scholarly journals Effectiveness of electrophysical modalities in the sensorimotor rehabilitation of radial, ulnar, and median neuropathies: A meta-analysis

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. e0248484
Author(s):  
Ena Bula-Oyola ◽  
Juan-Manuel Belda-Lois ◽  
Rosa Porcar-Seder ◽  
Álvaro Page

Introduction People with ulnar, radial or median nerve injuries can present significant impairment of their sensory and motor functions. The prescribed treatment for these conditions often includes electrophysical therapies, whose effectiveness in improving symptoms and function is a source of debate. Therefore, this systematic review aims to provide an integrative overview of the efficacy of these modalities in sensorimotor rehabilitation compared to placebo, manual therapy, or between them. Methods We conducted a systematic review according to PRISMA guidelines. We perform a literature review in the following databases: Biomed Central, Ebscohost, Lilacs, Ovid, PEDro, Sage, Scopus, Science Direct, Semantic Scholar, Taylor & Francis, and Web of Science, for the period 1980–2020. We include studies that discussed the sensorimotor rehabilitation of people with non-degenerative ulnar, radial, or median nerve injury. We assessed the quality of the included studies using the Risk of Bias Tool described in the Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews of Interventions and the risk of bias across studies with the GRADE approach described in the GRADE Handbook. Results Thirty-eight studies were included in the systematic review and 34 in the meta-analysis. The overall quality of evidence was rated as low or very low according to GRADE criteria. Low-level laser therapy and ultrasound showed favourable results in improving symptom severity and functional status compared to manual therapy. In addition, the low level laser showed improvements in pinch strength compared to placebo and pain (VAS) compared to manual therapy. Splints showed superior results to electrophysical modalities. The clinical significance of the results was assessed by effect size estimation and comparison with the minimum clinically important difference (MCID). Conclusions We found favourable results in pain relief, improvement of symptoms, functional status, and neurophysiological parameters for some electrophysical modalities, mainly when applied with a splint. Our results coincide with those obtained in some meta-analyses. However, none of these can be considered clinically significant. Trial registration PROSPERO registration number CRD42020168792; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=168792.

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (10) ◽  
pp. e031142 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Bjørn Stausholm ◽  
Ingvill Fjell Naterstad ◽  
Jon Joensen ◽  
Rodrigo Álvaro Brandão Lopes-Martins ◽  
Humaira Sæbø ◽  
...  

ObjectivesLow-level laser therapy (LLLT) is not recommended in major knee osteoarthritis (KOA) treatment guidelines. We investigated whether a LLLT dose–response relationship exists in KOA.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesEligible articles were identified through PubMed, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Physiotherapy Evidence Database and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials on 18 February 2019, reference lists, a book, citations and experts in the field.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesWe solely included randomised placebo-controlled trials involving participants with KOA according to the American College of Rheumatology and/or Kellgren/Lawrence criteria, in which LLLT was applied to participants’ knee(s). There were no language restrictions.Data extraction and synthesisThe included trials were synthesised with random effects meta-analyses and subgrouped by dose using the World Association for Laser Therapy treatment recommendations. Cochrane’s risk-of-bias tool was used.Results22 trials (n=1063) were meta-analysed. Risk of bias was insignificant. Overall, pain was significantly reduced by LLLT compared with placebo at the end of therapy (14.23 mm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS; 95% CI 7.31 to 21.14)) and during follow-ups 1–12 weeks later (15.92 mm VAS (95% CI 6.47 to 25.37)). The subgroup analysis revealed that pain was significantly reduced by the recommended LLLT doses compared with placebo at the end of therapy (18.71 mm (95% CI 9.42 to 27.99)) and during follow-ups 2–12 weeks after the end of therapy (23.23 mm VAS (95% CI 10.60 to 35.86)). The pain reduction from the recommended LLLT doses peaked during follow-ups 2–4 weeks after the end of therapy (31.87 mm VAS significantly beyond placebo (95% CI 18.18 to 45.56)). Disability was also statistically significantly reduced by LLLT. No adverse events were reported.ConclusionLLLT reduces pain and disability in KOA at 4–8 J with 785–860 nm wavelength and at 1–3 J with 904 nm wavelength per treatment spot.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42016035587.


Author(s):  
Janice S. Guimarães ◽  
Fabio L. Arcanjo ◽  
Gustavo Leporace ◽  
Leonardo F. Metsavaht ◽  
Cristiano Sena ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (6) ◽  
pp. 1053-1062 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fernando Anschau ◽  
Jacqueline Webster ◽  
Marcelo Eduardo Zanella Capra ◽  
André Luis Ferreira de Azeredo da Silva ◽  
Airton Tetelbom Stein

Physiotherapy ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 101 ◽  
pp. e545
Author(s):  
S. Haslerud ◽  
L.H. Magnussen ◽  
J. Joensen ◽  
R.A.B. Lopes-Martins ◽  
J.M. Bjordal

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document