Gasserian Ganglion Block With or Without Low-intensity Laser Therapy in Trigeminal Neuralgia

Aghamohammadi, Dawood; Amirnaseri, Reza; Peirovifar, Ali; Hamzeh, Hossainzadeh; Eidi, Mahmood; Ehsaei, M R; Vahedi, Payman

doi:10.1097/wnq.0b013e3182571c93

Cited by 4 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Table 1 shows the PEdro score for the 13 articles, while Table 2 summarizes the characteristics of the study groups, treatment sessions, and outcome measures. internal validity implies a high quality for 61.54% of the articles (n = 7) (score 6 for the PEdro scale) [36,[52][53][54][55][60][61][62], with an average of 6 points [65,66].…”

Section: Risk Of Bias and Qualitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Table 2 shows that 7 studies used LiLT alone in experimental groups (EG) [51, 54-57, 59, 60, 62], while 4 applied LiLT and drugs (carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine, barbiturates, and ibuprofen) [36,52,53,58,61] and only 1 utilized LiLT and trigeminal ganglion block (bupivacaine and methylprednisolone) [53]. on the other hand, control groups (CG) received treatments with simulated LiLT and drugs (n = 4) [36,52,58,61], isolated simulated laser (n = 3) [53,55,60], TMS application (n = 1), and trigeminal ganglion block (n = 1) [53,57], while 4 studies did not use CG [51,56,59,62].…”

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Regarding the place of treatment, 7 articles (53.84%) reported laser application directly on the face [36,[51][52][53]59, 62], 3 (23.07%) on face and mouth (intraoral) [56,57,60], and 2 (15.38%) in extremity peripheral nerves (saphenous, median, radial, and ulnar nerves) plus temporomandibular joint [58], and cervical spine (transverse process of C7) [53]. in addition, Stefanoff et al [56] reported auriculotherapy point application (ear) in addition to face and mouth treatment.…”

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The visual analogue scale (VAS) stands out as the most useful instrument (n = 9, 69.23%) applied to assess pain at rest [36,[51][52][53][54][55][60][61][62], while some studies determined pain reduction through self-report (n = 3, 23.07%) [56,58,59], weekly pain episodes [55], and pain changes with numeric pain rating scale (NPRS) [57]. All studies present a decrease in pain in EG in relation to the initial evaluation (T0 or baseline), except for Aghamohammadi et al [53] and Walker et al [55], who did not observe pain decrease before treatment for the first and second evaluations (T1 and T2), although it was lower for subsequent evaluations. Pain reduction was statistically significant (p < 0.05) in favour of EG when comparing the evolution between sessions (intragroup) and with CG (intergroup) (n = 8, 61.53%) [36, 51-55, 57, 62].…”

Section: Main Outcomementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Secondary outcomes included drug use frequency [53], changes in facial skin temperature (thermography) [54], masticatory muscle electromyographic activity (surface electromyography) [57], temporal and masseter muscle tension (tensiometer) [57], mouth opening distance [57], and urinary 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid (5-HiAA) excretion [58,60]. Hashimoto et al [54] reported a statistically significant increase in face temperature at 15 and 30 minutes when comparing the irradiated side before and after laser treatment (p < 0.01) and when comparing it with the contralateral half-face (not irradiated) (p < 0.05).…”

Section: Secondary Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Efficacy of low-intensity laser therapy in trigeminal neuralgia: a systematic review

Ortiz¹,

Gavilan²,

Rojas³

2022

Physiother Quart.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction.Trigeminal neuralgia (TN) is a highly prevalent cranial neuropathy, recognized as one of the main chronic orofacial neuropathic pain conditions. Low-intensity laser therapy (LiLT) has been proposed as an analgesic alternative for treating neuropathic orofacial pain, although studies appear to be limited, without a consensus on dose. The study aim was to describe the efficacy of LiLT in TN treatment. Methods. Randomized clinical trials and controlled trials were identified in the PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Sciencedirect databases for May 8, 2021. Three independent researchers reviewed titles and abstracts to determine their eligibility. Risk of bias and quality were assessed with the RoB 2 tool (Cochrane) and PEdro scale. decreased pain was considered the main outcome, and changes in the temporomandibular joint range of motion, strength, or disability were secondary outcomes. Results. The search yielded 1078 articles after eliminating duplicates, reduced to 13 when applying the selection criteria. Nine articles were ascribed a low risk of bias or remained without consensus (69.23%), obtaining an average score of 6 (PEdro). Thirteen trials showed pain reduction at the end of treatment and in follow-up, although with statistical significance for 8 articles only (p < 0.005). A decrease in drug consumption and an increase in serotonin levels were observed in experimental groups, which supports the systemic analgesic effects of local and remote LiLT. Conclusions. LiLT is effective in reducing pain in TN. However, more research is needed to establish a referential dose consensus for TN and other neuropathic pain conditions.

show abstract