Low level laser therapy (Classes I, II and III) for treating osteoarthritis

Laser light: Illuminating the path to enhanced periodontal care

The utilisation of laser technology in the realm of periodontal care represents a significant advancement in clinical practice. This article delves into the historical context of laser therapy in medicine, from its inception in 1960 to its evolution into low-level laser therapy (LLLT). LLLT, often referred to as photobiomodulation (PBM), has garnered attention due to its potential to enhance periodontal treatment outcomes. The article thoroughly examines the mechanisms of action of photobiomodulation therapy PBM(T), covering its impact on cellular and tissue levels. The authors explore the evidence-based recommendations for the use of PBM(T) in periodontal care, shedding light on its potential to improve periodontal conditions, especially when applied as an adjunct to conventional treatments. They investigate the role of PBM(T) in individuals and its possible contribution to periodontal health. Additionally, the article delves into its application in periodontal regenerative procedures and its ability to expedite soft tissue wound healing and the effects of PBM(T) in reducing periodontal inflammation and mitigating post-periodontal surgery discomfort. In conclusion, the article calls for enhanced clinical research to streamline laser procedures, develop antimicrobial photodynamic therapy, and conduct well-designed randomised controlled trials (RCTs). It also emphasises the importance of understanding the impact of laser therapy on therapeutic and biological goals, the potential to reduce invasive procedures, and the necessity of adequate research funding.

Adjunctive therapies in addition to land-based exercise therapy for osteoarthritis of the hip or knee

BACKGROUND

Land-based exercise therapy is recommended in clinical guidelines for hip or knee osteoarthritis. Adjunctive non-pharmacological therapies are commonly used alongside exercise in hip or knee osteoarthritis management, but cumulative evidence for adjuncts to land-based exercise therapy is lacking.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of adjunctive therapies used in addition to land-based exercise therapy compared with placebo adjunctive therapy added to land-based exercise therapy, or land-based exercise therapy only for people with hip or knee osteoarthritis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, CINAHL, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) and clinical trials registries up to 10 June 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs of people with hip or knee osteoarthritis comparing adjunctive therapies alongside land-based exercise therapy (experimental group) versus placebo adjunctive therapies alongside land-based exercise therapy, or land-based exercise therapy (control groups). Exercise had to be identical in both groups. Major outcomes were pain, physical function, participant-reported global assessment, quality of life (QOL), radiographic joint structural changes, adverse events and withdrawals due to adverse events. We evaluated short-term (6 months), medium-term (6 to 12 months) and long-term (12 months onwards) effects.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence for major outcomes using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 62 trials (60 RCTs and 2 quasi-RCTs) totalling 6508 participants. One trial included people with hip osteoarthritis, one hip or knee osteoarthritis and 59 included people with knee osteoarthritis only. Thirty-six trials evaluated electrophysical agents, seven manual therapies, four acupuncture or dry needling, or taping, three psychological therapies, dietary interventions or whole body vibration, two spa or peloid therapy and one foot insoles. Twenty-one trials included a placebo adjunctive therapy. We presented the effects stratified by different adjunctive therapies along with the overall results. We judged most trials to be at risk of bias, including 55% at risk of selection bias, 74% at risk of performance bias and 79% at risk of detection bias. Adverse events were reported in eight (13%) trials. Comparing adjunctive therapies plus land-based exercise therapy against placebo therapies plus exercise up to six months (short-term), we found low-certainty evidence for reduced pain and function, which did not meet our prespecified threshold for a clinically important difference. Mean pain intensity was 5.4 in the placebo group on a 0 to 10 numerical pain rating scale (NPRS) (lower scores represent less pain), and 0.77 points lower (0.48 points better to 1.16 points better) in the adjunctive therapy and exercise therapy group; relative improvement 10% (6% to 15% better) (22 studies; 1428 participants). Mean physical function on the Western Ontario and McMaster (WOMAC) 0 to 68 physical function (lower scores represent better function) subscale was 32.5 points in the placebo group and reduced by 5.03 points (2.57 points better to 7.61 points better) in the adjunctive therapy and exercise therapy group; relative improvement 12% (6% better to 18% better) (20 studies; 1361 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence indicates that adjunctive therapies did not improve QOL (SF-36 0 to 100 scale, higher scores represent better QOL). Placebo group mean QOL was 81.8 points, and 0.75 points worse (4.80 points worse to 3.39 points better) in the placebo adjunctive therapy group; relative improvement 1% (7% worse to 5% better) (two trials; 82 participants). Low-certainty evidence (two trials; 340 participants) indicates adjunctive therapies plus exercise may not increase adverse events compared to placebo therapies plus exercise (31% versus 13%; risk ratio (RR) 2.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27 to 21.90). Participant-reported global assessment was not measured in any studies. Compared with land-based exercise therapy, low-certainty evidence indicates that adjunctive electrophysical agents alongside exercise produced short-term (0 to 6 months) pain reduction of 0.41 points (0.17 points better to 0.63 points better); mean pain in the exercise-only group was 3.8 points and 0.41 points better in the adjunctive therapy plus exercise group (0 to 10 NPRS); relative improvement 7% (3% better to 11% better) (45 studies; 3322 participants). Mean physical function (0 to 68 WOMAC subscale) was 18.2 points in the exercise group and 2.83 points better (1.62 points better to 4.04 points better) in the adjunctive therapy plus exercise group; relative improvement 9% (5% better to 13% better) (45 studies; 3323 participants). These results are not clinically important. Mean QOL in the exercise group was 56.1 points and 1.04 points worse in the adjunctive therapies plus exercise therapy group (1.04 points worse to 3.12 points better); relative improvement 2% (2% worse to 5% better) (11 studies; 1483 participants), indicating no benefit (low-certainty evidence). Moderate-certainty evidence indicates that adjunctive therapies plus exercise probably result in a slight increase in participant-reported global assessment (short-term), with success reported by 45% in the exercise therapy group and 17% more individuals receiving adjunctive therapies and exercise (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.62) (5 studies; 840 participants). One study (156 participants) showed little difference in radiographic joint structural changes (0.25 mm less, 95% CI -0.32 to -0.18 mm); 12% relative improvement (6% better to 18% better). Low-certainty evidence (8 trials; 1542 participants) indicates that adjunctive therapies plus exercise may not increase adverse events compared with exercise only (8.6% versus 6.5%; RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.27).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Moderate- to low-certainty evidence showed no difference in pain, physical function or QOL between adjunctive therapies and placebo adjunctive therapies, or in pain, physical function, QOL or joint structural changes, compared to exercise only. Participant-reported global assessment was not reported for placebo comparisons, but there is probably a slight clinical benefit for adjunctive therapies plus exercise compared with exercise, based on a small number of studies. This may be explained by additional constructs captured in global measures compared with specific measures. Although results indicate no increased adverse events for adjunctive therapies used with exercise, these were poorly reported. Most studies evaluated short-term effects, with limited medium- or long-term evaluation. Due to a preponderance of knee osteoarthritis trials, we urge caution in extrapolating the findings to populations with hip osteoarthritis.

Low-Level Laser Light Therapy Dosage Variables vs Treatment Efficacy of Neuromusculoskeletal Conditions: A Scoping Review

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this scoping review was to identify and synthesize literature on dosage variables on the efficacy of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) for neuromusculoskeletal conditions.

METHODS

A scoping literature review was conducted by searching the following databases: the Cochrane Library, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Medline, the Physiotherapy Evidence Database, the Index to Chiropractic Literature, manufacturer websites, and online guidelines. The search was modeled after STARLITE criteria. The reporting used Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Articles were included if LLLT was used in any treatment group for a neuromusculoskeletal complaint with dosage and effectiveness reported. This was tabulated by source, dosage variables, conditions, outcome measures, and conclusions. Data were charted in Excel format. Frequency counts were performed on ordinal data. Descriptive statistics were computed for the continuous data.

RESULTS

A total of 86 articles were included in the review. They revealed a broad range of musculoskeletal conditions and diverse dosage parameters. Seven individual parameters were found that would alter the dosage. Although duration of application is an independent clinical factor, the negative-outcome studies were inconsistent in duration. There was lack of statistical difference between the studies with improved vs unimproved outcomes. No statistical differences were noted between the dosage parameters and efficacy.

CONCLUSION

Although many articles were found on LLLT for neuromusculoskeletal conditions, the studies had amorphous parameters. A heterogeneity of reported doses precluded the synthesis of sufficient evidence to correlate dosage variables with improved or unimproved outcomes. Therefore, based on the current literature, dosage variables for the efficacy of LLLT for neuromusculoskeletal conditions are uncertain at this time.

Effective treatment options for musculoskeletal pain in primary care: A systematic overview of current evidence

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Musculoskeletal pain, the most common cause of disability globally, is most frequently managed in primary care. People with musculoskeletal pain in different body regions share similar characteristics, prognosis, and may respond to similar treatments. This overview aims to summarise current best evidence on currently available treatment options for the five most common musculoskeletal pain presentations (back, neck, shoulder, knee and multi-site pain) in primary care.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted. Initial searches identified clinical guidelines, clinical pathways and systematic reviews. Additional searches found recently published trials and those addressing gaps in the evidence base. Data on study populations, interventions, and outcomes of intervention on pain and function were extracted. Quality of systematic reviews was assessed using AMSTAR, and strength of evidence rated using a modified GRADE approach.

RESULTS

Moderate to strong evidence suggests that exercise therapy and psychosocial interventions are effective for relieving pain and improving function for musculoskeletal pain. NSAIDs and opioids reduce pain in the short-term, but the effect size is modest and the potential for adverse effects need careful consideration. Corticosteroid injections were found to be beneficial for short-term pain relief among patients with knee and shoulder pain. However, current evidence remains equivocal on optimal dose, intensity and frequency, or mode of application for most treatment options.

CONCLUSION

This review presents a comprehensive summary and critical assessment of current evidence for the treatment of pain presentations in primary care. The evidence synthesis of interventions for common musculoskeletal pain presentations shows moderate-strong evidence for exercise therapy and psychosocial interventions, with short-term benefits only from pharmacological treatments. Future research into optimal dose and application of the most promising treatments is needed.

Effect of Laser Therapy on Chronic Osteoarthritis of the Knee in Older Subjects

INTRODUCTION

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a common degenerative joint disease particularly in older subjects. It is usually associated with pain, restricted range of motion, muscle weakness, difficulties in daily living activities and impaired quality of life. To determine the effects of adding two different intensities of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) to exercise training program on pain severity, joint stiffness, physical function, isometric muscle strength, range of motion of the knee, and quality of life in older subjects with knee OA.

METHODS

Patients were randomly assigned into three groups. They received 16 sessions, 2 sessions/week for 8 weeks. Group-I: 18 patients were treated with a laser dose of 6 J/cm(2) with a total dose of 48 J. Group-II: 18 patients were treated with a laser dose of 3 J/cm(2) with a total dose of 27 J. Group-III: 15 patients were treated with laser without emission as a placebo. All patients received same exercise training program including stretching and strengthening exercises. Patients were evaluated before and after intervention by visual analogue scale (VAS), the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) index for quality of life, handheld dynamometer and universal goniometer.

RESULTS

T test revealed that there was a significant reduction in VAS and pain intensity, an increase in isometric muscle strength and range of motion of the knee as well as increase in physical functional ability in three treatment groups. Also analysis of variance (ANOVA) proved significant differences among them and the post hoc tests (LSD) test showed the best improvements for patients of the first group.

CONCLUSION

It can be concluded that addition of LLLT to exercise training program is more effective than exercise training alone in the treatment of older patients with chronic knee OA and the rate of improvement may be dose dependent, as with 6 J/cm(2) or 3 J/cm(2).

Effect of low-level laser therapy in patients with chronic knee osteoarthritis: a single-blinded randomized clinical study

The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) on pain relief and functional performance in patients with chronic knee osteoarthritis (OA). Forty patients with knee OA were randomly assigned into active laser group (n = 20) and placebo laser group (n = 20). The LLLT device used was a Ga-As diode laser with a power output of 50 mW, a wavelength of 850 nm, and a diameter beam of 1 mm. Eight points were irradiated and received dosage of 6 J/point for 60 s, with a total dosage of 48 J/cm(2) in each session. The placebo group was identical but treated without emission of energy. LLLT was applied two times per week over the period of 4 weeks. Outcome measurements included pain intensity at rest and at movement on visual analog scale, knee function using Western Ontario McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index scale, and ambulation duration. These measurements were collected at baseline and post-intervention. The results showed significant improvements in all assessment parameters in both groups compared to baseline. Active laser group showed significant differences in pain intensity at rest and movement, knee function, and ambulation duration when compared with the placebo group. Therefore, LLLT seemed to be an effective modality for short-term pain relief and function improvement in patients with chronic knee OA.