Report: Practical comparison of an on brand portable photo torch and the Photizo Vetcare handheld PBM Device

I've now used both the portable photo torch and the Photizo Vetcare handheld unit in clinical practice, across musculoskeletal pain, soft tissue injury and general rehabilitation contexts. This report summarises my practical experience of both devices alongside their stated technical parameters.

Treatment duration and workflow

The most obvious difference in day-to-dav use is treatment time per site. The portable torch runs a fixed three-minute cycle per application. This is workable when treating a small. well-defined area, or when the patient is settled and compliant, but it does slow overall workflow where multiple sites need treating.

Photizo Vetcare delivers a pre-programmed dose of around 30 seconds per application. In Practice, this makes a significant difference, particularly with dogs that are painful, restless or difficutt to position. Treating multiple points is much quicker and easier and owners are more likely to comply when using the device at home.

Overall, Photizo is markedly more time-efficient per treatment session.

Power, Dose and Delivery

From a photobiomodulation perspective, headline power figures are less useful than irradiance and delivered dose. The portable photo torch uses a lower irradliance over a longer time, while Photi20 uses a higher irradiance over a much shorter exposure

The portable photo torch three-minute cycle delivers a relatively high cumulative dose per site, assuming good contact and consistent positioning.

Photizo delivers a shorter, sharper dose that stillsits comfortably within accepted therapeutic PBM ranges. In practice both appear capable of delivering clinically meaningful doses, but they do so in different ways.

Importantly, I've not found "more power" to correlate with better outcomes. Both devices appear to sit within the useful part of the biphasic dose response curve when used sensibly and consistently.

Wavelengths and versatility

The portable photo torch offers more wavelength options, including blue light in addition to red and near-infrared. I've found the blue light option occasionally useful for very superficial skin or mucosal issues, though this is a relatively niche indication.

Photizo focuses on red and near-infrared wavelengths only. For the majority of musculoskeletal, joint, tendon, ligament and post-operative cases, I've not felt disadvantaged by the lack of blue light, as red/NIR covers most routine PBM indications very well.

Ease of use and patient tolerance

In real-world clinical use, Photizo is the simpler device. The single-button operation and short treatment time make it easy to use on unsettled animals and straightforward for owners to manage at home.

The portable photo torch is also easy to handle, but the longer hold time per site requires more cooperation from the patient and more operator input. The need to select modes adds a small layer of complexity. though this is not a major issue for trained users.

From a compliance and practicality standpoint, particularly in dogs, Photizo has a clear advantage.

I have seen beneficial effects with both devices, consistent with what we would expect from photobiomodulation more generally: reduction in pain, improved comfort and mobility, and support for tissue healing in selected cases.

Clinical efficacy

I have not observed a clear or consistent difference in clinical outcomes that would suggest one device is inherently more effective than the other. In my experience outcomes are driven far more by appropriate case selection, correct application, regular use and patient tolerance than by the specific brand used.

Photizo Vetcare has become my preferred option where speed, simplicity and patient compliance matter most, particularly for multi-site treatments and home use.

Overall impression

The portable photo torch remains a useful device where longer exposure times and multi-wavelength options are specifically desired, and where the patient can tolerate longer treatment cycles.

Both devices are capable PBM tools. The practical differences lie mainly in treatment time, workflow and ease of use rather than in any dramatic difference in clinical efficacy.

But! It's difficult to say with the cases I've use if they made much difference to time of healing. I'd love to see any data you have comparing two treatment sites on the same animal, one getting photizo and the other placebo?

About the Authour

Dr Nick Thompson, BSc (Hons) Path Sci., BVM&S, VetMFHom, MRCVS, is a fully trained vet with over 39 years of experience in raw food nutrition, herbal and homoeopathic as well as conventional medicine.

He uses both holistic and conventional practices, along with a hefty dose of old-fashioned common sense, to try to establish what is really wrong with his patients and what is required to help repair them. Minimising pharmaceutical intervention is at the heart of all treatments. 

Nick has a special interest in immunology, internal medicine, holistic health, and microbiome dynamics.

Working closely with friends and colleagues in the veterinary world, he, together with patients and owners, forms a hardworking team focused and committed to improving dog welfare, health and behaviour.

Holisticvet is based near Bath, Somerset (UK).