T287 Low Level Laser Therapy in Geriatric Patients With Low Back Pain

Konstantinović, Ljubica; Lazović, Milica; Milovanovic, N.; Kanjuh, Z.

doi:10.1016/s1754-3207(11)70205-x

Cited by 1 publication

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Some trials did not fully describe details of their inclusion criteria for chronicity22 23 or specificity 2223 31 In trials where the mean baseline duration of pain was reported, this was categorised as ‘shorter’24 26 27 30 (average range 4.6–27 months) or ‘longer’18 21 25 28 29 34 (49 months to 13 years).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The majority of studies that reported disability used ODI; one trial reported only RMQ 29. Range of back movement was measured as flexion in centimetres (Schober's test)25–27 30 or in degrees 2429 Occurrence of adverse effects was briefly mentioned in five trials25 26 29 32 34 but quantitative comparisons were only undertaken in three 18…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…29 30 One trial24 found a significant difference of 4° flexion in favour of laser in the short-term.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Low-Level Laser Therapy for Chronic Non-Specific Low Back Pain: A Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract