Efficacy of high intensity laser therapy in knee osteoarthritis: a double-blind controlled randomized study

Additional effect of high-intensity laser therapy with conventional physiotherapy related to pain and function in patients with knee osteoarthritis: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 12-week follow-up study

OBJECTIVE

High-intensity laser therapy (HILT) is a relatively new form of Nd: YAG laser. The aim of the study is to investigate the additional benefits of HILT with conventional physiotherapy, related to pain and function, in patients with knee osteoarthritis (KOA).

METHOD

The study comprised 43 knees from 31 patients of both genders with mean age 54.6 ± 6.22 (41-64) years. 53.49% of the knees were Kellgren Lawrence (KL) grade 2, and rest were KL grade 3 KOA. Group 1 (n = 21) received transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), hot packs (HP), exercises (EX), and HILT (Nd: yag-laser, 10 W). Group 2 (n = 22), received the same interventions but placebo HILT. All interventions were applied for 10 sessions. The Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Western Ontario & McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Questionnaire (WOMAC), and Lequesne Algofunctional Index (LAI) were administered before, after, and at 12-week follow-up.

RESULTS

Baseline VAS, WOMAC, and LAI scores of the groups were similar (p > 0.05). After treatment and 12 weeks of follow-up, both groups had significant relief for VAS, WOMAC, LAI pain (respectively, p < 0.001) and function (p < 0.012), except LAI-walking distance (p = 0.415). Post-hoc analyses and mixed-effects models showed no significant differences between groups over time for all variables.

CONCLUSIONS

HILT did not provide additional short- or mid-term benefits in pain or function when added to a conventional physiotherapy and exercise program in patients with stage 2 or 3 knee osteoarthritis under 65 years of age.

Randomized Controlled Trials Studying Nonoperative Treatments of Osteoarthritis Often Use Misleading and Uninformative Control Groups: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Because there are no known treatments that alter the natural course of the pathophysiology of osteoarthritis, nonoperative treatment needs to be compared with known effective treatments that seek to mitigate symptoms or with similarly invasive inert (placebo) treatments to determine effectiveness. Comparing a treatment to an uninformative control group may inappropriately legitimize and support the use of potentially ineffective treatments. We therefore investigated the prevalence of inappropriate control groups in musculoskeletal research and asked whether these are associated with reporting a positive treatment effect.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We systematically reviewed randomized trials of nonoperative treatments of osteoarthritis and asked: (1) What proportion of randomized trials use uninformative control groups (defined as a treatment less invasive than the tested treatment, or a treatment that might possibly not outperform placebo but is not acknowledged as such)? (2) Is the use of uninformative control groups independently associated with reporting a positive treatment effect (defined as p < 0.05 in favor of the intervention, or as making a recommendation favoring the intervention over the control treatment)?

METHODS

In a systematic review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we searched PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase up to September 2023 for randomized controlled trials published between 2020 to 2022 that compared one or more nonoperative treatments for the symptoms of osteoarthritis. We excluded studies that contained a surgical treatment group. We identified 103 trials that met eligibility criteria, with a total of 15,491 patients. The risk of bias was high in 60% (n = 62) of trials using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool, version 2. Although the high risk of bias in the included studies is concerning, it does not invalidate our design; instead, it highlights that some studies may use flawed methods to recommend treatments with unproven effectiveness beyond nonspecific effects because the kinds of bias observed would tend to increase the apparent benefit of the treatment(s) being evaluated. We used logistic regression to test the association of uninformative control groups with a positive treatment effect, accounting for potential confounders such as conflict of interest and study bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias score.

RESULTS

The use of uninformative control groups (treatments less invasive than the tested treatment, or treatments that might not outperform placebo but are not acknowledged as such) was found in 46% (47 of 103) of included studies. After accounting for potential confounding, there was no association between reporting positive treatment effects and the use of an uninformative control group. Studies with a low risk of bias had a lower likelihood of reporting a positive treatment effect (OR 0.2 [95% confidence interval 0.05 to 0.9]; p = 0.04, model pseudo R 2 = 0.21).

CONCLUSION

The finding that recent studies that mimic high-level evidence often use uninformative control groups that do not adequately account for nonspecific effects (perceived treatment benefits unrelated to a treatment's direct physiological effects) points to a high risk of legitimizing ineffective treatments. This raises the ethical imperative for patients, clinicians, journal peer reviewers, and journal editors to hold researchers to the standard of an adequate, informative control group. Awareness and risk of bias checklists might help patients and clinicians forgo new treatments based on seemingly high-level evidence that may carry only iatrogenic, financial, and psychological harm (false hope, in particular).

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I, therapeutic study.

Efficacy of high intensity laser therapy versus sham laser in symptomatic knee osteoarthritis: a double-blind randomized controlled trial

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of six sessions of High-Intensity Laser Therapy (HILT), administered twice a week over three weeks, in reducing pain and improving function in patients with mild to moderate symptomatic osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. Forty patients were randomly assigned to either the HILT group (n = 20) or a sham control group (n = 20). The HILT group received two initial sessions of analgesic mode HILT with a total energy of 600 J at the medial and lateral joint lines, followed by four sessions of biostimulation mode with 3000 J at the medial joint line. Both groups also participated in a supervised home exercise program. The visual analog scale (VAS) of pain, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) and timed up and go test (TUG) were evaluated before treatment and at 3 and 6 weeks after the initial treatment. The VAS and the WOMAC improved significantly in both groups. However, there were no significant differences in any of the measured outcomes between the two groups. Both groups showed no significant improvement in TUG. In treating mild to moderate OA knee, integrating twice a week, 6 sessions (2 sessions of analgesic and 4 sessions of biostimulation mode) HILT to exercise program is not superior to exercise alone.

The effect of high-intensity versus photobiomodulation therapy (PBM) on the regeneration of the sciatic nerve following crush injury: an animal study

The purpose of this research was to evaluate the therapeutics effects of photobiomodulation and high intensity laser therapy after a sciatic nerve crush injury. Following the crush injuries of sciatic nerve, 33 rats were randomly divided into three groups. The injured sciatic nerves of the rats in the control group were left to heal spontaneously, whereas HILT (120 J/session and 1064 nm) and photobiomodulation therapy (PBM) (2.4 J/session and 650 nm) were started immediately after surgery and performed once every 3 days (10 session in total) during the postoperative period. Electrophysiological evaluations were conducted before surgery and at the end of the healing period. The Sciatic Functional Index (SFI) was assessed before surgery and at the end of the healing period. The ratio of the inner axonal diameter to the total outer axonal diameter (g-ratio) and schwann cells per square micrometer were histomorphometrically evaluated. At the end of the 30-day healing period, significantly better SFI scores were noted in the HILT group compared with PBM (p=0.002) and control (p < 0.001) groups. HILT exhibited positive effects on latency and duration values when compared PBM (p=0.002, p=0.014) and control (p=0.003, p < 0.001) groups. The number of nerves with an optimum g-ratio was higher in the HILT group which indicates a better rate of myelination. Functional, histomorphometric, and electrophysiological investigations of the present study revealed that HILT seems to be a superior treatment modality for peripheral nerve regeneration.

Comparison of the Effect of High-Intensity Laser Therapy and Quadriceps Muscle Strengthening Exercises Using Biofeedback on Pain, Stiffness and Function of Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Objectives

This study aims to compare the effects of high-intensity laser therapy (HILT) and quadriceps muscle strengthening exercises using biofeedback on pain and function in patients with knee osteoarthritis (KOA).

Methods

This randomized, two-group clinical trial included patients with KOA (grades II - III of the Lawrence Kellgren classification) who met the inclusion criteria. Written informed consent was obtained from participants before they were randomly allocated into one of two groups: HILT + therapeutic exercise (group A) or quadriceps muscle strengthening exercises using biofeedback + therapeutic exercise (group B). Both groups followed the same therapeutic exercise regimen during the study.Knee pain severity was evaluated using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), and functional disability was assessed with the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) questionnaire before the intervention.For group A, HILT was performed using a BTL-6000 HIL device (wavelength 1064 nm, maximum power 12 W) following the manufacturer-recommended protocol. A pain relief program (10 W, 120 J/cm²) was administered for 120 seconds per session over ten sessions. Treatment protocol, laser positioning, and session duration were standardized. Two follow-up assessments (immediately and one-month post-intervention) were conducted to evaluate outcomes based on the VAS and WOMAC scores.

Results

The study included 40 participants with KOA, divided evenly between the two groups (20 in each). The average age of the participants was 59.34 ± 6.92 years. High-intensity laser therapy group (group A): Visual analogue scale pain scores decreased significantly immediately after and one month post-intervention compared to baseline (P < 0.01). However, the VAS score one month after the intervention showed no significant difference compared to the immediate post-intervention score (P = 0.59). Biofeedback group (group B): VAS pain scores also decreased significantly both immediately after and one month post-intervention compared to baseline (P < 0.05). The difference in VAS pain reduction between the two groups was significant, with the HILT group showing greater improvement immediately after the intervention and one month later (P = 0.007).

Conclusions

The study findings suggest that both quadriceps muscle strengthening exercises using biofeedback and HILT effectively reduce pain in KOA patients. However, HILT demonstrated superior efficacy compared to biofeedback exercises. These results support the use of HILT as a noninvasive therapeutic modality for KOA, particularly for patients with a higher risk of surgery due to preexisting comorbidities.

High-Intensity Laser Therapy in Pain Management of Knee Osteoarthritis

Knee osteoarthritis (KO) is an important health condition, affecting one third of people aged 65 years or more. Pain is the main cause of disability. Pain management in KO includes pharmacological and non-pharmacological modalities. Patient education, lifestyle changes, physical exercise, and physical agents are prescribed as a first approach for pain control. Laser therapy is part of many therapeutical protocols, with two forms: low-level laser therapy (LLLT) and high-intensity laser therapy (HILT). This paper aimed to stress the advantages of HILT based on a greater wavelength, higher energy delivery, and deeper tissue penetration. Research on 23 published trials revealed that the analgesic effect is rapid, cumulative, and long lasting. Compared to sham, to LLLT, or to other combinations of therapeutical modalities, HILT provided significantly better results on pain reduction and functional improvement. Ultrasound examination showed a reduction in intra-articular inflammation.

Adjunctive electrophysical therapies used in addition to land-based exercise therapy for osteoarthritis of the hip or knee: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objectives

To review evidence for effectiveness of electrophysical therapies (EPTs), used adjunctively with land-based exercise therapy, for hip or knee osteoarthritis (OA), compared with 1) placebo EPTs delivered with land-based exercise therapy or 2) land-based exercise therapy only.

Methods

Six databases were searched up to October 2023 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs)/quasi-RCTs comparing adjunctive EPTs alongside land-based exercise therapy versus 1) placebo EPTs alongside land-based exercise, or 2) land-based exercise in hip or knee OA. Outcomes included pain, function, quality of life, global assessment and adverse events. Risk of bias and overall certainty of evidence were assessed. We back-translated significant Standardised Mean Differences (SMDs) to common scales: 2 points/15% on a 0-10 Numerical Pain Rating Scale and 6 points/15% on the WOMAC physical function subscale.

Results

Forty studies (2831 patients) evaluated nine different EPTs for knee OA. Medium-term effects (up to 6 months) were evaluated in seven trials, and one evaluated long-term effects (>6 months). Adverse events were reported in one trial. Adjunctive laser therapy may confer short-term effects on pain (SMD -0.68, 95%CI -1.03 to -0.34; mean difference (MD) 1.18 points (95% CI -1.78 to -0.59) and physical function (SMD -0.60, 95%CI -0.88 to -0.34; MD 12.95 (95%CI -20.05 to -5.86)) compared to placebo EPTs, based on very low-certainty evidence. No other EPTs (TENS, interferential, heat, shockwave, shortwave, ultrasound, EMG biofeedback, NMES) showed clinically significant effects compared to placebo/exercise, or exercise only.

Conclusions

Very low-certainty evidence supports laser therapy used adjunctively with exercise for short-term improvement in pain and function. No other EPTs demonstrated clinically meaningful effects.

The effect of high-intensity laser therapy on pain and lower extremity function in patellofemoral pain syndrome: a single-blind randomized controlled trial

Patellofemoral pain syndrome (PFPS) is a set of symptoms that negatively affect the daily life activities of the individual, leading to functional disability and significant loss of labor, especially in young adults. PFPS is usually due to weakness of the vastus medialis obliquus (VMO) resulting in abnormal patellar tracking and pain. Our study aims to compare the efficacy of high-intensity laser therapy (HILT) on pain and lower extremity function in the treatment of PFPS with different electrophysical agents (EPAs). The study was designed as a single-blind randomized controlled trial. Forty-five people with PFPS (aged 25-45 years) were included in the study. The patients were randomly divided into three groups and a total of ten sessions of treatment were administered to all three groups for 2 weeks, 5 days a week. High-intensity laser (HILT) and exercise program were applied to group 1. Ultrasound (US), transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), and exercise program were applied to group 2. In group 3, US, interferential current (IFC), and exercise program were applied. Both groups underwent three evaluations: pre-treatment, post-treatment, and 12 weeks after treatment. Outcome measures included the visual analog scale for pain severity (VAS), knee flexion range of motion (FROM), Q angle, pain threshold, muscle strength of quadriceps and hamstring, Kujala patellofemoral scoring, lower extremity functional scale (LEFS), and Timed Up and Go Test (TUG). The ANOVA was used for comparing the data of the groups, and two-way repeated measure ANOVA was used to compare at the pre-post and post-intervention 3rd month. The LSD and Bonferroni post hoc tests were also used to identify the between-group differences. Groups 2 and 3 were statistically effective in pain and functionality (p < 0.05). Group 1 was found to be statistically more effective than other groups in reducing pain (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.000/0.000; p = 0.000), increasing knee flexion angle (95% CI, 127.524/135.809; p = 0.000), and increasing lower extremity function (95% CI, 75.970/79.362; p = 0.000). This study indicated that high-intensity laser therapy was found to be a more effective method in the treatment of patellofemoral pain syndrome after 3 months of follow-up compared to US-TENS combination and US-interferential current combination treatments. Also, HILT can be used as an effective method in combination with an appropriate exercise program including vastus medialis strengthening to reduce pain and increase functionality in the patients with PFPS.

Effects of high-intensity laser therapy on pain, functional status, hand grip strength, and median nerve cross-sectional area by ultrasonography in patients with carpal tunnel syndrome

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of high intensity laser therapy (HILT) on pain, functional status, hand grip strength, and median nerve cross-sectional area by ultrasonography in patients with carpal tunnel syndrome. Sixty patients who were diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome were included in the study. The patients observed during the research were randomly divided into two groups with 30 patients in each group. Splint+ exercise and HILT (pulsed mode with a power of 8.0 W and energy density of 8 J/cm2 for 1.40 minutes for every 25 cm2, continuous mode with a power of 3.0 W and energy density of 80 J/cm2 for 11 minutes for each 25 cm2; total 10 sessions 5 days a week) were applied for 2 weeks for the first group, and splint+exercise and sham laser treatment were applied for 2 weeks for the second group. Randomization was undertaken with the assistance of a computer-generated random number table before beginning the treatment processes. The patients were evaluated with the determined scales before the treatment, at the end of the treatment, and at the 3rd month. Hydraulic hand dynamometer was used to measure hand grip strength, visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, Boston CTS Questionnaire to assess function, and ultrasonography to measure median nerve cross-sectional area. The impact of time on the change in VAS levels was found to be of statistical significance within each group of patients (p<0.001), but between-group comparisons did not yield significant results (p<0.454). The effects of time on variations in Boston CTS Questionnaire scores were found to have been of statistical significance for both groups (p<0.001), but significance was not subsequently observed when the results of the two groups were compared on a between-group basis (p=0.226 and p=0.973 for the FSS and SSS, respectively). While time had a statistically significant effect on the change in hand grip strength for both groups (p=0.000), between-group comparisons statistical significance finding in favor of HILT was found in the early period (p=0.012). The time-group association patterns of the groups showed significant difference (p=0.025). While time had a statistically significant effect on the changes in the median cross-sectional areas of the nerve for the patients of both treatment groups (p<0.001), between-group comparisons yielded no findings of statistical significance (p=0.438). The time-group relationship patterns of the groups were found to reflect statistical significance (p=0.001). In conclusion, the results of the research presented here have confirmed that hand grip strength may increase and the median nerve's cross-sectional area may decrease upon the application of high-intensity laser for individuals experiencing CTS. However, this effect was demonstrated here only in the short-term and the evidence was not maintained through the course of follow-up of a longer duration.

Evaluation of the effect of high-intensity laser therapy (HILT) on function, muscle strength, range of motion, pain level, and femoral cartilage thickness in knee osteoarthritis: randomized controlled study

This study was designed as a double-blind randomized placebo-controlled study. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of high-intensity laser therapy (HILT) on pain, range of motion, function, muscle strength, and femoral cartilage thickness in patients with knee osteoarthritis. Sixty patients who were admitted between November 2021 and April 2022 and diagnosed with knee osteoarthritis based on anamnesis, physical examination, and imaging methods were included in the study. The patients observed during the research were randomly divided into two groups with 30 patients in each group. Hotpack, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), exercise (5 days a week for a total of 15 sessions), and HILT (analgesic mode with a power of 10.0 w, energy density of 12 j/cm2, and 2 min for every 25 cm2, biostimulant mode with a power of 5.0 W, energy density of 120 j/cm2, and 10 min for each 25 cm2; total 9 sessions 3 days a week) were applied for 3 weeks for the first group, and hot pack, TENS, exercise (5 days a week for a total of 15 sessions), and sham laser treatment (0 W total 9 sessions 3 days a week) was applied for 3 weeks for the second group. The patients were evaluated with the determined scales before the treatment, at the end of the treatment, and at the third month. A goniometer was used to measure joint range of motion measurement, a visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, WOMAC Osteoarthritis Index to assess pain and function, Biodex System 3 isokinetic device for knee flexion-extension muscle strength measurement, and ultrasonography to measure femoral cartilage thickness. There was no statistically significant difference in VAS, range of motion, WOMAC, muscle strength, and femoral cartilage thickness measurement between the groups, whether before treatment, after treatment or at the third-month follow-up (p > 0.05). There was a statistically significant decrease in pain intensity, an increase in flexion range of motion, WOMAC, and femoral cartilage thickness in both groups (p < 0.005). A statistically significant increase was found in the average peak torque flexion muscle strength measurements at isokinetic 60°/s angular velocities in the post-treatment and third-month checkup compared to the pre-treatment analysis in both groups (p < 0.05). In conclusion, there was no statistically significant difference between HILT + exercise and placebo laser + exercise observed. However, the exercise program performed under the supervision of a physiotherapist has been shown to be effective in improving all parameters.

Why Does Rehabilitation Not (Always) Work in Osteoarthritis? Does Rehabilitation Need Molecular Biology?

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a common disease among the human population worldwide. OA causes functional impairment, leads to disability and poses serious socioeconomic burden. The rehabilitation offers a function-oriented method to reduce the disability using diverse interventions (kinesiotherapy, physical therapy, occupational therapy, education, and pharmacotherapy). OA as a widespread disease among elderly patients is often treated by rehabilitation specialists and physiotherapists, however the results of rehabilitation are sometimes unsatisfactory. The understanding of molecular mechanisms activated by rehabilitation may enable the development of more effective rehabilitation procedures. Molecular biology methods may prove crucial in rehabilitation as the majority of rehabilitation procedures cannot be estimated in double-blinded placebo-controlled trials commonly used in pharmacotherapy. This article attempts to present and estimate the role of molecular biology in the development of modern rehabilitation. The role of clinicians in adequate molecular biology experimental design is also described.

High-Intensity Laser Therapy for Musculoskeletal Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

High-intensity laser therapy (HILT) is one of the therapeutic approaches used in the treatment of musculoskeletal disorders (MSD). The main objective of this study was to examine the effectiveness of HILT for reducing pain and improving functionality in people with MSD. Ten databases were systematically searched for randomized trials published up to 28 February 2022. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) assessing the effectiveness of HILT on MSD were included. The main outcome measures were pain and functionality. In total, 48 RCTs were included in the qualitative synthesis and 44 RCTs in the quantitative analysis. HILT showed a decrease on the pain VAS (mean difference (MD) = -1.3 cm; confidence interval (CI) 95%: -1.6 to -1.0) and an improvement in functionality (standardized mean difference (SMD) = -1.0; CI95%: -1.4 to -0.7), with low and moderate quality of evidence, respectively. A greater effect was observed when compared with control than with other conservative treatments, both on pain (χ2 = 20.6; p < 0.001) and functionality (χ2 = 5.1; p = 0.02). Differences in the effectiveness of HILT were found depending on the location (χ2 = 40.1 p < 0.001), with further improved functionality in MSD of the knee and shoulder. HILT is an effective treatment for improving pain, functionality, range of motion, and quality of life in people with MSD, although these findings must be treated with caution due to the high risk of bias in the studies. Further clinical trials should be well designed to lower the risk of bias.

High-intensity laser therapy on pain relief in symptomatic knee osteoarthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Osteoarthritis is one of the leading causes of global disability and pain.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether High-Intensity Laser therapy has superior pain-relieving effects in individuals with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis.

METHODS

Searches were conducted using CENTRAL, MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, Web of Science, PEDro, and related reference lists with language limed to English. Clinical trials investigating the effectiveness of High-Intensity Laser therapy compared to other laser therapies, conventional therapies or exercises on knee osteoarthritis pain were included. The screening and selection of studies, data extraction, and methodological quality assessment were performed by two independent researchers. Studies were quantitatively integrated using the Review Manager Software and qualitative analysis using the criteria recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration.

RESULTS

Nine studies meeting the eligibility criteria were identified, among which only one study was identified as excellent methodology quality, six was marked as good quality, and the remaining two studies were regarded as fair or poor quality. All studies reported positive effects of High-Intensity Laser therapy on knee osteoarthritis pain. Two studies (136 people) gave indication that there was moderate evidence that High-Intensity Laser therapy could be a promising new possibility in pain relief among patients with knee osteoarthritis compared with sham laser therapy in a short-term treatment (MD, -2.04, 95% CI, -2.12 to -1.96; Z= 51.01, P< 0.01). Four studies (160 people) showed that High-Intensity Laser therapy could be an effective modality on treating pain compared to conventional physiotherapies in decreasing visual analog scale score (MD, -0.98, 95% CI, -1.19 to -0.76; Z= 9.02, P< 0.01). Three studies (123 people) demonstrated that High-Intensity Laser therapy combined with exercises was more effective than placebo laser or lower-intensity laser combined with exercises in alleviating pain in patients with knee osteoarthritis (MD, -1.54, 95% CI, -1.84 to -1.24; Z= 10.06, P< 0.01).

CONCLUSION

High-Intensity Laser therapy could be a promising and recommended modality in alleviating knee osteoarthritis pain, especially when it was implemented in combination with exercises.

Short-Term Efficacy of High-Intensity Laser Therapy in Alleviating Pain in Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis: A Single-Blind Randomised Controlled Trial

Objectives

The aim of the study is to evaluate the efficacy of high-intensity laser therapy (HILT) on pain reduction in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA).

Methods

Forty-two patients diagnosed with primary knee OA, with a Kellgren–Lawrence classification of 2–4, were recruited into the study. The patients were randomly allocated to two groups: HILT and control. The intervention group received HILT (energy density of 22.39 J/cm2, 562.5 joule/session), while the control group received a sham laser, which was done 2–3 sessions per week for a total of 10 sessions. Both the groups also received the same conservative treatment. The main outcome measures were the visual analogue scale (VAS) and the modified Thai version of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (T-WOMAC) which were evaluated at baseline and immediately after treatment completion.

Results

At the end of the study, the overall analysis showed a significant decrease in VAS and T-WOMAC scores in both the groups; a greater decrease in scores was found in the HILT group than in the control group (p < 0.001). The between-group comparison also showed a significant difference in VAS, but not in the T-WOMAC score, favouring HILT (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

The HILT plus conservative treatment can help alleviate pain in patients with knee OA. The findings of the present study could be used in clinical practice to add HILT as another noninvasive treatment option for knee OA. This could be advantageous, particularly for individuals who are at high risk of surgery due to multiple comorbidities or older people. Trial Registration. This clinical trial registration was performed at Clinical.gov (NCT04889885).

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.

Effect of lower limb orthoses on cartilage in patients with knee osteoarthritis: A narrative review

The objective of this review was to infer how the use of an orthosis affects cartilage in patients with knee osteoarthritis. A search was performed in four different databases (Web of Science, Scopus, EMBASE, and PubMed) up to the 21st of November of 2020 to evaluate how the patient's condition was monitored. The parameters chosen for this review were medial tibial cartilage volume, x-ray evaluation, Lequesne Index, pain visual analog scale score, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index pain score, and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score pain subscale score. The initial search yielded a total of 12,622 documents. After thoroughly screening them, 38 were selected for analysis. Of the resulting data, only two objectively evaluated the cartilage (medial tibial cartilage volume, n = 1; x-ray evaluation, n = 1), with the remainder evaluating subjective symptoms (Lequesne Index, n = 8; pain visual analog scale score, n = 18; Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index pain score, n = 10; Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score pain subscale score, n = 10). The data did not converge toward any general outcome. The articles read demonstrated a great tendency to evaluate qualitative parameters pertinent to the symptoms of this condition or quantitative parameters related to the biomechanics of the knee. However, these parameters are not ideal because they are ambiguous. As such, a shift toward more objective quantitative parameters that directly assess the cartilage volume of the knee should be considered in future clinical trials.

Is high intensity laser therapy more effective than other physical therapy modalities for treating knee osteoarthritis? A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Background

The use of physical therapy modalities, especially high intensity laser therapy (HILT), for individuals with knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is still controversial.

Objective

To compare the effects of HILT to other physical therapy modalities on symptoms and function in individuals with KOA.

Methods

Six databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, EBSCO, and PEDro) were searched in March 2022. Included studies were randomized controlled trials involving HILT conducted on individuals with KOA. The end-trial weighted mean difference (WMD) and standard deviations (SD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were analyzed.

Results

Ten studies with 580 participants were obtained, of which nine were included in the final network meta-analysis. In terms of relieving pain, HILT demonstrated the highest probability of being among the most effective treatments, with surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) = 100%, and compared to a control (placebo laser or exercise or a combination of both) on the visual analog scale (VAS) for pain it demonstrated significant benefits (WMD 1.66, 95% CI 1.48–1.84). For improving self-reported function, as measured by the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) total scores, the HILT SUCRA value led with 98.9%. When individuals with KOA were treated by HILT, the improvement in stiffness was statistically significant (WMD 0.78, 95% CI 0.52–1.04) but the amount of improvement was smaller than the minimal clinically important difference (MCID).

Conclusion

The current evidence suggests that HILT may be more effective than other physical therapy modalities for improving pain and function in individuals with KOA. For improving stiffness, however, it may not be clinically effective.

Systematic review registration

[https://www.researchregistry.com], identifier [1148].

Functionalized Hydrogels for Cartilage Repair: The Value of Secretome-Instructive Signaling

Cartilage repair has been a challenge in the medical field for many years. Although treatments that alleviate pain and injury are available, none can effectively regenerate the cartilage. Currently, regenerative medicine and tissue engineering are among the developed strategies to treat cartilage injury. The use of stem cells, associated or not with scaffolds, has shown potential in cartilage regeneration. However, it is currently known that the effect of stem cells occurs mainly through the secretion of paracrine factors that act on local cells. In this review, we will address the use of the secretome—a set of bioactive factors (soluble factors and extracellular vesicles) secreted by the cells—of mesenchymal stem cells as a treatment for cartilage regeneration. We will also discuss methodologies for priming the secretome to enhance the chondroregenerative potential. In addition, considering the difficulty of delivering therapies to the injured cartilage site, we will address works that use hydrogels functionalized with growth factors and secretome components. We aim to show that secretome-functionalized hydrogels can be an exciting approach to cell-free cartilage repair therapy.

Utilization of the 1064 nm Wavelength in Photobiomodulation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Introduction: Photobiomodulation or low-level laser therapy (LLLT;<0.5 W) has been used as a non-invasive treatment for various medical indications. Short (visible; 635-650 nm) and longer (invisible; 810-850 nm and 915-980 nm) near-infrared wavelengths have been commonly used, but power setting deficiencies or incorrect wavelength settings can cause negative outcomes. The 1064 nm wavelength as the longest wavelength is a relative newcomer in high-powered (>0.5 W) laser photobiomodulation therapy (HPL-PBMT) with unique biophysical characteristics. Methods: A comprehensive search of 2016-2021 PubMed, Google Scholar, and Cochrane databases for "photobiomodulation" restricted to clinical trials for patients with a medical diagnosis was done. "1064 nm" content was identified and restricted to high-powered lasers (>0.5 watt). Cohen's d was calculated for the effect size and the difference was determined as a measure of relative 1064 nm HPL-PBMT efficacy. Results: The 22 independent studies meeting inclusion criteria focused on knee arthropathies, spine, shoulder/elbow, wound, gynecological, or osteoporosis with evaluation of pain, function, quality of life, range of motion (ROM), and anatomy. Pain was reduced with statistical significance (P<0.05) in 90% of study assessments (n=20) and 100% of studies focused on the knee (n=6). Of 18 studies assessing functional outcome measures, 100% demonstrated statistically significant improvements. Follow-up assessments up to 6 months in 5 knee arthritis studies revealed long-term pain reduction after cessation of treatment. Improvements in wound healing, bone mineral density, and knee cartilage thickness were demonstrated. The largest effect sizes observed were pain reduction in knee arthritis (average Cohen's d effect size=2.46). Conclusion: These studies have established that 1064 nm HPL-PBMT can effectively reduce pain, increase ROM, increase functional scores, and increase the quality of life for knee osteoarthritis and spinal disorders, with limitations. More studies are needed for clinical validation of single-trial data detecting changes in musculoskeletal conditions, cartilage thickness and bone density.