We aimed to compare the efficacy of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) and high-intensity laser therapy (HILT) in the treatment of plantar fasciitis (PF). Seventy patients were randomized into either the LLLT (8 men, 27 women; mean age 48.65 ± 10.81 years) or HILT (7 men, 28 women; mean age 48.73 ± 11.41 years) groups. LLLT (904 nm) and HILT (1064 nm) were performed three times per week, over a period of 3 weeks. Each treatment combined with silicone insole and stretching exercises. Patients' pain and functional status were evaluated with Visual Analog Scale, Heel Tenderness Index, and Foot and Ankle Outcome Score before and after treatment. A chi-square test was performed to compare demographic and clinical characteristics. Within-group and between-group differences were also investigated. Paired samples t test was used to analyze the differences between baseline and after treatment values, while independent samples t test was used to compare the two groups. Both groups contained similar demographic characteristics including age, sex, and body mass index (all p > 0.05). Three and two patients in the HILT and LLLT group, respectively, were lost to follow-up. At the study onset, there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in the Visual Analog Scale, Heel Tenderness Index, and Foot And Ankle Outcome Scores. Three weeks later, both groups showed significant improvement in all parameters (p < 0.05). The HILT group demonstrated better improvement in all parameters than the LLLT group. Although both treatments improved the pain levels, function, and quality of life in patients with PF, HILT had a more significant effect than LLLT.

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.

Summary:Background: Osteoporosis is a widespread metabolic bone disease representing a global public health problem currently affecting more than two hundred million people worldwide. The World Health Organization states that dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is the best densitometric technique for assessing bone mineral density (BMD). DXA provides an accurate diagnosis of osteoporosis, a good estimation of fracture risk, and is a useful tool for monitoring patients undergoing treatment. Common mistakes in BMD testing can be divided into four principal categories: 1) indication errors, 2) lack of quality control and calibration, 3) analysis and interpretation errors, and 4) inappropriate acquisition techniques. The aim of this retrospective multicenter descriptive study is to identify the common errors in the application of the DXA technique in Turkey. Methods: All DXA scans performed during the observation period were included in the study if the measurements of both, the lumbar spine and proximal femur were recorded. Forearm measurement, total body measurements, and measurements performed on children were excluded. Each examination was surveyed by 30 consultants from 20 different centers each informed and trained in the principles of and the standards for DXA scanning before the study. Results: A total of 3,212 DXA scan results from 20 different centers in 15 different Turkish cities were collected. The percentage of the discovered erroneous measurements varied from 10.5% to 65.5% in the lumbar spine and from 21.3% to 74.2% in the proximal femur. The overall error rate was found to be 31.8% (n = 1021) for the lumbar spine and 49.0% (n = 1576) for the

Posterior tibial tendon dysfunction (PTTD) is an important cause of acquired pes planus that frequently observed in adults. Factors that play a role in the development of PTTD such as age-related tendon degeneration, inflammatory arthritis, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, obesity, peritendinous injections and more rarely acute traumatic rupture of the tendon. PTT is the primary dynamic stabilizer of medial arch of the foot. Plantar flexion and inversion of the foot occurs with contraction of tibialis posterior tendon, and arch of the foot becomes elaveted while midtarsal joints are locked and midfoot-hindfoot sets as rigid. Thus, during the walk gastrocnemius muscle works more efficiently. If the PTT does not work in the order, other foot ligaments and joint capsule would be increasingly weak and than pes planus occurs. We present a 10-year-old female patient diagnosed as PTTD and conservative treatment with review of the current literature.

No abstract