Effects of photobiomodulation on re-epithelialization of burn wound: protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Burns are a global public health problem and cause approximately 180,000 deaths annually, mainly in low- and middle-income countries. Topical antibiotics and occlusive dressing are standard treatments for burns not requiring a skin graft. However, physiotherapy has low-cost phototherapeutic and electrophysical resources (e.g., light-emitting diode [LED]) that may accelerate burn healing. This study aims to compare the re-epithelialization rate of second-degree burns, pain, pruritus, skin temperature, quality of wound healing, and scar quality and mobility among individuals undergoing treatment with red LED, infrared LED, and simulated photobiomodulation. METHODS: This is a double-blinded, three-arm parallel-group, randomized controlled superiority trial. Individuals of both sexes, aged over 18 years, and with second-degree burns will be included. The sample will be divided into three groups of 13 individuals: two will receive LED therapy (red or infrared) and one placebo. Pain, pruritus, skin temperature, and wound size will be assessed daily. Interventions will take place until complete healing, when scar mobility and quality will be evaluated. Data will be presented as mean and 95% confidence interval and analyzed using mixed linear models. DISCUSSION: This randomized controlled trial has minimal risk of bias and intends to identify the ideal type, procedures, and doses of photobiomodulation to heal burns, which are not standardized in clinical practice. Positive results will allow the implementation of the technique in burn and wound guidelines. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Brazilian Clinical Trials Registry (ReBEC) RBR-8bfznx6 . Registered on October 13, 2021.

Electrolipolysis associated with aerobic activity does not reduce subcutaneous adipose tissue of the abdominal region of young women: A randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the effects of electrolysis, through a medium frequency current, associated to aerobic physical activity in the body composition of young women. METHODS: The study was composed of 34 sedentary women (24.35 ± 4.43 years, 71.30 ± 7.08 kg, 1.61 ± 0.06 m, 27.31 ± 1.67 kg/m2) which were evaluated for their anthropometric measures and body composition. The volunteers were randomly assigned to two group: Electrolyphysis plus Aerobic Exercise (gEEA): 17 volunteers were submitted to the application, for 60 min , of the Aussie current, followed by aerobic physical activity (77% of HRmax) on the trampoline for 40 min, through video-lessons of Jump; and Aerobic Exercise group (gEA): 17 volunteers performed only physical activity following the same parameters mentioned above. Each group performed its protocols twice weekly, for 5 weeks, totaling 10 sessions. For the data analysis, measures repeated ANOVA was performed to compare the means of the variables analyzed before and after the treatment protocols using the SPSS - 21.0 software, adopting a p ≤ 0.05. RESULTS: Although gEEA decreased suprailiac skinfold (p = 0.04), abdominal skinfold (p = 0.03) and circumference at umbilical scar (p = 0.02) in an intragroup analysis, these means differences in anthropometric measures were not important between-groups (p > 0.05). Furthermore, there were no effect of treatment on body composition (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: To this studied condition, our results suggested that application of medium frequency electrolysis did not enhance the losses on anthropometric measures and body composition.