# Evaluation of Thermal, Hematohistological, and Dermatological Biocompatibility of LED Devices for Neonatal Phototherapy

## TL;DR

This study developed a new LED blanket for neonatal phototherapy that is safe and allows continuous treatment without interrupting skin-to-skin contact.

## Contribution

A novel flexible LED device was developed and tested for biocompatibility in phototherapy without causing adverse effects.

## Key findings

- The LED device caused no adverse dermatological or histological effects in rabbits.
- Skin temperature was higher in the treatment group, but within physiological limits.
- Blood analysis showed a minor reduction in monocyte counts, but still within normal ranges.

## Abstract

Background/Objective: The effectiveness of blue-light phototherapy (PT) is mainly dependent on the total dose of light (time under PT and amount of skin exposed) received by infants. The primary aim of this study was the development of a novel, flexible, and stretchable device to provide continuous PT treatment, avoiding temporary interruptions that are often observed in practice, such as during breastfeeding, for example. This study evaluated the biocompatibility of a novel, low-cost blanket equipped with light-emitting diode (LED) lamps designed to maintain therapeutic efficacy while facilitating uninterrupted skin-to-skin contact. Methods: Fourteen New Zealand White rabbits, weighing approximately 2.9 kg and aged 4 months, were randomly assigned to an experimental group (TG, n = 7) or a control group (CG, n = 7). The TG received phototherapy directly on the skin (irradiance: 19.3 [13.0–22.0] µW/cm−2/nm−1) during two 12 h sessions over consecutive days, while the CG remained under identical conditions with the device turned off. Biochemical, hematological, dermatological, and histological parameters, as well as rectal and skin temperatures, were assessed. Results: The results showed no differences in clinical appearance or histological analysis of skin tissue between the groups. Blood analysis indicated a reduction in absolute monocyte counts in the TG compared to the CG (p = 0.049), though levels remained within normal ranges. Skin temperature was consistently higher in the TG, except during the initial measurement. Rectal temperatures were similar on the first day but lower in the TG on the second day (mean 40.3 ± 0.21 °C vs. 40.7 ± 0.32 °C; p = 0.039). Conclusions: Temperature levels remained within physiological limits for both groups throughout the study. The device demonstrated biocompatibility and caused no adverse dermatological, hematological, or biochemical effects.