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

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Valentina Koevska ◽  
Erieta Nikolic-Dimitrova ◽  
Biljana Mitrevska ◽  
Cvetanka Gjerakaroska-Savevska ◽  
Marija Gocevska ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Intensity ◽  
Pain Treatment ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Joint Space ◽  
Pharmacological Therapy ◽  
Vas Score ◽  
Days Of Therapy ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
High Intensity Laser ◽  
Intensity Laser

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.

Pain and analgesics in patients with hard-to-heal ulcers: using telemedicine or standard consultations

2021 ◽  
Vol 30 (Sup6) ◽  
pp. S23-S32
Author(s):  
Hanna Wickström ◽  
Rut F Öien ◽  
Patrik Midlöv ◽  
Peter Anderberg ◽  
Cecilia Fagerström
Keyword(s):  
High Intensity ◽  
Pain Treatment ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Healing Time ◽  
Categorical Variables ◽  
Rank Test ◽  
P Value ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Video Consultation ◽  
Normally Distributed

Objective: To compare consultations carried out via video with those performed in person for patients with painful, hard-to-heal ulcers, with a focus on ulcer pain and pain treatment. A further aim was to investigate predictors for pain and pain treatment. Method: This was a register-based, quasi-experimental study based on data from the Swedish Registry of Ulcer Treatment (RUT). A total of 100 patients with hard-to-heal ulcers diagnosed via video consultation were compared with 1888 patients diagnosed in person with regard to pain assessment, intensity and treatment. Ulcer pain intensity was assessed by the visual analogue scale (VAS). Normally distributed variables (age, VAS) were compared between consultation groups using Student's t-test. Non-normally distributed variables (ulcer size, ulcer duration) were compared using the Mann–Whitney U-test, except for healing time, which was analysed with a log-rank test. Categorical variables (gender, ulcer aetiology and prescribed analgesics) were compared using Pearson's chi-square test (χ2). A p value of less than 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance. Predictors for pain and pain treatment were analysed in multiple regression analyses. Results: The results showed a high presence of pain; 71% of patients with pain reported severe ulcer pain. There was no significant difference in ability to assess pain by VAS in the group diagnosed via video consultation (90%) compared with the group diagnosed in person (86%) (χ2, p=0.233). A significantly higher amount of prescribed analgesics was found for patients diagnosed via video (84%) compared with patients diagnosed by in-person assessment (68%) (χ2, p=0.044). Predictors for high-intensity pain were female gender or ulcers due to inflammatory vessel disease, while the predictors for receiving analgesics were older age, longer healing time and being diagnosed via video consultation. Conclusion: To identify, assess and treat ulcer pain is equally possible via video as by in-person consultation. The results of this study confirm that patients with hard-to-heal ulcers suffer from high-intensity ulcer pain, with a discrepancy between pain and pain relief. Further well-designed randomised controlled studies are necessary to understand how best to deploy telemedicine in ulcer pain treatment.

Pain and analgaesics in patients with hard-to-heal ulcers: using telemedicine or standard consultations

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (Sup8) ◽  
pp. S18-S27
Author(s):  
Hanna Wickström ◽  
Rut F Öien ◽  
Patrik Midlöv ◽  
Peter Anderberg ◽  
Cecilia Fagerström
Keyword(s):  
High Intensity ◽  
Pain Treatment ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Healing Time ◽  
Categorical Variables ◽  
Rank Test ◽  
P Value ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Video Consultation ◽  
Normally Distributed

Objective: To compare consultations carried out via video with those performed in person for patients with painful, hard-to-heal ulcers, with a focus on ulcer pain and pain treatment. A further aim was to investigate predictors for pain and pain treatment. Method: This was a register-based, quasi-experimental study based on data from the Swedish Registry of Ulcer Treatment (RUT). A total of 100 patients with hard-to-heal ulcers diagnosed via video consultation were compared with 1888 patients diagnosed in person with regard to pain assessment, intensity and treatment. Ulcer pain intensity was assessed by the visual analogue scale (VAS). Normally distributed variables (age, VAS) were compared between consultation groups using Student's t-test. Non-normally distributed variables (ulcer size, ulcer duration) were compared using the Mann–Whitney U-test, except for healing time, which was analysed with a log-rank test. Categorical variables (gender, ulcer aetiology and prescribed analgesics) were compared using Pearson's chi-square test (χ2). A p value of less than 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance. Predictors for pain and pain treatment were analysed in multiple regression analyses. Results: The results showed a high presence of pain; 71% of patients with pain reported severe ulcer pain. There was no significant difference in ability to assess pain by VAS in the group diagnosed via video consultation (90%) compared with the group diagnosed in person (86%) (χ2, p=0.233). A significantly higher amount of prescribed analgesics was found for patients diagnosed via video (84%) compared with patients diagnosed by in-person assessment (68%) (χ2, p=0.044). Predictors for high-intensity pain were female gender or ulcers due to inflammatory vessel disease, while the predictors for receiving analgesics were older age, longer healing time and being diagnosed via video consultation. Conclusion: To identify, assess and treat ulcer pain is equally possible via video as by in-person consultation. The results of this study confirm that patients with hard-to-heal ulcers suffer from high-intensity ulcer pain, with a discrepancy between pain and pain relief. Further well-designed randomised controlled studies are necessary to understand how best to deploy telemedicine in ulcer pain treatment.

scholarly journals Comparison of High-Intensity Laser Therapy and Ultrasound Treatment in the Patients with Lumbar Discopathy

2015 ◽  
Vol 2015 ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ismail Boyraz ◽  
Ahmet Yildiz ◽  
Bunyamin Koc ◽  
Hakan Sarman
Keyword(s):  
High Intensity ◽  
Lumbar Disc ◽  
Treatment Modalities ◽  
Lumbar Region ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
High Intensity Laser ◽  
Group 3 ◽  
Baseline Values ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
Intensity Laser

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the efficiency of high intensity laser and ultrasound therapy in patients who were diagnosed with lumbar disc herniation and who were capable of performing physical exercises. 65 patients diagnosed with lumbar disc were included in the study. The patients were randomly divided into three groups: Group 1 received 10 sessions of high intensity laser to the lumbar region, Group 2 received 10 sessions of ultrasound, and Group 3 received medical therapy for 10 days and isometric lumbar exercises. The efficacy of the treatment modalities was compared with the assessment of the patients before the therapy at the end of the therapy, and in third month after the therapy. Comparing the changes between groups, statically significant difference was observed in MH (mental health) parameter before treatment between Groups 1 and 2 and in MH parameter and VAS score in third month of the therapy between Groups 2 and 3. However, the evaluation of the patients after ten days of treatment did not show significant differences between the groups compared to baseline values. We found that HILT, ultrasound, and exercise were efficient therapies for lumbar discopathy but HILT and ultrasound had longer effect on some parameters.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document