Traumatic injuries to peripheral nerves and skeletal muscles remain a major source of long‑term disability in both civilian and military populations. Road traffic accidents, work‑related trauma, sports injuries and acts of violence frequently result in partial or complete paralysis, chronic pain and loss of function in the affected limb, with rehabilitation often extending over 6–24 months and still yielding incomplete recovery.
Current standards of care focus on timely microsurgical repair of the injured nerve, combined with intensive physiotherapy, occupational therapy and various forms of physical and electrical stimulation. Early surgery is essential, but it does not fully address secondary degeneration in the distal nerve segment, the slow rate of axonal regrowth, or the progressive atrophy of denervated muscles that ultimately limits functional outcomes. Moreover, these rehabilitation pathways are resource‑intensive, require prolonged patient engagement and lack a simple, non‑invasive modality that directly supports biological regeneration of both peripheral nerves and their target muscles.
Low‑power laser photobiomodulation (PBM) has emerged over the past four decades as a promising candidate to fill this gap [1–3]. A substantial body of preclinical and early clinical data suggests that a properly designed PBM protocol can protect the injured peripheral nerve, accelerate axonal regeneration and, at the same time, preserve the viability and biochemical activity of the corresponding muscles. For healthcare providers, payers and innovators, this creates a unique opportunity to translate a mature, biologically grounded methodology into a dedicated, user‑friendly PBM device that can be integrated into acute care and rehabilitation workflows for patients with peripheral nerve and muscle atrophy.
Unmet clinical need in peripheral nerve and muscle injury
Peripheral nerve injury (PNI) is a frequent and often underestimated consequence of limb trauma. Epidemiological data indicate hundreds of thousands of new PNI cases per year in the United States and Europe alone, corresponding to approximately 1 per 1,000 people annually. These injuries range from incomplete crush lesions to complete transections. For many patients, the result is long‑lasting weakness, impaired dexterity, sensory loss and, in some cases, disabling neuropathic pain.
In cases of severe nerve and muscle crush injury, early systemic complications such as crush‑related syndromes can be life‑threatening, while survivors may still face protracted rehabilitation and a high risk of incomplete recovery. Even when limb function is partially restored, residual deficits often prevent return to previous work and social roles, creating a substantial burden on patients, families and healthcare systems. The direct costs of surgical care and rehabilitation are considerable, and the indirect costs associated with lost productivity and reduced quality of life are estimated to account for the majority of the economic impact.
Microsurgical nerve repair remains the cornerstone of treatment for complete or severe PNI. When performed within the first months after injury, direct neurorrhaphy, grafting or neurotubulization can restore anatomical continuity of the nerve, but functional outcomes are highly variable. The pace of axonal regeneration is slow, denervated muscles undergo progressive atrophy and fibrotic remodeling, and motor endplates may lose their capacity to support effective reinnervation if the process is delayed. Rehabilitation attempts to compensate for these biological limitations through physical and occupational therapy, splinting and electrical stimulation, but these approaches do not directly modify the intrinsic regenerative biology of the nerve and muscle tissues.
From a business and health‑systems perspective, this constellation of factors defines a clear unmet need: a non‑invasive, safe, cost‑effective therapy that can be deployed early and repeatedly, alongside standard surgical and rehabilitative care, to protect injured peripheral nerves, preserve muscle viability and shorten the path to meaningful functional recovery. Photobiomodulation, when delivered with appropriate wavelength and dosage parameters, appears to address precisely this need [1–3].
PBM in peripheral nerve regeneration: four decades of evidence
The application of low‑power laser light to traumatically injured peripheral nerves was first reported in the late 1970s and has since been examined in a sequence of mechanistic, animal and clinical studies. Much of this work has employed near‑infrared 780‑nm continuous‑wave lasers, which combine adequate tissue penetration with well‑characterized safety and biological effects [1–3].
In a standardized rat sciatic nerve crush model, PBM applied transcutaneously to the injured nerve produced several reproducible benefits. Investigators observed an immediate protective effect with increased functional activity of the nerve, better maintenance of nerve conduction over time and a clear reduction in scar tissue formation at the injury site. Histological sections demonstrated fewer fibrotic changes, reduced infiltration of inflammatory cells and, importantly, a higher proportion of myelinated axons with larger diameters in laser‑treated animals compared with controls [1–3].
These local nerve effects were accompanied by favorable changes in proximal neuronal populations. Experimental work showed that PBM decreased retrograde degeneration in motor neurons of the corresponding segments of the spinal cord, preserving cell morphology and reducing chromatolysis compared with untreated animals [1–3]. At the molecular level, independent studies reported that PBM can stimulate neurite outgrowth, enhance Schwann cell proliferation, modulate mitochondrial oxidative metabolism and upregulate growth‑associated proteins such as GAP‑43, providing a plausible mechanistic basis for the observed acceleration of axonal regeneration [1–7].
The benefits of PBM have also been documented in more challenging models of complete nerve transection and reconstruction. In a double‑blind randomized rat study, sciatic nerves were fully transected and repaired by direct end‑to‑end neurorrhaphy; animals receiving postoperative 780‑nm PBM to the repaired nerve and corresponding axial level showed a significantly higher proportion of positive somatosensory evoked potentials compared with non‑irradiated controls. Morphometric analysis revealed an increased total number of axons and, notably, a higher number of large‑diameter, myelinated fibers in the PBM group, indicating a more advanced stage of regeneration [1–3,8].
Similar findings were obtained when segmental nerve loss was reconstructed using a guiding neurotube. After resection of a sciatic nerve segment and implantation into a bioabsorbable tube, animals treated postoperatively with 780‑nm PBM showed more intense axonal growth across the tube and a greater proportion of animals with restored electrophysiological conduction at three months, compared with untreated animals [1–3,9]. These convergent data indicate that PBM is not limited to minor injuries, but can also support regeneration following major reconstructive procedures.
Crucially for translation to clinical practice, the experimental work was followed by a pilot double‑blind, placebo‑controlled randomized clinical trial in patients with incomplete, long‑standing peripheral nerve and brachial plexus injuries [1–3,10]. Patients had stable neurological deficits for at least six months and had been discharged from surgical care without additional treatment options. Over a 21‑day course of daily transcutaneous 780‑nm PBM to the involved nerve region and corresponding axial projection area, patients in the active treatment group demonstrated statistically significant improvements in muscle strength, as graded by standard clinical scales, whereas the placebo group did not [1–3,10]. Electrophysiological assessments confirmed improved recruitment of voluntary motor units in the PBM‑treated group, supporting a true physiological effect on peripheral nerve function.
Taken together, these animal and early clinical data show that PBM, delivered with appropriate parameters, can enhance regeneration after both incomplete and complete peripheral nerve injuries, and can translate into measurable functional improvements in human patients [1–3,10].
PBM for muscle preservation after denervation and crush injury
Preservation of muscle structure and function during the long interval between nerve injury and reinnervation is a critical determinant of ultimate functional outcome. Denervated muscles undergo progressive atrophy, loss of contractile proteins and remodeling of the neuromuscular junction, compromising their capacity to respond to regenerating axons even when nerve repair is anatomically successful [1,10-12].
A series of in vivo and in vitro studies has examined the impact of PBM on skeletal muscles, with a particular focus on two key biochemical markers: creatine kinase CK and acetylcholine receptors (AChRs). CK is a pivotal enzyme for high‑energy phosphate metabolism in muscle, while AChRs are essential for neuromuscular transmission at the endplate. Following denervation, CK activity typically decreases and AChR distribution becomes disorganized, reflecting the onset of degenerative change [11,12]. In an experimental model of rat gastrocnemius denervation, low‑power laser irradiation applied transcutaneously to the denervated muscle temporarily preserved CK activity and moderated the decline of AChR levels compared with non‑irradiated denervated controls. At time points when CK activity in untreated muscles had dropped to less than half of normal values, PBM‑treated muscles retained a substantially higher proportion of baseline CK activity, and AChR levels were likewise better preserved. These biochemical findings were consistent with histological observations of reduced muscle fiber atrophy and better structural integrity [1,11,12].
Overall, these data support the concept that PBM is not only a nerve‑targeted therapy but also a muscle‑preserving modality, capable of maintaining biochemical and structural integrity of denervated or crushed muscles during the vulnerable period before reinnervation and functional recovery.
From protocol to solution: the PBM triple‑target concept
The long‑term research program summarized above has led to the development of a standardized PBM protocol that addresses the entire neuromuscular unit rather than the nerve alone. The core concept is a triple‑target strategy: irradiating the injured peripheral nerve along its course, the corresponding muscles innervated by that nerve and, in earlier experimental protocols, the relevant axial projection region. For the purposes of routine clinical practice and device design, the most practical and directly relevant targets are the nerve and its associated muscles, which can be safely and reproducibly reached by transcutaneous near‑infrared irradiation [3,13].
In preclinical and clinical studies, the protocol has consistently relied on continuous‑wave near‑infrared light at 780 nm, delivered at power levels and fluences that are sufficient to induce photobiological effects while remaining well below thresholds for tissue heating or damage [1–3,10]. Typical implementations divide the treatment region into several anatomical segments – proximal, injury zone and distal along the nerve, and multiple points over the affected muscles – with each segment receiving a defined dose per session, repeated daily over a period of two to three weeks [1–3, 10,13]. The accumulated experience has shown that such dosing is feasible, safe and associated with the neuro‑regenerative and myoprotective effects described earlier [2].
For healthcare business and clinical leaders, this mature protocol can be viewed not just as an academic achievement but as a ready‑to‑translate blueprint for a dedicated PBM solution. A device designed around these parameters can offer standardized, reproducible treatment for peripheral nerve and muscle injuries, minimizing operator dependence and enabling integration into busy clinical workflows.
Why now: the case for a dedicated PBM device for peripheral nerve and muscle injuries
Several converging trends make this an opportune time to move from protocol to product in the field of PBM for peripheral nerve and muscle injuries. First, the scientific foundation is unusually robust for a non‑pharmacological modality: multiple independent experimental models, histological and electrophysiological evidence and a pilot controlled clinical trial have all demonstrated consistent benefits of 780‑nm PBM in enhancing nerve regeneration and preserving muscle viability [1–3,10,11]. Second, safety signals across these studies have been favorable, with no evidence of tissue damage at the applied doses and, in intact muscles, evidence of increased biochemical activity rather than harm [1].
Third, the clinical and economic burden of PNI and muscle crush injuries is substantial and growing, especially in ageing populations with high mobility and in regions affected by conflict or industrial expansion. Estimates suggest hundreds of thousands of PNI cases annually in major markets, with direct medical costs in the billions of dollars and projected global costs rising further in the coming years. Any intervention capable of shortening rehabilitation time, improving functional outcomes or reducing long‑term disability would therefore have a meaningful impact on both patient lives and healthcare budgets [3].
Against this backdrop, a dedicated, portable PBM device – engineered specifically for peripheral nerve and muscle injuries – offers a compelling value proposition. Such a device can be designed to:
- Deliver a validated wavelength and dose protocol based on decades of research [1–3,10].
- Guide users through anatomical targeting of the injured nerve and associated muscles, reducing variability in application [3].
- Operate non‑invasively and painlessly, with minimal training requirements, making it suitable for emergency departments, trauma centers, outpatient clinics and rehabilitation facilities [2,3,10].
- Integrate usage tracking and outcome documentation to support real‑world evidence generation and reimbursement discussions [2,3,10].
By framing PBM as a structured therapeutic solution rather than an adjunctive “technology,” the healthcare community can more easily evaluate its role alongside surgery, pharmacotherapy and rehabilitation in comprehensive care pathways for PNI and muscle injury.
A practical roadmap for implementation
Translating PBM for peripheral nerve and muscle injuries from research to routine practice will require coordinated efforts across clinical, regulatory and business domains. From a clinical perspective, the next steps include well‑designed, multicenter randomized trials that confirm efficacy in defined patient populations, such as incomplete PNI after limb trauma or muscle crush injuries at risk of poor functional recovery [1–3,10]. These studies should use standardized PBM devices and protocols, capture both clinical and electrophysiological outcomes, and include health‑economic endpoints relevant to payers.
On the regulatory front, the established safety profile and non‑invasive nature of PBM support a pathway as a therapeutic device for neuromuscular indications, but careful attention to dose standardization, quality control and post‑marketing surveillance will be essential. Partnerships between academic groups with deep PBM expertise and industry teams experienced in medical device development can accelerate this process, ensuring that the final product remains faithful to the underlying biology while meeting practical constraints of manufacturing, usability and cost.
Importantly, PBM need not wait for “perfect” evidence before finding an initial place in care pathways. In many centers, it can already be introduced as an adjunctive modality in specialized clinics that manage complex PNI, particularly for patients who have exhausted conventional options but still have potentially viable muscles and partial nerve continuity. As more data accumulate, indications can be refined, and PBM can move earlier in the treatment timeline – for example, as a standard postoperative adjunct after nerve repair or as an early intervention following muscle crush injury.
Conclusion
The accumulated experimental, translational and clinical evidence clearly indicates that photobiomodulation can accelerate peripheral nerve regeneration and help preserve muscle viability after traumatic injury, without adding significant risk or complexity to patient care [1–3,10,11]. At the same time, the burden of peripheral nerve and muscle injuries on patients and health systems underscores the need for innovative, biologically targeted therapies that can complement surgery and rehabilitation.
By codifying a proven PBM methodology into a dedicated, clinically oriented device focused on peripheral nerves and muscles, the healthcare community has an opportunity to turn decades of research into a practical, scalable solution. The time is ripe to move PBM from the laboratory and pilot trial into mainstream clinical practice, and to make it an integral component of modern strategies for restoring function after traumatic neuromuscular injury [1–3,10,11].
References
- Rochkind S, Geuna S, Shainberg A. Phototherapy in peripheral nerve injury: effects on muscle preservation and nerve regeneration. International Review of Neurobiology. 2009;87:445–464.
- Rochkind S. Phototherapy in peripheral nerve regeneration: from basic science to clinical study. Neurosurgical Focus. 2009;26(2):E8.
- Rochkind S. Photobiomodulation in neuroscience: a summary of personal experience. Photomedicine and Laser Surgery. 2017;35(11):604–615.
- Wollman Y, Rochkind S, Simantov R. Low power laser irradiation enhances migration and neurite sprouting of cultured rat embryonal brain cells. Neurological Research. 1996;18:467–470.
- Van Breugel HHFI, Bär PR. He–Ne laser irradiation affects proliferation of cultured rat Schwann cells ina dose‑dependent manner. Journal of Neurocytology. 1993;22:185–190.
- Shin DH, Lee E, Hyun JK, Lee SJ, Chang YP, Kim JW, et al. Growth‑associated protein‑43 is elevated in the injured rat sciatic nerve after low power laser irradiation. Neuroscience Letters. 2003;344:71–74.
- Snyder SK, Byrnes KR, Borke RC, Sanchez A, Anders JJ. Quantification of calcitonin gene–related peptide mRNA and neuronal cell death in facial motor nuclei following axotomy and 633‑nm low power laser treatment. Lasers in Surgery and Medicine. 2002;31:216–222.
- Shamir MH, Rochkind S, Sandbank J, Alon M. Double-blind randomized study evaluating regeneration of the rat transected sciatic nerve after suturing and postoperative low power laser treatment. Journal of Reconstructive Microsurgery. 2001;17:133–138.
- Rochkind S, Leider-Trejo L, Nissan M, Shamir M, Kharenko O, Alon M. Efficacy of 780-nm laser phototherapy on peripheral nerve regeneration after neurotube reconstruction procedure: double-blind randomized study. Photomedicine and Laser Surgery. 2007;25:137–143.
- Rochkind S, Drory V, Alon M, Nissan M, Ouaknine GE. The treatment of incomplete peripheral nerve injuries using a new modality—laser phototherapy (780 nm). Photomedicine and Laser Surgery. 2007;25:436–442.
- Rochkind S, Geuna S, Shainberg A. Phototherapy and nerve injury: focus on muscle response. In: International Review of Neurobiology. 2013;109:99–109.
- Rochkind S, Shainberg A. Protective effect of laser phototherapy on acetylcholine receptors and creatine kinase activity in denervated muscle. Photomedicine and Laser Surgery. 2013;31:499–504.
- Mandelbaum‑Livnat MM, Almog M, Nissan M, Loeb E, Shapira Y, Rochkind S. Photobiomodulation triple treatment in peripheral nerve injury: nerve and muscle response. Photomedicine and Laser Surgery. 2016;34:638–645.