Efficacy of High-Power Laser in Alleviating Pain and Improving Function of Patients With Patellofemoral Pain Syndrome: A Single-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial

Are adjunct treatments effective in improving pain and function when added to exercise therapy in people with patellofemoral pain? A systematic review with meta-analysis and appraisal of the quality of interventions

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness of adjunct treatments combined with exercise to exercise alone in people with patellofemoral pain (PFP) and explore the quality of intervention descriptions in randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

DESIGN

Systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

Seven databases were searched in November 2023.

ELIGIBILITY

RCTs that evaluated the effectiveness of any adjunct treatment combined with exercise to exercise alone on self-reported pain and function in people with PFP.

RESULTS

We included 45 RCTs (2023 participants), with 25 RCTs (1050 participants) contributing to meta-analyses. Pooled analysis indicated very low-certainty evidence that neuromuscular electrical stimulation or monopolar dielectric diathermy combined with exercise leads to small and large improvements in self-reported pain when compared with exercise alone (standardised mean difference (95% CI)=-0.27 (-0.53 to -0.02) and -2.58 (-4.59 to -0.57), respectively) in the short-term. For self-reported pain and function, very low-certainty evidence indicates that knee taping, whole-body vibration, electromyographic biofeedback and knee brace combined with exercise do not differ from exercise alone. Interventions are poorly described in most RCTs, adjunct treatments scored on average 14/24 and exercise therapy 12/24 in the Template for Intervention Description and Replication checklist.

CONCLUSION

Neuromuscular electrical stimulation and monopolar dielectric diathermy combined with exercise seem to improve self-reported pain in people with PFP compared with exercise alone. Knee taping, whole-body vibration, electromyographic biofeedback and knee brace do not offer additional benefits to exercise alone. Most interventions are poorly described, which is detrimental to translating research knowledge into clinical practice.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020197081.

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.

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.

The synergic use of the High Power Laser Therapy and Glucosamine sulfate in Knee osteoarthritis: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Background and aim:

To determine the efficacy of the synergistic use of High Power Laser Therapy (HPLT) with glucosamine sulfate (GS) in knee osteoarthritis.

Methods:

This 2-arm randomized controlled trial (RCT) enrolled 90 subjects (M=53, F=37, y= 55±11.2) and randomly allocated using a stratified sampling method in experimental group (A) with HPLT+GS 1500mg (GS - Dona®, Rottapharm, Monza, Italy) (n=45) or in a control group (B) with HPLT + placebo (n=45).

Results:

VAS score in Activities of day Living (ADL), Standardized stair climb test (SSCT), Zohlen’s sign (RASPING) and Rabot test were used, to evaluate patients at the beginning of the study (T0), at 2 months (T1) and at 6 months (T2). In the mean scores for VAS in ADL, SSCT, RABOT and RASPING at T1, no significant differences were found between the experimental and the control group with paired T and ANOVA test. But significant differences between groups (p<0.05) in all outcomes were observed at 6 months (T2).

Conclusions:

HPLT is useful in treating knee osteoarthritis, but when combined with Glucosamine Sulfate, thanks to the synergy of two interventions, can achieve a long-term effect up to 6 months after treatment. (www.actabiomedica.it)

Efficacy of single high-molecular-weight versus triple low-molecular-weight hyaluronic acid intra-articular injection among knee osteoarthritis patients

Background

To compare intra-articular (IA) knee injections of a cross-linked high-molecular-weight hyaluronic acid (HMW-HA) with a linear low-molecular weight HA (LMW-HA) in terms of pain and functional improvement among knee osteoarthritis (OA) patients.

Methods

In this single-blinded RCT, the patients were randomly divided into two groups for HA injections. The first group received an HMW-HA (Arthromac) injection, while the other received three weekly LMW-HA (Hyalgan) injections. Pain and function were assessed using the outcome measures including WOMAC, Lequesne and VAS indices, once prior to injection, as well as 2 and 6 months after injections.

Results

A total of 90 patients were included. There was no significant difference in baseline characteristics including age and sex between the two groups. Our analysis showed that total WOMAC, Lequesne and VAS mean scores remarkably improved at both follow-up time-points compared to the baseline measurements (p < 0.001). There was no significant superiority between the two therapeutic protocols according to our outcome measures at any time-point of follow-up. The only except was about the improvement in WOMAC stiffness subscale that was significantly higher in LMW-HA group compared to HMW-HA (p = 0.021). Moreover, no significant difference was observed in minor complications and injection-induced pain scores between the two groups.

Conclusion

This study proved that a single HMW-HA injection is as effective as multiple injections of LMW-HA counterparts in periods of 2 and 6 months follow-up.

This study protocol was registered in Iranian database of RCTs (IRCT; www.irct.ir) with the trial registration number IRCT20130523013442N24 and registration date 2018-07-13.