ObjectiveTo determine if infrared laser acupuncture (LA) may have a specific effect in reducing pain and disability in treatment of chronic low back pain (LBP).MethodsThis was a double-blind sham laser controlled trial performed in general practices in Perth, Western Australia. The participants were 144 adults with chronic non-specific LBP. They were randomised to receive eight once-weekly treatments. Laser machines (20 mW, 840 nm diode, power density 0.1 W/cm2) stimulated points in three treatment groups: sham (0 joules/point), low dose (0.2 J/point) and high dose (0.8 joules/point). Participants were followed-up at 1 and 6 weeks, and 6 and 12 months post treatment. Primary outcomes were pain (Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS)) and disability (Oswestry Disability Inventory (ODI)) at 6 weeks post treatment. Secondary outcomes included numerical rating scale for limitation of activity, global assessment of improvement, analgesic usage and adverse effects after treatment.ResultsThe analysis showed no difference between sham and the laser groups at 6 weeks for pain or disability. There was a significant reduction in mean pain and disability in all groups at 6 weeks (p<0.005); NPRS: sham (−1.5 (95% CI −2.1 to −0.8)), low dose (−1.3 (−2.0 to −0.8)), high dose (−1.1 (−1.7 to −0.5)). ODI: sham (−4.0 (−7.1 to −1.0)), low dose (−4.1, (−6.7 to −1.5)), high dose (−2.6 (−5.7 to 0.5)). All secondary outcomes also showed clinical improvement over time but with no differences between groups.ConclusionsLA using energy density range (0–4 J/cm2) for the treatment of chronic non-specific LBP resulted in clinical improvement unrelated to laser stimulation.Trial registrationhttp://www.anzctr.org.au ACTRN12610000043033.

ObjectiveThe efficacy of low-level laser treatment (LLLT) for chronic back pain remains controversial due to insufficient trial data. We aimed to conduct an updated review to determine if LLLT (including laser acupuncture) has specific benefits in chronic non-specific low back pain (CNLBP).MethodsElectronic databases were searched for randomised trials using sham controls and blinded assessment examining the intervention of LLLT in adults with CNLBP. Primary outcomes were pain and global assessment of improvement with up to short-term follow-up. Secondary outcomes were disability, range of back movement, and adverse effects. A random effects meta-analysis was conducted. Subgroup analyses were based on laser dose, duration of baseline pain, and whether or not laser therapy used an acupuncture approach.Results15 studies were selected involving 1039 participants. At immediate and short-term follow-up there was significant pain reduction of up to WMD (weighted mean difference) −1.40 cm (95% CI −1.91 to −0.88 cm) in favour of laser treatment, occurring in trials using at least 3 Joules (J) per point, with baseline pain <30 months and in non-acupuncture LLLT trials. Global assessment showed a risk ratio of 2.16 (95% CI 1.61 to 2.90) in favour of laser treatment in the same groups only at immediate follow-up.ConclusionsWe demonstrated moderate quality of evidence (GRADE) to support a clinically important benefit in LLLT for CNLBP in the short term, which was only seen following higher laser dose interventions and in participants with a shorter duration of back pain. Rigorously blinded trials using appropriate laser dosage would provide greater certainty around this conclusion.

Objective: The primary aim was to determine if laser acupuncture (LA) is more effective than sham laser in reducing pain and disability in adults with chronic nonspecific low back pain.

Objectives In clinical practice it is known that subjects vary in their response to acupuncture, but there is little data on what predicts the outcome. The aim of this study was to identify such predictors. Method A secondary analysis was performed on data from 100 participants in a trial of laser and sham laser acupuncture for chronic non-specific low back pain. Multiple regression analysis was used to identify which baseline characteristics predicted pain change in the immediate, short and intermediate term. An analysis of covariance was performed based on these results to re-examine the primary result of the trial. Results Strong predictors of poor response were receipt of disability support pension, headache, the regular use of analgesics or previous failed back surgery. Higher pain scores or exacerbation of pain at baseline predicted a greater proportionate pain relief after the intervention. Adjusted analysis suggested a clinically important effect of laser compared to sham (p<0.05), at short term follow-up only. Conclusion The findings of this study suggest which characteristics of patients with chronic low back pain are more likely to respond to laser acupuncture treatment, but require replication in other studies. The findings may not apply in other acupuncture interventions and treatment of different conditions. They may also be used to set selection criteria for future studies, and to aid interpreting the effect of baseline imbalances on trial results.

No abstract