A randomized double-blinded controlled trial on the effects of photobiomodulation therapy in dogs with osteoarthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate photobiomodulation therapy in dogs with bilateral hip osteoarthritis. ANIMALS: 20 dogs. PROCEDURES: Forty joints were assigned to a control group (CG; n = 20) or treatment group (photobiomodulation therapy [PBMT]; 20). CG received a 21-day course of meloxicam, and PBMT received treatment with a Class IV therapeutic laser over 3 weeks. Joint range of motion, thigh girth, the Canine Brief Pain Inventory (divided into pain interference score [PIS] and pain severity score [PSS]), Hudson Visual Analogue Scale, Liverpool Osteoarthritis in Dogs, and Canine Orthopedic Index (COI; divided into function, gait, stiffness, and quality of life) were evaluated before treatment, +8, +15, +30, +60, and +90 days after initial treatment. Results were analyzed with repeated measures ANOVA or Wilcoxon signed ranks test, P < 0.05. Kaplan-Meier estimators were compared with the Breslow test. RESULTS: Patients had a mean age of 8.3 ± 1.9 years and body weight of 65.7 ± 12.1lb. Osteoarthritis was classified as moderate (n = 26) and severe (14). No differences were found at time 0. Better results were observed in PBMT at +8 days (P = 0.01 for PSS, P = 0.04 for function and COI), +15 days (P = 0.01 for PSS and function, P = 0.02 for PIS and function, P = 0.03 for COI and P = 0.04 for Liverpool Osteoarthritis in Dogs [LOAD]) and +30 days (P = 0.01 for function and gait, P = 0.02 for COI, and P = 0.04 for PIS, PSS, and LOAD). Joint range of motion improved in PBMT from +15 to 90 days. Kaplan-Meier estimators showed that PBMT produced longer periods with better results. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: PBMT reduced pain levels and improved clinical findings in dogs with hip osteoarthritis.

Short-term pain reduction after low-dose radiotherapy in patients with severe osteoarthritis of the hip or knee joint: a cohort study and literature review.

BACKGROUND: Low-dose radiotherapy (LDRT) for pain reduction in osteoarthritis (OA) is a frequently used treatment in Germany and Eastern European countries. The evidence on the effects of LDRT on pain in patients with OA remains unclear. This study evaluated the effect of LDRT on pain in patients with severe OA of the hip or knee joint. METHODS: This prospective study included a total of 16 joints in 12 patients (4 hips and 12 knees). The inclusion criteria were: patients older than 50 years, severe OA (Kellgren-Lawrence grade III-IV) of the hip or knee joint, patients not responding to conservative treatment and patients who are inoperable or not willing to undergo surgery. The joint was irradiated with a total dose of 6.0 Gray. The Numeric Rating Scale for pain (NRS-pain) and patient-reported outcome measures were obtained at pre-, 6, 13, 26, 39 and 52 weeks post-radiation. A decrease of two points on the NRS-pain was defined as clinical relevant. RESULTS: The median age of the included patients was 74 years (range 58-89). In 50% of the joints (n = 8, 3 hip and 5 knee joints), a clinical relevant difference in pain at 6 weeks post-radiation was observed. This clinical relevant difference decreased to 25% at 52 weeks post-radiation. CONCLUSION: LDRT showed a clinical relevant pain relief at 6 weeks after radiotherapy. The long-term effect of LDRT, however, was limited. A randomized placebo-controlled trial is necessary to assess the effect of LDRT on pain in patients with OA of the hip or knee joint.

WITHDRAWN: Low level laser therapy (Classes III) for treating osteoarthritis.

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis (OA) affects a large portion of the population. Low Level Laser Therapy (LLLT) is a light source that generates extremely pure light, of a single wavelength. The effect is not thermal, but rather related to photochemical reactions in the cells. LLLT was introduced as an alternative non-invasive treatment for OA about 30 years ago, but its effectiveness has to be examined more closely, especially in the treatment of OA. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of class III LLLT for osteoarthritis when irradiation is directed at the osteoarthritic joint capsule. SEARCH STRATEGY: Searches were conducted in the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Musculoskeletal registry, the Rehabilitation and Related Therapies field registry and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register up to May, 2005. SELECTION CRITERIA: Following an a prior protocol, only controlled clinical trials of LLLT for the treatment of patients with a clinical diagnosis of OA were eligible. Abstracts lacking data were excluded unless further data could be obtained from the authors. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently selected trials and extracted data using predetermined forms. A fixed effects model was used throughout for continuous variables, except where heterogeneity existed; in which case, a random effects model was used. Results were analyzed as weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), whereas the difference between the treatment and control groups was weighted by the inverse of the variance. Standardized mean differences (SMD) were calculated by dividing the difference between treatment and control by the baseline variance, and were used in the analysis of pain because different scales were used to measure it. Dichotomous outcomes were analyzed with relative risk (RR). MAIN RESULTS: Eight trials were included with 233 patients randomized to laser and 172 patients to placebo laser. Treatment duration ranged from two to six weeks. Pain was assessed in seven trials. When the results were pooled from different pain scales used in these seven trials, a statistically significant difference in favor of laser treatment was found with a SMD of -0.28 (95% CI: -0.48 to -0.09). One of these studies also measured pain during movement and found a statistically significant difference in favor of laser treatment with a WMD of -1.16 (95% CI: -2.02 to -0.30). Two studies found significant results for increased knee range of motion. Two others studies found a statistically significant difference in favor of laser treatment for patient-assessed global disease activity with laser compared to placebo (RR 1.70, 95%CI: 1.1. to 2.63). One trial evaluated the effectiveness of laser treatment in temporomandibular joint OA and found a statistically significant difference (WMD 38.69, 95% CI: 29.25 to 48.13) using the change in VAS score to measure pain. One study found a statistically significant difference in favor of laser treatment at the end of treatment and at 4 and 8 weeks post-treatment for morning stiffness. Other outcome measures of joint tenderness and strength did not yield significant differences. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Five trials included in this review showed a statistically significant difference favoring laser treatment when compared to placebo for at least one outcome measure. Three trials did not report beneficial effects. The varying results of these trials may be due to the method of laser application and/or other features of LLLT application. Clinicians and researchers should consistently report the characteristics of LLLT devices and application techniques used. New trials on LLLT should make use of standardized, validated outcomes. There is clearly a need to investigate the effects of different dosages on LLLT effectiveness for OA in future randomized, controlled clinical trials. Also, more studies should be done to investigate the anti-inflammatory action of laser as well as the appropriate parameters needed to achieve an anti-inflammatory effect.

Low level laser therapy (Classes I, II and III) for treating osteoarthritis.

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis (OA) affects a large proportion of the population. Low Level Laser Therapy (LLLT) is a light source that generates extremely pure light, of a single wavelength. The effect is not thermal, but rather related to photochemical reactions in the cells. LLLT was introduced as an alternative non-invasive treatment for OA about 20 years ago, but its effectiveness is still controversial. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of LLLT in the treatment of OA. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Musculoskeletal registry, the registry of the Rehabilitation and Related Therapies field and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register up to January 30, 2004. SELECTION CRITERIA: Following an a priori protocol, only controlled clinical trials of LLLT for the treatment of patients with a clinical diagnosis of OA were eligible. Abstracts were excluded unless further data could be obtained from the authors. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently selected trials and abstracted data using predetermined forms. Heterogeneity was tested with Cochran's Q test. A fixed effects model was used throughout for continuous variables, except where heterogeneity existed, in which case, a random effects model was used. Results were analyzed as weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), where the difference between the treated and control groups was weighted by the inverse of the variance. Standardized mean differences (SMD) were calculated by dividing the difference between treated and control by the baseline variance. SMD were used when different scales were used to measure the same concept (e.g. pain). Dichotomous outcomes were analyzed with odds ratios. MAIN RESULTS: Seven trials were included, with 184 patients randomized to laser, 161 patients to placebo laser. Treatment duration ranged from 4 to 12 weeks. Pain was assessed by four trials. The pooled estimate (random effects) of three trials showed no effect on pain measured using a scale (SMD: -0.2, 95% CI: -1.0, +0.6), but there was statistically significant heterogeneity (p>0,05). Three of the trials showed no effect and two demonstrated very beneficial effects with laser. In another trial, with no scale-based pain outcome, significantly more patients reported pain relief (yes/no) with laser with an odds ratio of 0.05, (95% CI: 0.0 to 1.56). Only one study found significant results for increased knee range of motion (WMD: -10.62 degrees, 95% CI: -14.07,-7.17). Other outcomes of joint tenderness and strength were not significant. Lower dosage of LLLT was found as effective than higher dosage for reducing pain and improving knee range of motion. REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: For OA, the results are conflicting in different studies and may depend on the method of application and other features of the LLLT application. Clinicians and researchers should consistently report the characteristics of the LLLT device and the application techniques used. New trials on LLLT should make use of standardized, validated outcomes. Despite some positive findings, this meta-analysis lacked data on how LLLT effectiveness is affected by four important factors: wavelength, treatment duration of LLLT, dosage and site of application over nerves instead of joints. There is clearly a need to investigate the effects of these factors on LLLT effectiveness for OA in randomized controlled clinical trials.

[Radiotherapy of osteoarthritis. Indication, technique and clinical results]. / Radiotherapie von Arthrosen. Indikation, Technik, klinische Ergebnisse.

Regarding orthopedic topics, radiotherapy of degenerative joint disorders is actually not well researched. So far, adequate long-term observations and reliable assessment of symptoms according to objective orthopedic criteria are still missing. From 1984 to 1994, 85 patients with symptomatic knee joint and hip joint osteoarthritis as well as omarthritis and rhizarthritis were treated. A total of 73 patients or 103 joints (due to bilateral symptoms) were documented in a long-term follow-up using orthopedic scores including objective criteria. Of the patients previously resistant to therapy, 63% responded to RT. Endoprosthetic surgery was necessary for only three patients. With regard to the endpoints "complete pain relief" or "major pain relief," only the parameter "symptom exists 2 years or more" indicated a significantly negative prognosis in multivariate analysis ( p<0.05). Radiotherapy of degenerative joint disorders is an effective alternative treatment for refractory osteoarthritis compared to conventional conservative treatment options.

Low level laser therapy (Classes I, II and III) for treating osteoarthritis.

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis (OA) affects a large proportion of the population. Low Level Laser Therapy (LLLT) is a light source that generates extremely pure light, of a single wavelength. The effect is not thermal, but rather related to photochemical reactions in the cells. LLLT was introduced as an alternative non-invasive treatment for OA about 10 years ago, but its effectiveness is still controversial. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of LLLT in the treatment of OA. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Musculoskeletal registry, the registry of the Rehabilitation and Related Therapies field and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register up to December 31, 2002. SELECTION CRITERIA: Following an a priori protocol, only controlled clinical trials of LLLT for the treatment of patients with a clinical diagnosis of OA were eligible. Abstracts were excluded unless further data could be obtained from the authors. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently selected trials and abstracted data using predetermined forms. Heterogeneity was tested with Cochran's Q test. A fixed effects model was used throughout for continuous variables, except where heterogeneity existed, in which case, a random effects model was used. Results were analyzed as weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), where the difference between the treated and control groups was weighted by the inverse of the variance. Standardized mean differences (SMD) were calculated by dividing the difference between treated and control by the baseline variance. SMD were used when different scales were used to measure the same concept (e.g. pain). Dichotomous outcomes were analyzed with odds ratios. MAIN RESULTS: Five trials were included, with 112 patients randomized to laser, 85 patients to placebo laser. Treatment duration ranged from 4 to 10 weeks. Pain was assessed by four trials. The pooled estimate (random effects) of three trials showed no statistically different effect on pain measured using a scale (SMD: -0.2, 95% CI: -1.0, +0.6), but there was statistically significant heterogeneity (p>0,05). Two of the trials showed no effect and one demonstrated very beneficial effects with laser. In another trial, with no scale-based pain outcome, significantly more patients reported pain relief (yes/no) with laser with an odds ratio of 0.05, (95% CI: 0.0 to 1.56). Other outcomes of joint tenderness, joint mobility and strength were not significant. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: For OA, the results are conflicting in different studies and may depend on the method of application and other features of the LLLT application. Clinicians and researchers should consistently report the characteristics of the LLLT device and the application techniques used. New trials on LLLT should make use of standardized, validated outcomes. Despite some positive findings, this meta-analysis lacked data on how LLLT effectiveness is affected by four important factors: wavelength, treatment duration of LLLT, dosage and site of application over nerves instead of joints. There is clearly a need to investigate the effects of these factors on LLLT effectiveness for OA in randomized controlled clinical trials.

[Radiotherapy for painful degenerative joint disorders. Indications, technique and clinical results]. / Radiotherapie bei schmerzhaften degenerativ-entzündlichen Gelenkerkrankungen. Indikation, Technik und klinische Ergebnisse.

BACKGROUND: Radiotherapy of degenerative joint disorders is almost replaced by other treatments, although its efficacy is well known. Compared to orthopedic studies radiotherapy data are lacking long-term analysis and objective reproducible evaluation criteria. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From 1984 to 1994, 85 patients with painful osteoarthritis were treated. The mean follow-up was 4 (1 to 10) years. Seventy-three patients (103 joints) were available for long-term analysis: 17 patients (27 joints) with omarthrosis, 19 (20 joints) with rhizarthrosis, 31 (49 joints) with osteoarthritis of the knee and 6 patients (7 joints) with osteoarthritis of the hip. All patients were intensively pretreated over long time. Mean symptom duration prior to radiotherapy was 4 (1 to 10) years. Orthovoltage or linac photons were applied using some technical modifications depending upon the joint. Two radiotherapy series (6 x 1 Gy, total dose: 12 Gy, 3 weekly fractions) were prescribed. The interval between the 2 series was 6 weeks. The subjective pain profile was assessed prior to and 6 months after radiotherapy and at last follow-up. The classification and assessment of pain symptoms were performed using the Pannewitz score and 5 pain categories and 3 pain grades. Joint edema and effusion were objective response parameters together with special orthopedic scores for each joint. RESULTS: Forty-six (63%) patients (64 joints) achieved a reduction of pain symptoms; 16 of those had a "major pain relief" and 14 "complete pain relief". Large joints--knee and hip--responded better (64% each) than the rhizarthrosis (53%). All pain categories and grades and their combined pain score were significantly reduced. The pain reduction was mostly pronounced for the symptom "pain at rest". The orthopedic score correlated well with the subjective response of the patients. The thumb score improved in 11 (57%) joints, the shoulder score of Constant and Murley [5] in 16 (59%), the Japonese knee score of Sasaki et al. [37] in 33 (67%), the hip score of Harris [12] in 5 (71%) joints. Only 9 of 19 patients which were treated to avoid surgery, had to be operated, and 3 of those received a total arthroplasty of the hip or knee. In multivariate analysis for the endpoint "complete" or "major pain relief" only the criterion "symptom duration > or = 2 years prior to radiotherapy" was an independent negative prognostic parameter (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Radiotherapy for refractory osteoarthritis is a very effective treatment option for pain reduction compared to other conventional methods. Due to the very low risk of side effects and the low costs, radiotherapy provides an excellent alternative to conventional conservative treatment methods and in case of inoperability.