Low-level laser therapy for carpal tunnel syndrome: systematic review and network meta-analysis

被引:15
作者
Cheung, W. K. W. [1 ]
Wu, I. X. Y. [2 ]
Sit, R. W. S. [1 ]
Ho, R. S. T. [1 ]
Wong, C. H. L. [3 ]
Wong, S. Y. S. [1 ]
Chung, V. C. H. [1 ,4 ]
机构
[1] Chinese Univ Hong Kong, Jockey Club Sch Publ Hlth & Primary Care, Shatin, Hong Kong, Peoples R China
[2] Cent South Univ, Xiang Ya Sch Publ Hlth, Changsha, Peoples R China
[3] Chinese Univ Hong Kong, Dept Med & Therapeut, Shatin, Hong Kong, Peoples R China
[4] Chinese Univ Hong Kong, Sch Chinese Med, Shatin, Hong Kong, Peoples R China
关键词
Carpal tunnel syndrome; Laser; Low-level laser therapy; Systematic review; Network meta-analysis; OPTIMAL SEARCH STRATEGIES; EFFICACY; INTERVENTIONS; MANAGEMENT; TRIALS; WRIST; CARE;
D O I
10.1016/j.physio.2019.06.005
中图分类号
R49 [康复医学];
学科分类号
100215 ;
摘要
Background Splinting is recommended by various organisations as a non-surgical first-line treatment for carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS), despite the limited evidence supporting its effectiveness. Previous studies on the effectiveness of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) have reported mixed results, and this systematic review aimed to resolve this controversy. Objective To perform a network meta-analysis (NMA) for evaluating the effectiveness of LLLT compared with other conservative treatments for CTS. Methods Eighteen electronic databases were searched for potential randomised controlled trials (RCTs). RCTs evaluating LLLT or other non-surgical treatments as an add-on to splinting were included. Included RCTs measured at least one of the following three outcomes with validated instruments: pain, symptom severity and functional status. Results Six RCTs (418 patients) were included. NMA suggested that LLLT plus splinting has the highest probability (75%) of pain reduction, compared with sham laser plus splinting (61%), ultrasound plus splinting (57%) and splinting alone (8%). However, while LLLT plus splinting is significantly more effective than sham laser plus splinting for pain reduction, the magnitude is not clinically significant (Visual Analogue Scale mean difference -0.53 cm, 95% confidence interval -1.01 to -0.05 cm; P = 0.03, I-2 = 25%). The effect of LLLT plus splinting on symptom severity and functional status was not superior to splinting alone. Conclusion The use of LLLT in addition to splinting for the management of CTS is not recommended, as LLLT offers limited additional benefits over splining alone in terms of pain reduction, reduction of symptom severity or improved functional status. (C) 2019 Chartered Society of Physiotherapy. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:24 / 35
页数:12
相关论文
共 47 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 2020, REV MAN REVMAN VERS
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2017, COMM GUID TREATM CAR
[3]  
[Anonymous], OCCUPATIONAL MED PRA
[4]  
[Anonymous], GUID CHOIC COMP
[5]  
[Anonymous], CLIN PRACT GUID MAN
[6]  
[Anonymous], CARPAL TUNNEL SYNDRO
[7]  
[Anonymous], INT PROSPECTIVE REGI
[8]  
[Anonymous], STATA STAT SOFTW REL
[9]  
[Anonymous], COCHRANE DATABASE SY
[10]  
[Anonymous], 2012, COCHRANE DB SYST REV, DOI [DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD010003.PMID:22786532, DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD010003]