Long-term efficacy of low level laser therapy in women with fibromyalgia: A placebo-controlled study

Abstract

Aim: To investigate the efficacy of low level laser therapy (LLLT) in fibromyalgia patients. Materials and Methods: Thirty-four fibromyalgia patients were randomly assigned to LLLT (n = 16) and placebo laser groups (n = 16). Outcome measures included number of tender points (NTP), Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ), morning stiffness, global improvement as reported on a verbal scale (VSGI), and total myalgia score. Clinical evaluations were performed before, immediately after, and six months after the treatment. Results: In the LLLT group, significant improvement was observed in clinical parameters at the end of the treatment (p < 0.01). On the other hand, significant improvements were observed only in the number of tender points and morning stiffness in the placebo group (p < 0.05). In comparing the groups, significant improvements were detected in scores of FIQ, VSGI, and total myalgia in the active laser group (p < 0.05). The clinical evaluations performed after six months demonstrated improvements in the clinical parameters only in the LLLT group (p < 0.05). When the groups were compared with each other, significant improvements were found in the LLLT group (p < 0.05). Conclusion: Our results suggest that LLLT has both short-and long-term effectiveness in the treatment of fibromyalgia.

A utilização dos recursos eletrotermofototerapêuticos no tratamento da síndrome da fibromialgia: uma revisão sistemática

“…The content analysis of selected clinical trials revealed the use of laser modalities [17][18][19][20] , interferential current (IFC) alone 21 , IFC combined with ultrasound 22 and transcutaneous electrical stimulation (TENS) 23 as therapeutic modalities proposed for FMS treatment. No studies on thermal modalities were found.…”

“…To determine the clinical diagnosis of FMS that was necessary for participant inclusion, most studies [17][18][19][20][21][22][23] (n=6) applied the criteria proposed by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR). The samples consisted exclusively of female participants, with exception to the study by Gür et al 18 that contained 15 male participants who were exposed to laser therapy (n=5) or control (n=10).…”

“…However, the evaluation of pain levels differs between them. The most often used assessment tools were the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS; n=4) 19,[21][22][23] , digital pressure algometry over the tender points (n=3) [19][20][21][22] ; and the Likert scale (n=2) 17,18 . Other analyzed outcomes were quality of life (n=5) [18][19][20][21]23 , depression (n=2) 18,23 , sleep (n=1) 22 and general symptoms (n=2) 17,18 .…”

“…Only the study by Armagan et al 20 reported long term follow-up. Regarding therapy for the control group, Gür et al 17 , Almeida et al 22 and Armagan et al 20 used inactive currents; Silva et al 23 used hydrotherapy; Raimundo et al 21 applied IFC with modulation frequencies below standard; Matsutani et al 19 applied inactive laser combined with stretching; and Gür et al 18 had two control groups, one with inactive laser emission and the other with the use of medication.…”

“…The laser studies [17][18][19][20] had the same number of sessions, but with different intervals between sessions, times of application and amounts of emitted energy. However, the studies on laser intervention by Gür et al 17,18 used the same protocol because both studies were developed by the same group of researchers.…”