Effects of High - Intensity Laser in Treatment of Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain

High-intensity laser therapy in low back pain management: a systematic review with meta-analysis

Low back pain (LBP) is a widespread health issue affecting people globally and is the second leading cause of missed workdays. High-intensity laser therapy (HILT) promises to decrease pain intensity in LBP patients. The aim of this work was to evaluate the effect of HILT in adult LBP patients. We searched for randomized controlled studies (RCTs) published before January of 2023. Our primary outcome was pain intensity, while our secondary outcomes included disability and flexibility scores. We synthesized the evidence using RevMan v.5.4 and assessed methodological quality with the Oxford/Jadad scale and the Cochrane collaboration's risk of bias tool 1. The model favors the HILT group over the control group in terms of pain intensity after treatment (MD with 95% CI is -1.65 [-2.22, -1.09], p-value < 0.00001, I2=67%), Oswestry disability index (MD with 95% CI is -0.67 [-1.22, -0.12], p-value = 0.02, I2=73%), and Roland disability index (MD with 95% CI is -1.36 [-1.76, -0.96], p-value <0.00001, I2=0%). The patients in the high-intensity laser therapy had statistically significantly lower (low back) pain intensity compared to the patients in the control group. Based on three RCTs, our model also showed the positive effect of the HILT on LBP in terms of the Oswestry disability index and Roland disability index.

High-Intensity Laser Therapy (HILT) as an Emerging Treatment for Vulvodynia and Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain Disorders: A Systematic Review of Treatment Efficacy

High-intensity laser therapy (HILT) has been gaining popularity in the treatment of chronic musculoskeletal pain, including vulvodynia. The objective of this study was to critically appraise and synthesize the available evidence on the efficacy of HILT for reducing pain and improving function in vulvodynia and other chronic primary musculoskeletal pain conditions. Electronic databases and the grey literature were searched. Effects on pain intensity, function, and adverse events were assessed. One study investigating HILT in the treatment of vulvodynia and 13 studies on the treatment of chronic musculoskeletal pain were selected. The study assessing vulvodynia showed favorable results for reducing pain. Regarding chronic musculoskeletal pain, 12 out of the 13 studies selected consistently showed that HILT was more effective than the placebo/active comparator for reducing pain and improving function. The available effect sizes for pain showed large to huge effects. Similar effects were observed for function except for two studies showing moderate effects. The GRADE score was moderate. Conclusions: There are insufficient data to support the use of HILT in vulvodynia, but the promising results encourage further research. HILT appears to be effective in musculoskeletal pain conditions. More high-quality studies are needed to identify effective laser protocols.

Application of high-intensity laser in pain treatment of patients with knee osteoarthritis

Osteoarthritis is a rheumatic disease characterized by degeneration and decay of cartilage in the joints. As the disease worsens, the joint space narrows causing numbness and pain, which often impairs movement. In addition to pharmacological therapy, low-intensity laser (LILT), high-intensity laser (HILT) and exercise are used to treat osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. HILT is a new modality in our country and the experience from its application is small, especially in the treatment of OA of the knee. Aim of the paper was to compare the effect of HILT with LILT in the treatment of OA of the knee. Material and methods: This was a randomized comparative unilateral blind study involving 72 patients divided into two groups. The first group was treated with HILT, the second group treated with LILT. Outcome measure was the visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain, which was made on the first and tenth day of treatment. Statistical significance was defined as p <0.05. Results: We found a significant difference between the two groups in terms of VAS score after 10 therapies  in favor to a significantly lower score, that is, less pain in the HILT group (p = 0.0035). The comparison of the VAS score between the two times in the two groups separately showed that in both, the HILT and the LILT groups, the VAS score after 10 days of therapy was significantly lower compared to thatat 0 time, for consequently p = 0.00001vsp = 0.00001. Conclusion: Treatment with HILT and LILT significantly reduces pain and stiffness in patients with OA. Patients treated with HILT had better results, i.e., had a significant reduction in pain than patients treated with LILT. HILT was more effective than LILT.

A Randomized Comparative Study between High-Intensity and Low-Level Laser Therapy in the Treatment of Chronic Nonspecific Low Back Pain

Objectives

Chronic nonspecific low back pain (chronic nsLBP) is one of the most common musculoskeletal disorders leading to disabilities and physical inactivity. Laser therapy was used in chronic nsLBP treatment; however, no previous studies have assessed the impacts of high-intensity laser therapy (HILT) versus low-level laser therapy (LLLT) on chronic nsLBP. This study compared the effects of HILT versus LLLT on individuals suffering from chronic nsLBP.

Methods

The study was a randomized control trial. Sixty individuals with chronic nsLBP were enrolled in this study between May and November 2019. All participants were clinically diagnosed with chronic nsLBP. They were assigned randomly into three groups, 20 in each group. The first group received a program of LLLT, the second group received a program of HILT, and the third did not receive laser therapy (control group). Pain severity, disability, lumbar mobility, and quality of life were assessed before and after 12-week intervention.

Results

Both LLLT and HILT groups showed a significant improvement of the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), visual analogue scale (VAS), lumbar range of motion (ROM), and European Quality of Life (EuroQol) scores (p > 0.05), while the control group did not show significant changes (p > 0.05). Comparison among the three study groups postintervention showed significant differences in the outcome measures (p > 0.05), while comparison between the LLLT and HILT groups showed nonsignificant differences (p > 0.05).

Conclusion

There are no different influences of LLLT versus HILT on chronic nsLBP patients. Both LLLT and HILT reduce pain and disability and improve lumbar mobility and quality of life in chronic nsLBP patients.

Comparison of two different electrotherapy methods in low back pain treatment

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the efficacy of High Intensity Laser Therapy (HILT) and Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS) in low back pain (LBP).

METHODS

Forty patients aged between 18 to 60 were included in this study. The patients were randomized into two groups as TENS (Group I) and HILT (Group II). The severity of pain was measured by Visual Analog Scale (VAS), and the range of motion (ROM) of the joint was measured by goniometer. The Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (ODQ) was used to assess the effect of LBP on daily living activities, and the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) was used to assess depression. All patients were taken into physical therapy program for 5 days a week for a total of 20 sessions. Patients in Group I received ultrasound, hot pack and HILT, while the patients in Group II received ultrasound, hot pack and TENS.

RESULTS

In the comparison of post-treatment improvements, among all parameters only VAS score had a significant difference in favor of Group I.

CONCLUSIONS

The study demonstrated that HILT is more effective than TENS in terms of pain reduction and that HILT can be used as an alternative to TENS.

Comparison of the effects of low-level laser and pulsed and continuous ultrasound on pain and physical disability in chronic non-specific low back pain: a randomized controlled clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare the short-term effects of pulsed laser and pulsed and continuous ultrasound on pain and functional disability in women with chronic non-specific low back pain.

METHODS

The sample was composed of 100 volunteers randomly allocated into four groups: The Pulsed Laser Group (n = 26) was treated with 3 J/cm²; the Pulsed Ultrasound Group (n = 24; 3 MHz) was treated with 1 W/cm²; the Continuous Ultrasound Group (n = 26; 1 MHz) was treated with 1 W/cm²; and a Control Group (n = 24), where the patients were still waiting for treatment. Before and after 10 sessions of treatment, the intensity of pain was assessed using the visual analogue scale (VAS), the quality of pain was evaluated using the McGill pain questionnaire and functional disability was investigated using the Roland-Morris questionnaire.

RESULTS

The three treated groups exhibited a decrease in pain (p < 0.001); the Pulsed Laser Group showed the greater relative gain (91.2%), Meanwhile, the Control Group exhibited a worsening of - 5.8%. The three treated groups demonstrated improvement in the quality of pain (McGill) in the total, sensory and affective dimensions (p < 0.005; p < 0.002; p < 0.013, respectively). All treated groups showed a decrease in functional disability (p < 0.001), but the Pulsed Ultrasound Group showed the highest relative gain (83.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

The three modalities have significant effects to decreasing low back pain and improving functional disability in women with non-specific chronic low back pain, but the pulsed low-level laser had the best results on pain while the pulsed ultrasound had the best results on improve the functional disability.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02150096.