Effects of Low-Level Laser Therapy and Interferential Current Therapy in the Treatment of Complex Regional Pain Syndrome

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study is to estimate and compare the effects of low-level laser therapy and interferential current therapy in patients with complex regional pain syndrome type I. Material and Methods: Prospective randomized clinical research, including 45 patients with post-traumatic unilateral complex regional pain syndrome type I, treated at the Clinical Center Nis from December 2004 to January 2007. Low-level laser therapy and kinesitherapy were applied in group A (n=20), whereas group B (n=25) was treated with interferential current and kinesitherapy. For assessment of the therapeutic effect, the following parameters were tested: pain intensity was determined by visual analog scale, figure-of-eight measurement was used to determine the circumference of the affected part of the extremity, and range of motion of the affected joint was measured by a standard goniometer. Results: Statistically significant differences were obtained for all tested parameters in both groups, but the difference was greater in group A compared to group B (p<0.05). Conclusion:The results of this study show that both physical procedures are effective in the treatment of complex regional pain syndrome type I, but the efficiency of laser therapy is statistically significantly higher compared to interferential current therapy.

Physiotherapy for pain and disability in adults with complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) types I and II

“…We extracted relevant data from eight included trials (Askin 2014;Aydemir 2006;Cacchio 2009a;Dimitrijevic 2014;Duman 2009;Durmus 2004;Hazneci 2005;Li 2012). We contacted or attempted to contact the corresponding authors of 10 trials on three occasions in order to obtain missing outcomes data (Cacchio 2009b;Jeon 2014;Moseley 2004;Moseley 2005;Moseley 2009;Mucha 1992;Schreuders 2014;Uher 2000).…”

“…There were no trials that included participants with CRPS II. Fourteen trials included participants with CRPS I of the upper limb (Askin 2014;Aydemir 2006;Cacchio 2009a;Cacchio 2009b;Duman 2009;Durmus 2004;Hazneci 2005;Li 2012;Moseley 2004;Moseley 2005;Moseley 2009;Mucha 1992;Schreuders 2014), two with either upper or lower limb CRPS I (Dimitrijevic 2014;, one with CRPS I of the lower limb (Uher 2000) and one trial included participants with either upper, lower, multi-limb or whole body CRPS I (Jeon 2014). Participants developed CRPS I linked to a range of aetiologies including onset post fracture, soft-tissue injuries, stroke, surgery, carpal tunnel syndrome as well as of idiopathic onset.…”

“…Participants developed CRPS I linked to a range of aetiologies including onset post fracture, soft-tissue injuries, stroke, surgery, carpal tunnel syndrome as well as of idiopathic onset. Participants had acute symptoms (less than or equal to three months) of CRPS I in six trials (Cacchio 2009a;Dimitrijevic 2014;Durmus 2004;Hazneci 2005;Li 2012;Mucha 1992), chronic symptoms (greater than three months) in seven trials (Duman 2009;Jeon 2014;Moseley 2004;Moseley 2005;Moseley 2009;Schreuders 2014), a mix of acute and chronic symptoms in two trials (Askin 2014;, and three trials did not report the duration of symptoms (Aydemir 2006;Cacchio 2009b;Uher 2000). Trials were undertaken across a range of geographical locations including: Turkey (N = 5); Australia (N = 4); Italy, Germany, the Netherlands (N = 2 each); China, Serbia, and South Korea (N = 1 each).…”

“…Five trials directly compared an active and placebo intervention (Askin 2014;Aydemir 2006;Cacchio 2009a;Cacchio 2009b;Durmus 2004). Six trials evaluated electrotherapy modalities (Askin 2014;Aydemir 2006;Dimitrijevic 2014;Durmus 2004;Hazneci 2005;Mucha 1992), eight trials evaluated cortically-directed sensory-motor rehabilitation strategies (Cacchio 2009a;Cacchio 2009b;Jeon 2014;Moseley 2004;Moseley 2005;Moseley 2009;Schreuders 2014), two trials evaluated MLD (Duman 2009;Uher 2000) and two trials evaluated general rehabilitation therapies (Li 2012;.…”

“…We judged the overall risk of bias as being 'high' for 15 trials (Askin 2014;Cacchio 2009a;Cacchio 2009b;Dimitrijevic 2014;Duman 2009;Jeon 2014;Li 2012;Moseley 2004;Moseley 2005;Moseley 2009;Mucha 1992;Schreuders 2014;Uher 2000) and 'unclear' for three trials (Aydemir 2006;Durmus 2004;Hazneci 2005). We did not judge any of the included trials as having an overall 'low' risk of bias.…”