D Kopera1, R Kokol, C Berger, J Haas. 1. Department of Dermatology and Venereology, Medical University of Graz, Austria. Kopera@meduni-graz.at
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Venous leg ulcer treatment often requires months or years of regular wound care by trained staff. It has been suggested that low-level laser irradiation has a biostimulative and wound healing effect, but this has not been clinically verified by controlled studies. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of low-level laser irradiation with that of a placebo 'light source'. METHOD: Forty-four patients were assigned to two treatment groups (laser and placebo) or a third group (standardised treatment only) to quantify the effect of the laser therapy. Patients in all three groups received standardised wound care (disinfection, a hydrofibre dressing and compression bandaging). Ulcer size was measured at baseline (day 1), at the end of therapy (day 28) and then two months later (day 90). The relative difference in wound size was evaluated. RESULTS: The difference in the reduction in wound size was not statistically significant in all three groups. A positive effect of using the non-laser device (placebo effect) was demonstrated in some patients. CONCLUSION: These study results suggest that low-level laser does not stimulate wound healing in venous leg ulcers. Further controlled studies are needed to clarify the efficacy of low-level laser treatment as a wound-healing stimulant.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE:Venous leg ulcer treatment often requires months or years of regular wound care by trained staff. It has been suggested that low-level laser irradiation has a biostimulative and wound healing effect, but this has not been clinically verified by controlled studies. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of low-level laser irradiation with that of a placebo 'light source'. METHOD: Forty-four patients were assigned to two treatment groups (laser and placebo) or a third group (standardised treatment only) to quantify the effect of the laser therapy. Patients in all three groups received standardised wound care (disinfection, a hydrofibre dressing and compression bandaging). Ulcer size was measured at baseline (day 1), at the end of therapy (day 28) and then two months later (day 90). The relative difference in wound size was evaluated. RESULTS: The difference in the reduction in wound size was not statistically significant in all three groups. A positive effect of using the non-laser device (placebo effect) was demonstrated in some patients. CONCLUSION: These study results suggest that low-level laser does not stimulate wound healing in venous leg ulcers. Further controlled studies are needed to clarify the efficacy of low-level laser treatment as a wound-healing stimulant.
Authors: Gill Norman; Maggie J Westby; Amber D Rithalia; Nikki Stubbs; Marta O Soares; Jo C Dumville Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2018-06-15