Comparison of High Intensity Laser and Epicondylitis Bandage in the Treatment of Lateral Epicondylitis

The comparison of the efficacy of extracorporeal shockwave therapy and high-intensity laser therapy in the treatment of de Quervain tenosynovitis

Objectives

This study aims to investigate and compare the treatment efficacy of extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT) and high-intensity laser therapy (HILT) regarding pain management and functionality in patients with de Quervain tenosynovitis (DQT).

Patients and methods

Between May 2022 and November 2022, a total of 60 patients with DQT (16 males, 34 females; mean age: 43.3±7.7 years; range, 18 to 65 years) were included in this study. The patients were randomly divided into two groups as follows: Group A (ESWT, n=29) and Group B (HILT, n=31). The patients were asked to refrain from all types of exercise 24 h before the experiment. The pain level of the patients at the time of presentation was evaluated via Visual Analog Scale (VAS), and the function outcome was evaluated with Quick Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand (QDASH) before and after the treatment. Muscle strength was evaluated with a Jamar hand dynamometer, and an algometer was used to measure pressure pain threshold (PPT). The Global Assessment Scale (GAS) was used to measure the treatment success.

Results

The intragroup comparisons revealed significant improvements in all parameters after the treatment in both groups (p<0.05). The VAS-rest score, the VAS-movement score, the QDASH score, pain-free grip strength (PFGS), and PPT showed a significant difference before treatment at three weeks and three months (p<0.01). The difference between the PPT values of the groups at three weeks was significant (p<0.01). The third-week PPT value of Group B was higher than the PPT value of Group A. The difference between GAS 1 and GAS 2 of both groups was statistically significant at three weeks and three months (p<0.05).

Conclusion

Both ESWT and HILT treatments are safe and effective in DQT treatment. The ESWT is a recent, non-invasive therapeutic modality which is effective, convenient, and safe in DQT. On the other hand, HILT is a non-invasive, reliable method which has a greater effect on DQT.

Comparison of high intensity laser therapy and extracorporeal shock wave in treatment of lateral epicondylitis: a randomized controlled study

This study aims to evaluate and compare the short-term efficacies of high-intensity laser therapy (HILT) and ESWT(focused) on pain, sensitivity, handgrip strength and functions, in the treatment of lateral epicondylitis (LE). Fourty seven patients (age range, 18 to 65 years) with unilateral elbow pain were randomized into two groups. HILT group (n = 24) and ESWT group(n = 23). The HILT and ESWT were administered three times a week for three weeks, and each treatment was combined with exercises. All paticipant in both of two groups were evaluated with ultrasonography for common extansor tendon thickness. A visual analog scale (VAS), quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QDASH), hand grip strength test were used to evaluate the patients before, one and six weeks after treatment. There were significant improvement in VAS, hand grip strength, QuickDASH scores and CET thickness before and after treatment in both group(p < 0,05). But there were no significant differences between the groups pre-treatment, at the 1st week, and 6th week after treatment (p > 0.05). Only hand grip strength was smilar to the pretreatment outcomes in HILT group. Both treatment methods were found to be effective and safe in the short-term treatment of LE. Consequently, these non-invasive, effective and safe techniques can be successfully used in the treatment of common pathology of the elbow.

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.

Clinical Efficacy of High-Intensity Laser Therapy on Lateral Epicondylitis Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Recently, high-intensity laser therapy has been used in the therapeutic protocols for pain management. We aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of high-intensity laser therapy versus other different modalities for improving lateral epicondylitis symptoms.

METHODOLOGY

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis on prospective randomized controlled trials from PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Science Direct until June 2021 using relevant key words. We analyzed the data using Review Manager software (RevMan 5.4).

RESULTS

Six randomized controlled trials with 344 patients were included. There is low-quality evidence that high-intensity laser therapy generates a small reduction on pain intensity compared with a control group either during activity (mean difference = -0.98, 95% confidence interval = -1.6 to -0.35, P = 0.002) or during rest (mean difference = -0.98, 95% confidence interval = -1.68 to -0.09, P = 0.03). In addition, there is low-quality evidence that high-intensity laser therapy provides small improvements in quality of life (physical component) compared with control (mean difference = 9.76, 95% confidence interval = 2.69 to 16.83, P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

High-intensity laser therapy is an effective therapeutic modality to reduce pain and improve quality of life (36-item short form health survey physical component) in patients experiencing persistent symptoms of lateral epicondylitis. However, grip strength, hand function, and quality of life (36-item short form health survey) did not show significant differences between high-intensity laser therapy and other therapies.

Comparison of extracorporeal shock wave therapy and high-intensity laser therapy on pain, grip strength, and function in patients with lateral epicondylalgia: a randomized controlled study

This study aimed to compare the effects of extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT) and high-intensity laser therapy (HILT) on pain, grip strength, and function in patients with lateral epicondylalgia. This prospective randomized controlled study included 42 patients (22 women and 20 men, mean age: 37) divided into 3 groups. The first group received physiotherapy (n = 14), the second received physiotherapy combined with ESWT (n = 14), and the third received physiotherapy combined with HILT (n = 14). All participants underwent 10 physiotherapy sessions for 2 weeks, 5 sessions per week. In addition to physiotherapy, the ESWT group received 4 ESWT sessions, 2 sessions per week, and the HILT group received 4 HILT sessions, 2 sessions per week. The outcomes were pain intensity as assessed by Visual Analog Scale, grip strength by hand dynamometer, and function by the Duruoz Hand Index and Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation-Turkish version questionnaire. The participants were assessed at the beginning of the study (T1/week 0), at the end of treatment (T2/2nd week), and at follow-up (T3/6th week). At follow-up (T3), a significant improvement was observed in all outcomes compared to baseline (T1) in all groups (P < 0.05). Inter-group comparison of the mean differences between baseline and end values showed that the HILT group was superior in all outcomes (P < 0.05). This study showed that physiotherapy alone combined with ESWT and HILT positively affected the treatment of lateral epicondylalgia. Physiotherapy combined with HILT was found to be the most effective for improving pain, grip strength, and function. Clinical trial number: NCT674325.

A randomized comparative study between high-intensity laser vs low-intensity pulsed ultrasound both combined with exercises for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effects of high-intensity laser therapy (HILT) plus exercise therapy (ET) vs low-intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS) plus ET in knee osteoarthritis (KOA).

METHODS

A single blinded randomized controlled trial in an outpatient setting. There were 60 participants with grades II and III KOA based on the radiological findings in Kellgren and Lawrence grading scale. Participants were allocated randomly into three groups, study group I (HILT+ET), study group II (LIPUS+ET), and control (ET) group. Participants in the three groups received active range of motion (ROM) exercises, muscle strengthening, and flexibility exercises. Treatment was administered 5 times/wk for two successive weeks. Primary outcomes involved visual analog scale (VAS), secondary outcomes involved knee ROM, proprioceptive accuracy and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index scale. All outcomes were measured pre- and post-treatment.

RESULTS

The mean age of participants was 55.4 ± 6.34, 55.2 ± 4.77 and 57 ± 6.39 years in HILT+ET, LIPUS+ET and control group respectively. There were statistically significant time-by-group effects (mixed-design multivariate analysis of variance) on all measured outcomes for all groups (P < .0001). However, HILT+ET yielded better improvement than the other groups (P < .0001). Between-group comparison revealed a significant difference in all measured outcomes between study group 1 vs study group 2, and between each study group vs the control group (P = .0001).

CONCLUSION

The effect of HILT combined with exercises achieved better results in pain, knee ROM, proprioceptive accuracy and functional disability than LIPUS combined with exercises and both are better than exercises only.

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.

The effects of counterforce brace on pain in subjects with lateral elbow tendinopathy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Lateral elbow tendinopathy, also known as "tennis elbow" or "lateral epicondylitis," is a common disease leading to pain in the lateral side of the elbow and disability during hand gripping. A counterforce brace is one of the most conventional treatments. However, its effects on outcomes remain inconclusive.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the effects of counterforce braces on pain in subjects with lateral elbow tendinopathy. Grip strength was reviewed as a secondary outcome.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, CENTRAL, PEDro, ProQuest, RECAL, and RehabData were searched from January 1, 1995, through June 15, 2019.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies were included with a total of 1145 participants. A small improvement in pain over the short term (standardized mean difference -0.02; 95% confidence interval: -0.85 to 0.80) and a moderate-to-large improvement in pain in subjects 45 years or younger (standardized mean difference -0.86; 95% confidence interval: -2.45 to 0.72) in favor of the brace versus physiotherapy interventions were found. In contrast, over the long-term physiotherapy interventions (standardized mean difference 1.17; 95% confidence interval: -0.00 to 2.34), wrist splint (standardized mean difference 0.35; 95% confidence interval: -0.07 to 0.76), and laser therapy (standardized mean difference 0.58; 95% confidence interval: -0.44 to 1.59) had better effects on pain improvement versus the brace.

CONCLUSION

The results indicated that physiotherapy interventions compared to counterforce braces have better effects, especially over the long-term. However, counterforce braces may have better effects on pain in younger people (<45 years old) over the short term (<6 weeks).

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The results suggest that counterforce bracing is a reasonable strategy to alleviate pain over the short term. However, the subgroup analysis suggests that factors such as age may have a role in their effectiveness.

Physical Management of Scar Tissue: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective: The aim of this systematic review with meta-analysis was to describe the status on the effects of physical scar treatments on pain, pigmentation, pliability, pruritus, scar thickening, and surface area.

Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Subjects: Adults with any kind of scar tissue.

Interventions: Physical scar management versus control or no scar management.

Outcome measures: Pain, pigmentation, pliability, pruritus, surface area, scar thickness.

Results: The overall results revealed that physical scar management is beneficial compared with the control treatment regarding the management of pain (p = 0.012), pruritus (p < 0.001), pigmentation (p = 0.010), pliability (p < 0.001), surface area (p < 0.001), and thickness (p = 0.022) of scar tissue in adults. The observed risk of bias was high for blinding of participants and personnel (47%) and low for other bias (100%).

Conclusions: Physical scar management demonstrates moderate-to-strong effects on improvement of scar issues as related to signs and symptoms. These results show the importance of specific physical management of scar tissue.

The Beneficial Effects of High-Intensity Laser Therapy and Co-Interventions on Musculoskeletal Pain Management: A Systematic Review

Introduction: High-intensity laser therapy (HILT) has been used more recently in the therapeutic protocols of pain managements. Adding therapeutic interventions to laser therapy is usual in clinical practice. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of HILT and beneficial effects of adding cointerventions to HILT in musculoskeletal pain management. Methods: The following databases were searched up to August 2018: Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, Google Scholar, Springer and ISI. The keywords of pain, HILT, high power laser therapy, laser therapy, photobiomodulation, physical therapy and rehabilitation were searched. The quality of the articles was assessed using the PEDro scale. The primary measure was pain severity expected to be reported in all studies. Effect size was calculated as standardized mean differences divided by the standard deviation of either the treatment or other group. Results: Initially 52 potential studies were found. Eighteen of these studies were excluded based on title and abstract. The full text of 34 remaining articles was screened and 15 of the studies were excluded. All included studies had high quality (PEDro ≥7). Approximately, 94% of included articles (n=18) revealed positive effects of HILT on pain. The effect sizes for HILT and placebo/comparator groups were 0.9-9.11 and 0.21-11.22 respectively. Also, the differences of effect size between two groups were between 0.03 to 5.85. Conclusion: It is early to determine that HILT may be an effective non-invasive agent in the management of musculoskeletal pain, as few studies have shown its clinical efficacy. Adding related co-interventions to HILT may enhance the beneficial effects of laser therapy. The variability of the study methods and outcomes suggests that further long-term follow-up, randomized controlled clinical trials with appropriate methodological design are needed regarding the effectiveness of HILT on pain.

Short-term Efficacy Comparison of High-intensity and Low-intensity Laser Therapy in the Treatment of Lateral Epicondylitis: A Randomized Double-blind Clinical Study

Objectives

This study aims to evaluate and compare the short-term efficacies of high-intensity laser therapy (HILT) and low-intensity laser therapy (LILT) in the treatment of lateral epicondylitis (LE).

Patients and methods

Sixty patients (16 males, 44 females; mean age 44.2±9.3 years; range, 18 to 65 years) with unilateral elbow pain were randomized into two groups as 30 patients treated with HILT (9 males and 21 females) and 30 patients treated with LILT (7 males and 23 females). The HILT (1,064 nm) and LILT (904 nm) were administered three times a week for three weeks, and each treatment was combined with an epicondylitis bandage. A visual analog scale (VAS), quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QDASH) questionnaire, Medical Outcomes Study Questionnaire Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36), and hand grip strength test were used to evaluate the patients before and three weeks after treatment.

Results

The two groups had similar demographic characteristics, including age, sex, occupation, and body mass index (p>0.05). There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of the pretreatment VAS, QDASH, hand grip strength, and SF-36 scores (p>0.05). After three weeks, both groups showed significant improvements in all of the parameters (p<0.05). However, in the HILT group, the QDASH, hand grip strength, and SF-36 physical component summary (PCS) scores showed superior improvement compared to the LILT group (p<0.05).

Conclusion

Each treatment modality was found to be effective and safe for the short-term treatment of LE. However, the HILT exhibited more significant effects on the hand grip strength, QDASH, and SF-36 PCS scores than the LILT.

Effectiveness of high-intensity laser therapy in the treatment of musculoskeletal disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Although high-intensity laser therapy (HILT) has been used for the management of musculoskeletal disorders (MSD), studies examining the effectiveness of HILT have been limited. We investigated the effectiveness of HILT in MSD using a systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

We searched the ovid MEDLINE, ovid Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL library, and Web of Science until January, 2018. Relevant studies concerning the effectiveness of HILT in patients with MSD were included. Both placebo and active controls were considered as comparators and only randomized controlled trial (RCT) design studies were included. Risk of bias (ROB) was used for the quality assessment of the RCT. For continuous variables, a meta-analysis was conducted using an inverse variance random effects model. The mean difference (MD) for visual analog scale pain and standardized mean difference (SMD) for disability were applied.

RESULTS

Twelve studies were selected for this systematic review. In 11 studies, comprising 736 patients, pain was significantly improved by HILT compared with a control group (MD: -1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -1.28 to -0.74). From the analysis of 688 patients from 10 studies, the pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) of HILT showed a significant improvement in disability scores compared with those in the control group (SMD, -1.09; 95% CI -1.77, -0.41). In subgroup analysis by treatment regions, the mean difference (MD) in neck pain was the highest at -1.02 (95% CI: -1.45, -0.58) than in controls, followed by back pain (MD, -0.91; 95% CI: -1.24, -0.59).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study show that HILT treatment for back and neck pain significantly improved pain and disability scores compared with controls. The ROB of the included studies was moderate; however, significant heterogeneity existed. Thus, additional well-designed studies involving larger samples with long-term follow-up are needed to further assess each laser application, treatment region, and comparator.