size and site, patient’s age, sex and type and duration of diabetes on the outcome of diabetic foot ulcers. Diabet Med 18: 133–8
Pourreau-Schneider N, Ahmed A, Soudry M et al (1990) Helium-neon laser treatment transforms fibroblasts into myofibroblasts. Am J Pathol 137: 171–8
Rabelo SB, Villaverde AB, Nicolau R et al (2006) Comparison between wound healing in induced diabetic and nondiabetic rats after low-level laser therapy. Photomed Laser Surg 24: 474–9
Saperia D, Glassberg E, Lyons RF et al (1986) Demonstration of elevated type I and type III procollagen mRNA levels in cutaneous wounds treated with helium-neon laser. Proposed mechanism for enhanced wound healing. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 138: 1123–8
Schindl A, Schindl M, Schon H et al (1998) Low-intensity laser irradiation improves skin circulation in patients with diabetic microangiopathy. Diabetes Care 21: 580–4 
Schindl A, Schindl M, Pernerstorfer-Schon H (1999) Diabetic neuropathic foot ulcer: Successful treatment by low-intensity laser therapy. Dermatology 198: 314–16
Sheehan P, Jones P, Caselli A et al (2003) Percent change in wound area of diabetic foot ulcers over a 4-week period is a robust predictor of complete healing in a 12-week prospective trial. Diabetes Care 26: 1879–82
Skinner SM, Gage JP, Wilce PA et al (1996) A preliminary study of the effects of laser radiation on collagen metabolism in cell culture. Aust Dent J 41: 188–92
THOR Photomedicine (1998) Thor LX Operating Manual: OM03. THOR Photomedicine, Chesham
Treece KA, Macfarlane RM, Pound N et al (2004) Validation of a system of foot ulcer classification in diabetes mellitus.Diabet Med 21: 987–91
Vinck EM, Cagnie BJ, Cornelissen MJ et al (2005) Green light emitting diode irradiation enhances fibroblast growth impaired by high glucose level. Photomed Laser Surg 23: 167–71
Wagner Jr FW (1981) The dysvascular foot: A system for diagnosis and treatment. Foot Ankle 2: 64–122 
Whelan HT, Smits Jr RL, Buchman EV et al (2001) Effect of NASA light-emitting diode irradiation on wound healing. J Clin Laser Med Surg 19: 305–14
Whelan HT, Buchmann EV, Dhokalia A et al (2003) Effect of NASA light-emitting diode irradiation on molecular changes for wound healing in diabetic mice. J Clin Laser Med Surg 21: 67–74
Zimny S, Schatz H, Pfohl M (2004) The effects of ulcer size on the wound radius reductions and healing times in neuropathic diabetic foot ulcers. Exp Clin Endocrinol Diabetes 112: 191–4

Related content
A good sense of EWMA
Understanding personality traits: could this help us support better foot self-care behaviours in people with diabetes?
Amputation inequalities across a large metropolitan area of England and effect of a ‘high-risk’ rather than ‘diabetes-only’ multidisciplinary approach to lower-limb wound care 2015/16 to 2021/22
Free for all UK & Ireland healthcare professionals

Sign up to all DiabetesontheNet journals


By clicking ‘Subscribe’, you are agreeing that are able to email you periodic newsletters. You may unsubscribe from these at any time. Your info is safe with us and we will never sell or trade your details. For information please review our Privacy Policy.

Are you a healthcare professional? This website is for healthcare professionals only. To continue, please confirm that you are a healthcare professional below.

We use cookies responsibly to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your browser settings, we’ll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies on this website. Read about how we use cookies.