Abstract
Background:
High-intensity laser therapy (HILT) is still a controversial physical therapy modality for individuals with knee osteoarthritis (OA).Objectives:
This study aimed to evaluate the effect of HILT on pain and function in patients with knee OA.Methods:
This randomized controlled trial included 56 patients with knee OA referred to Amin Hospital affiliated with Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran, from April 19 to August 30, 2022. Patients were randomized into two groups (HILT and control), receiving isometric exercises targeting the quadriceps muscle, meloxicam 15 mg tablet, and Rahamin ointment for two weeks. The HILT group also received high-intensity laser irradiation three times a week for two weeks. The primary outcome was pain assessed using a Visual Analog Scale (VAS), and the secondary outcome was the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis index (WOMAC) and its subscales (pain, stiffness, and physical function). Outcomes were evaluated at baseline, immediately, and three months after the last treatment session.Results:
After adjusting for age, sex, and baseline values, immediately and three months after treatment, VAS pain scores were significantly lower in the HILT group than in controls (P < 0.001), with a large effect (standardized mean difference (SMD) = -1.22, 95% confidence interval (CI): -1.81; -0.62 and SMD = -1.31, 95% CI: -1.90; -0.70, respectively). The results were similar for WOMAC's pain subscale. Despite the difference in WOMAC stiffness score was not significant between the two groups immediately after treatment (P = 0.135), this score was significantly lower in the HILT group than in the control group (SMD = -0.98, 95% CI: -1.56; -0.40, P = 0.002) three months after treatment. Furthermore, WOMAC physical function scores were significantly lower with HILT immediately and three months after treatment (P < 0.001). The same was true for the total WOMAC score.Conclusions:
High-intensity laser therapy significantly improved pain and the WOMAC score in patients with knee OA immediately and three months after the last treatment session compared to the control group.Keywords
1. Background
Osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee requires lifetime care since it is a degenerative, age-related, and progressive illness (1, 2). Knee OA is one of the most frequent causes of knee discomfort globally. Repetitive mechanical loading and stress that result in inflammation inside the knee joint, articular cartilage breakdown, and chondrocyte loss are the leading causes of osteoarthritic knee pain (3). Pain, stiffness, and decreased range of motion in the affected knee are hallmarks of knee OA. They may worsen with time, significantly impacting the patient’s daily activities and overall quality of life (4, 5). Knee OA management has evolved from pharmacological administration alone to the inclusion of therapeutic exercise with or without physical modalities, such as electrical stimulation, thermal agents, therapeutic ultrasound, low-level laser therapy (LLLT), and high-intensity laser therapy (HILT) (6-10). Moreover, ozone and platelet-rich plasma have been reported to be effective for pain reduction and function improvement in knee OA (11).
Throughout the past decade, HILT has been developed to treat a wide variety of musculoskeletal conditions and has gained popularity (12). High-intensity laser therapy is a potent physical technique that causes no pain and has been reported to have significant advantages for analgesic, bio-stimulating, and anti-edema effects (13). Evidence suggests that high-intensity laser radiation causes photo-thermal, photochemical, and photo-mechanical effects (14, 15). Prior research has demonstrated the advantages of HILT in reducing pain, improving range of motion, and enhancing functional outcomes in individuals with knee OA compared to control groups (16-18). However, a standardized treatment approach for HILT in patients with knee OA is still lacking, with varying and often high numbers of treatment sessions which can negatively impact patient compliance.
Furthermore, prior systematic reviews and meta-analyses have not provided definitive findings on the effectiveness of HILT in knee OA, thus suggesting the need for additional research in this field (19, 20).
2. Objectives
Due to the small number of studies and lack of a standard protocol for HILT on the knee, the current study aimed to assess the effect of HILT on pain and function in patients with knee OA. The novelty of our study compared to other studies included fewer sessions (lower cost), the use of analgesic protocol alone, and laser on the medial side of the knee.
3. Methods
3.1. Trial Design
This parallel randomized controlled trial included patients with knee OA referred to Amin Hospital, affiliated with Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Iran, from April 19 to August 30, 2022. The inclusion criteria were age 40 - 70 years and knee osteoarthritis grade II or III based on the Kellgren and Lawrence classification system on X-ray. The exclusion criteria were rheumatic diseases, diabetes mellitus, systemic inflammatory diseases, pes anserine bursitis, intra-articular injection of hyaluronic acid or glucosamine compounds for the treatment of knee OA within the past six months, injection of corticosteroids in the past six weeks, tumoral malignancies, and any contraindication to laser therapy (acute infection, pregnancy, and chronic skin diseases) (18, 21). Also, patients with predominantly lateral knee involvement were excluded due to HILT being performed on the medial aspect of the knee.
The study received ethics approval from the Ethics Committee of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences under the ethics code: IR.MUI.MED.REC.1400.799 and complies with the statements of the Declaration of Helsinki. Written informed consent was obtained from the patients. The trial has also been registered prospectively at the Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials (IRCT), IRCT20220214054022N1.
3.2. Interventions
Patients in both groups learned isometric exercises targeting the quadriceps muscle in three sets of ten repetitions a day for two weeks. Moreover, they received 15 mg meloxicam daily for two weeks and applied Rahamin ointment (Harpagophytum procumbens + Boswellia frereana + Olea europaea + Vitis vinifera + Oenothera biennis, Raha pharmaceutical Co., Iran) topically on the affected knee three times a day for two weeks. In addition to the above-mentioned treatments, patients in the HILT group received high-intensity laser irradiation (high-intensity laser device, LUMIX® C.P.S.®, 6 watts, Fisioline®, Italy) three times a week for two weeks (a total of six sessions). After the patient entered the laser room, special glasses to protect the eyes were provided to the patient and the attending physician. The patient was placed in a supine position, and the affected knee was placed in a non-bent position. Laser treatment was applied with a wavelength of 1064 nm, power of 2 W, and an analgesic protocol with an energy of 20 J/cm2 for an area of 25 cm2 (a total of 500 J) on the medial surface of the knee for four minutes with the probe perpendicular to the joint line.
3.3. Outcomes
The primary outcome was pain assessed using Visual Analog Scale (VAS) by the patients, with “0” indicating no pain and “10” indicating worse pain. The secondary outcome was the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis index (WOMAC) and its subscales (pain, stiffness, and physical function). The Persian version of WOMAC was used in the current study, with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.811, an intra-class correlation coefficient of 0.80, and an acceptable correlation with Medical Outcomes Study 20-Item Short Form (MOS-SF-20) (22). Outcomes were evaluated at baseline (before treatment), immediately, and three months after the last treatment session.
3.4. Sample Size
The minimum sample size was calculated as at least 23 in each group based on a type I error of 0.05, power of 90%, and post-intervention VAS pain score of 3.79 ± 0.54 in the HILT group and 4.28 ± 0.56 in the physical therapy group of the study by Nazari et al. (effect size = 0.89) (18).
3.5. Randomization
First, the general characteristics of the patients, including age, sex, body mass index (BMI), and the side affected by OA, were recorded. Then, they were randomized into two groups using block randomization (block size = 2).
3.6. Blinding
Due to the nature of interventions, patients and caregivers could not be blinded.
3.7. Statistical Methods
We used mean and standard deviation to describe continuous variables and frequency and percentage to describe categorical variables. According to the central limit theorem, since the sample size was 26 in each group, we utilized the ANOVA/ANCOVA test to compare outcomes between groups at different time points, with sex as a factor and baseline values and age as covariances. The standardized mean difference (SMD) was calculated using Cohen’s d for adjusted means. Standardized mean difference interpretation was as follows: ≤ 0.19, trivial; 0.20 - 0.49, small effect; 0.50 - 0.79, medium effect; and ≥ 0.80, large effect. All data were analyzed using Stata software (version 14.2). P-values < 0.05 were regarded as statistically significant.
4. Results
Initially, 58 patients were evaluated for eligibility; two declined to participate, and four did not meet the inclusion criteria (Figure 1). The general characteristics of the remaining 52 patients are presented in Table 1. The mean age of patients was 52.27 ± 8.30 years in the HILT group and 57.08 ± 8.06 years in the control group. Moreover, four patients (15.4%) in the HILT group and seven (26.9%) in the control group were males.
Details of patient enrollment, intervention allocation, and analysis
| Variables | Control (n = 26) | HILT (n = 26) |
|---|---|---|
| Age (y) | 57.08 ± 8.06 | 52.27 ± 8.30 |
| Sex | ||
| Male | 7 (26.9) | 4 (15.4) |
| Female | 19 (73.1) | 22 (84.6) |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 28.55 ± 3.79) | 28.59 ± 3.41 |
| The side affected by OA | ||
| Right knee | 13 (50.0) | 13 (50.0) |
| Left knee | 13 (50.0) | 13 (50.0) |
The two groups were comparable regarding VAS pain scores before treatment (P = 0.465). However, after adjusting for age, sex, and baseline values, immediately and three months after treatment, VAS pain scores were significantly lower in the HILT group than in controls (P < 0.001), with a large effect (SMD = -1.22, 95% confidence interval (CI): -1.81; -0.62 and SMD = -1.31, 95% CI: -1.90; -0.70, respectively). The results were similar for the pain subscale of WOMAC (Table 2). Figure 2 shows VAS pain scores at different time points.
Comparison of Visual Analog Scale Pain Score Between Groups at Different Time Points
| VAS | Mean (95% CI) | ES b (95% CI) | P-Value c | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control (n = 26) | HILT (n = 26) | |||
| Before treatment | 7.00 (6.41; 7.59) | 6.69 (6.10; 7.29) | -0.20 (-0.75; 0.34) | 0.465 |
| Immediately after treatment a | 4.34 (4.05; 4.63) | 3.43 (3.14; 3.72) | -1.22 (-1.81; -0.62) | < 0.001 |
| Three months after treatment a | 5.27 (4.83; 5.72) | 3.80 (3.36; 4.25) | -1.31 (-1.90; -0.70) | < 0.001 |
Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores for pain compared between the high-intensity laser therapy (HILT) and control groups at different time points (error bar indicates a 95% confidence interval of mean).
On the other hand, the WOMAC stiffness score was significantly lower in the HILT group at baseline (P = 0.003). Nevertheless, despite a comparable WOMAC stiffness score immediately after treatment (P = 0.135), this score was significantly lower in the HILT group than in the control group (SMD = -0.98, 95% CI: -1.56; -0.40, P = 0.002) three months after treatment (Table 3). Furthermore, WOMAC physical function scores were significantly lower with HILT immediately and three months after treatment (P < 0.001). The same was true for the total WOMAC score (Figure 3).
Comparison of Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index Score and Its Subscales Between Groups at Different Time Points
| Variables | Mean (95% CI) | ES b (95% CI) | P-Value c | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control (n = 26) | HILT (n = 26) | |||
| Pain | ||||
| Before treatment | 12.46 (11.49; 13.43) | 11.15 (10.19; 12.12) | 0.53 (-0.02; 1.08) | 0.061 |
| Immediately after treatment a | 8.90 (8.45; 9.36) | 7.21 (6.76; 7.67) | -1.46 (-2.07; -0.84) | < 0.001 |
| Three months after treatment a | 10.13 (9.44; 10.82) | 7.52 (6.83; 8.22) | -1.49 (-2.10; -0.86) | < 0.001 |
| Stiffness | ||||
| Before treatment | 5.38 (4.84; 5.93) | 4.19 (3.65; 4.74) | -0.86 (-1.42; -0.29) | 0.003 |
| Immediately after treatment a | 3.85 (3.60; 4.10) | 3.57 (3.32; 3.82) | -0.45 (-1.00; 0.10) | 0.135 |
| Three months after treatment a | 4.45 (4.15; 4.75) | 3.70 (3.40; 4.00) | -0.98 (-1.56; -0.40) | 0.002 |
| Physical function | ||||
| Before treatment | 40.69 (38.18; 43.21) | 39.15 (36.64; 41.67) | -0.24 (-0.79; 0.31) | 0.389 |
| Immediately after treatment a | 32.27 (30.58; 33.96) | 27.04 (25.35; 28.72) | -1.22 (-1.81; -0.63) | < 0.001 |
| Three months after treatment a | 35.27 (33.28; 37.26) | 28.23 (26.24; 30.22) | -1.40 (-2.00; -0.78) | < 0.001 |
| Total WOMAC score | ||||
| Before treatment | 58.54 (54.96; 62.12) | 54.50 (50.92; 58.08) | -0.44 (-0.99; 0.11) | 0.116 |
| Immediately after treatment a | 44.85 (42.81; 46.89) | 38.00 (35.96; 40.03) | -1.33 (-1.92; -0.72) | < 0.001 |
| Three months after treatment a | 49.65 (47.05; 52.25) | 39.66 (37.06; 42.25) | -1.52 (-2.13; -0.89) | < 0.001 |
Total Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis index (WOMAC) scores compared between the high-intensity laser therapy (HILT) and control groups at different time points (error bar indicates a 95% confidence interval of mean).
5. Discussion
The results of the current study demonstrated that HILT led to a significant reduction in pain compared to the control group immediately and three months after the last treatment session. Patients in the HILT group of this study received six treatment sessions over two weeks. The major results of this research agree with those of other studies regarding pain reduction. After seven days to three months of HILT therapy, these trials also revealed a significant decrease in pain (6, 16-18, 23-25). However, these studies differed in the study population, the total energy of laser treatment, duration of treatment, follow-up period, and control groups. In another study by Samaan et al., HILT plus exercise therapy yielded better improvement in pain than low-intensity pulsed ultrasound plus exercise therapy or exercise therapy alone (26). Mostafa et al. have also demonstrated the superiority of HILT over extracorporeal shock wave therapy for pain reduction in knee OA (27). Furthermore, in two recent systematic reviews, HILT has been reported to be more effective than LLLT and other physical therapy modalities for improving pain in individuals with knee OA (28, 29).
Several mechanisms are hypothesized to be responsible for HILT's analgesic effects. At the peripheral nerves where nociceptors are found, laser aids in promoting the production of endogenous opioids such as beta-endorphins and serotonin (30). Nerve fiber regeneration and gate control theory are the other significant HILT analgesic effects (16, 18). Additionally, the laser's photo-thermal and photochemical actions might encourage cell metabolism, blood flow, nerve fiber regeneration, adjacent collateral sprouting, and the growth of Schwann cells (31). Moreover, the dorsal root ganglion neurons' ATP generation and calcium influx are decreased by laser therapy, while intracellular reactive oxygen species (ROS) are enhanced. This disrupts the transmission of the pain action potential and lessens pain (32, 33). Also, there is evidence that lasers may help reduce inflammation by decreasing inflammatory mediators and proinflammatory cytokines (34). Another function of lasers is the enhancement of bio-stimulation in knee OA, confirmed by a significant increase in synovial and femoral cartilage thickness in previous studies (6, 25).
Compared to the control group, we discovered that HILT significantly improved the WOMAC score immediately after the final treatment session and three months afterward. This is in line with the findings of prior studies, which revealed a considerable improvement in the WOMAC score after receiving four to twelve weeks of HILT therapy (6, 17, 18, 24). Contrarily, by comparing a sham laser with HILT, Siriratna et al. reported no significant difference in WOMAC score immediately after ten treatment sessions (23). The discrepancy between the current study's findings and those of Siriratna et al. (23) can be explained by the difference in treatment duration, laser intensity, OA severity, and type of exercises.
Of note, patients in the HILT group of our study had a significantly lower WOMAC stiffness score at baseline compared to controls. To eliminate the effect of this baseline difference, we adjusted the immediate- and intermediate-term scores for baseline values as well as sex and age. Nonetheless, immediately after treatment, the two groups were similar regarding the WOMAC stiffness score, which shows that stiffness improvement might only appear after three months. For individuals with knee OA, knee stiffness has major clinical ramifications (35). The degree to which knee OA patients believe their ability to do physical activities is correlated with how stiff their knees feel (36). Moreover, stiffness shows some link to physiological factors that increase the probability of falling in the elderly (37). Consequently, knee stiffness is a significant symptom of knee OA that requires attention.
In the current study, HILT was applied to the medial aspect of the knee. Interestingly, the manifestation of osteoarthritis in the medial compartment, with the lateral compartment and patella-femoral joint exhibiting relatively less damage, is a frequently encountered orthopedic condition (38). This can be explained by load distribution and anatomy; during routine activities such as standing and walking, the medial compartment of the knee experiences greater load-bearing capacity than the lateral compartment. The augmented load has the potential to induce greater degeneration of the cartilage located in the medial compartment as time progresses. The anatomy of the knee articulation may also contribute to the onset of osteoarthritis within the medial compartment. The medial meniscus exhibits greater size and firmer attachment to the joint capsule than its lateral counterpart, rendering it more vulnerable to potential damage (39).
The present study was not without limitations. First, due to the nature of the interventions and the outcome assessment, blinding of neither patients, caregivers, nor assessors could be performed. Furthermore, the control group was not subjected to a sham laser, which could be deemed a plausible technique for patient blinding. Second, we did not evaluate the patient's long-term outcomes.
5.1. Conclusions
Compared with the control group, HILT substantially reduced pain and improved WOMAC scores in patients with knee OA immediately after the final treatment session and three months later. Larger studies with a longer follow-up period are required to confirm our findings and determine the long-term efficacy of HILT for knee OA. Also, considering a sham laser for blinding would enhance the quality of future studies.
References
-
1.
Chen D, Shen J, Zhao W, Wang T, Han L, Hamilton JL, et al. Osteoarthritis: toward a comprehensive understanding of pathological mechanism. Bone Res. 2017;5:16044. [PubMed ID: 28149655]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC5240031]. https://doi.org/10.1038/boneres.2016.44.
-
2.
Hawker GA. Osteoarthritis is a serious disease. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2019;37 Suppl 120(5):3-6. [PubMed ID: 31621562].
-
3.
Hunter DJ, McDougall JJ, Keefe FJ. The symptoms of osteoarthritis and the genesis of pain. Rheum Dis Clin North Am. 2008;34(3):623-43. [PubMed ID: 18687276]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC2597216]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rdc.2008.05.004.
-
4.
Ajit Singh DK, Kamsan SS, Ngu ACY, Ahmad MA, Mohd Padzil FA, Muhammad Hendri EN. Knee Associated Problems and Functional Mobility among Adults with Knee Osteoarthritis. Jurnal Sains Kesihatan Malaysia. 2018;16:229. https://doi.org/10.17576/jskm-2018-37.
-
5.
Clynes MA, Jameson KA, Edwards MH, Cooper C, Dennison EM. Impact of osteoarthritis on activities of daily living: does joint site matter? Aging Clin Exp Res. 2019;31(8):1049-56. [PubMed ID: 30903599]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC6661019]. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40520-019-01163-0.
-
6.
Alayat MSM, Aly THA, Elsayed AEM, Fadil ASM. Efficacy of pulsed Nd:YAG laser in the treatment of patients with knee osteoarthritis: a randomized controlled trial. Lasers Med Sci. 2017;32(3):503-11. [PubMed ID: 28078503]. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10103-017-2141-x.
-
7.
Zeng C, Li H, Yang T, Deng ZH, Yang Y, Zhang Y, et al. Electrical stimulation for pain relief in knee osteoarthritis: systematic review and network meta-analysis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2015;23(2):189-202. [PubMed ID: 25497083]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2014.11.014.
-
8.
Hochberg MC, Altman RD, April KT, Benkhalti M, Guyatt G, McGowan J, et al. American College of Rheumatology 2012 recommendations for the use of nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic therapies in osteoarthritis of the hand, hip, and knee. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2012;64(4):465-74. [PubMed ID: 22563589]. https://doi.org/10.1002/acr.21596.
-
9.
Wu Y, Zhu S, Lv Z, Kan S, Wu Q, Song W, et al. Effects of therapeutic ultrasound for knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Rehabil. 2019;33(12):1863-75. [PubMed ID: 31382781]. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269215519866494.
-
10.
Taghizadeh Delkhoush C, Binaei F, Pakdaman M, Oskoie M. Comparing the Effect of High-intensity and Low-intensity Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation on Pain Relief and Functional Activity Improvement in Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis. Middle East J Rehabil Health Stud. 2022;9(4):e126592. https://doi.org/10.5812/mejrh-126592.
-
11.
Fernandez-Cuadros ME, Perez-Moro OS, Albaladejo-Florin MJ, Entrambasaguas-Estepa B, Alava-Rabasa S. Mid-Term Effectiveness of Ozone (O2-O3) Compared to Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP) in the Management of Knee Osteoarthritis: A Randomized Parallel Controlled Trial. Middle East J Rehabil Health Stud. 2019;6(2):e74140. https://doi.org/10.5812/mejrh.74140.
-
12.
Ezzati K, Laakso EL, Salari A, Hasannejad A, Fekrazad R, Aris A. The Beneficial Effects of High-Intensity Laser Therapy and Co-Interventions on Musculoskeletal Pain Management: A Systematic Review. J Lasers Med Sci. 2020;11(1):81-90. [PubMed ID: 32099632]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC7008744]. https://doi.org/10.15171/jlms.2020.14.
-
13.
Dundar U, Turkmen U, Toktas H, Solak O, Ulasli AM. Effect of high-intensity laser therapy in the management of myofascial pain syndrome of the trapezius: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Lasers Med Sci. 2015;30(1):325-32. [PubMed ID: 25274197]. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10103-014-1671-8.
-
14.
Dundar U, Turkmen U, Toktas H, Ulasli AM, Solak O. Effectiveness of high-intensity laser therapy and splinting in lateral epicondylitis; a prospective, randomized, controlled study. Lasers Med Sci. 2015;30(3):1097-107. [PubMed ID: 25614134]. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10103-015-1716-7.
-
15.
Venosa M, Romanini E, Padua R, Cerciello S. Comparison of high-intensity laser therapy and combination of ultrasound treatment and transcutaneous nerve stimulation in patients with cervical spondylosis: a randomized controlled trial. Lasers Med Sci. 2019;34(5):947-53. [PubMed ID: 30443883]. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10103-018-2682-7.
-
16.
Angelova A, Ilieva EM. Effectiveness of High Intensity Laser Therapy for Reduction of Pain in Knee Osteoarthritis. Pain Res Manag. 2016;2016:9163618. [PubMed ID: 28096711]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC5206453]. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/9163618.
-
17.
Kim GJ, Choi J, Lee S, Jeon C, Lee K. The effects of high intensity laser therapy on pain and function in patients with knee osteoarthritis. J Phys Ther Sci. 2016;28(11):3197-9. [PubMed ID: 27942148]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC5140828]. https://doi.org/10.1589/jpts.28.3197.
-
18.
Nazari A, Moezy A, Nejati P, Mazaherinezhad A. Efficacy of high-intensity laser therapy in comparison with conventional physiotherapy and exercise therapy on pain and function of patients with knee osteoarthritis: a randomized controlled trial with 12-week follow up. Lasers Med Sci. 2019;34(3):505-16. [PubMed ID: 30178432]. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10103-018-2624-4.
-
19.
Wyszynska J, Bal-Bochenska M. Efficacy of High-Intensity Laser Therapy in Treating Knee Osteoarthritis: A First Systematic Review. Photomed Laser Surg. 2018;36(7):343-53. [PubMed ID: 29688827]. https://doi.org/10.1089/pho.2017.4425.
-
20.
Song HJ, Seo HJ, Kim D. Effectiveness of high-intensity laser therapy in the management of patients with knee osteoarthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil. 2020;33(6):875-84. [PubMed ID: 32831189]. https://doi.org/10.3233/BMR-191738.
-
21.
Hsu H, Siwiec RM. Knee Osteoarthritis. StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island, FL: StatPearls Publishing; 2023.
-
22.
Nadrian H, Moghimi N, Nadrian E, Moradzadeh R, Bahmanpour K, Iranpour A, et al. Validity and reliability of the Persian versions of WOMAC Osteoarthritis Index and Lequesne Algofunctional Index. Clin Rheumatol. 2012;31(7):1097-102. [PubMed ID: 22526476]. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-012-1983-7.
-
23.
Siriratna P, Ratanasutiranont C, Manissorn T, Santiniyom N, Chira-Adisai W. Short-Term Efficacy of High-Intensity Laser Therapy in Alleviating Pain in Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis: A Single-Blind Randomised Controlled Trial. Pain Res Manag. 2022;2022:1319165. [PubMed ID: 36313402]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC9616657]. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/1319165.
-
24.
Kheshie AR, Alayat MS, Ali MM. High-intensity versus low-level laser therapy in the treatment of patients with knee osteoarthritis: a randomized controlled trial. Lasers Med Sci. 2014;29(4):1371-6. [PubMed ID: 24487957]. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10103-014-1529-0.
-
25.
Akaltun MS, Altindag O, Turan N, Gursoy S, Gur A. Efficacy of high intensity laser therapy in knee osteoarthritis: a double-blind controlled randomized study. Clin Rheumatol. 2021;40(5):1989-95. [PubMed ID: 33074393]. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-020-05469-7.
-
26.
Samaan SSRR, Sedhom MG, Grace MO. A randomized comparative study between high-intensity laser vs low-intensity pulsed ultrasound both combined with exercises for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis. Int J Rheum Dis. 2022;25(8):877-86. [PubMed ID: 35678062]. https://doi.org/10.1111/1756-185X.14361.
-
27.
Mostafa M, Hamada HA, Kadry AM, Zahran SS, Helmy NA. Effect of High-Power Laser Therapy Versus Shock Wave Therapy on Pain and Function in Knee Osteoarthritis Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Photobiomodul Photomed Laser Surg. 2022;40(3):198-204. [PubMed ID: 34986012]. https://doi.org/10.1089/photob.2021.0136.
-
28.
Ahmad MA, Hamid MSA, Yusof A. Effects of low-level and high-intensity laser therapy as adjunctive to rehabilitation exercise on pain, stiffness and function in knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Physiotherapy. 2022;114:85-95. [PubMed ID: 34654554]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physio.2021.03.011.
-
29.
Wu M, Luan L, Pranata A, Witchalls J, Adams R, Bousie J, et al. Is high intensity laser therapy more effective than other physical therapy modalities for treating knee osteoarthritis? A systematic review and network meta-analysis. Front Med (Lausanne). 2022;9:956188. [PubMed ID: 36186780]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC9520262]. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2022.956188.
-
30.
Hagiwara S, Iwasaka H, Hasegawa A, Noguchi T. Pre-Irradiation of blood by gallium aluminum arsenide (830 nm) low-level laser enhances peripheral endogenous opioid analgesia in rats. Anesth Analg. 2008;107(3):1058-63. [PubMed ID: 18713929]. https://doi.org/10.1213/ane.0b013e31817ee43e.
-
31.
de Oliveira RF, de Andrade Salgado DM, Trevelin LT, Lopes RM, da Cunha SR, Aranha AC, et al. Benefits of laser phototherapy on nerve repair. Lasers Med Sci. 2015;30(4):1395-406. [PubMed ID: 24519261]. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10103-014-1531-6.
-
32.
Zupin L, Ottaviani G, Rupel K, Biasotto M, Zacchigna S, Crovella S, et al. Analgesic effect of Photobiomodulation Therapy: An in vitro and in vivo study. J Biophotonics. 2019;12(10):e201900043. [PubMed ID: 31219220]. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbio.201900043.
-
33.
Chow R, Armati P, Laakso EL, Bjordal JM, Baxter GD. Inhibitory effects of laser irradiation on peripheral mammalian nerves and relevance to analgesic effects: a systematic review. Photomed Laser Surg. 2011;29(6):365-81. [PubMed ID: 21456946]. https://doi.org/10.1089/pho.2010.2928.
-
34.
Xiang A, Deng H, Cheng K, Liu H, Lin L, Qu X, et al. Laser photobiomodulation for cartilage defect in animal models of knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lasers Med Sci. 2020;35(4):789-96. [PubMed ID: 31845042]. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10103-019-02937-8.
-
35.
Mazzuca SA, Brandt KD, Katz BP, Ding Y, Lane KA, Buckwalter KA. Risk factors for early radiographic changes of tibiofemoral osteoarthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2007;66(3):394-9. [PubMed ID: 16926185]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC1856003]. https://doi.org/10.1136/ard.2006.055905.
-
36.
Maly MR, Costigan PA, Olney SJ. Determinants of self efficacy for physical tasks in people with knee osteoarthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 2006;55(1):94-101. [PubMed ID: 16463419]. https://doi.org/10.1002/art.21701.
-
37.
Foley SJ, Lord SR, Srikanth V, Cooley H, Jones G. Falls risk is associated with pain and dysfunction but not radiographic osteoarthritis in older adults: Tasmanian Older Adult Cohort study. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2006;14(6):533-9. [PubMed ID: 16460970]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2005.12.007.
-
38.
McCormack DJ, Puttock D, Godsiff SP. Medial compartment osteoarthritis of the knee: a review of surgical options. EFORT Open Rev. 2021;6(2):113-7. [PubMed ID: 33828854]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC8022014]. https://doi.org/10.1302/2058-5241.6.200102.
-
39.
Vincent KR, Conrad BP, Fregly BJ, Vincent HK. The pathophysiology of osteoarthritis: a mechanical perspective on the knee joint. PM R. 2012;4(5 Suppl):S3-9. [PubMed ID: 22632700]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC3635670]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmrj.2012.01.020.