OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) on primarily closed incisions and full thickness open wounds in dogs. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, masked, placebo-controlled design. ANIMAL POPULATION: Healthy intact female dogs (n = 10). METHODS: Dogs underwent bilateral flank ovariectomy procedures, and open wounds were created bilaterally with a punch biopsy. Each side of the dog (incision and open wound) was randomly assigned to the treatment (TX) group or the control (CN) group. The TX group received LLLT once daily for 5 days with a 980-nm laser and a total energy density of 5 J/cm2 . The CN group received a sham treatment (laser turned off) for an identical amount of time each day. The wounds were assessed visually; measured; photographed at postoperative days 3, 7, 11, and 14; and biopsied on postoperative days 7 and 14. A 2-way repeated measures multivariate analysis of variance was used to analyze differences between groups. RESULTS: There was no difference between groups for subjective assessment of healing time and wound measurements (P = .7). There was no difference in histopathologic assessment except that the CN group had more necrosis and perivascular lymphocytes and macrophages at day 7 (P = .03). The TX group had more perivascular lymphocytes and macrophages at day 14 (P = .01). CONCLUSION: LLLT did not appear to influence the healing of surgically created incisions and small wounds with the methodology reported here. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Results of this study do not support recommending LLLT to stimulate healing of uncomplicated, small wounds and incisions.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) on primarily closed incisions and full thickness open wounds in dogs. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, masked, placebo-controlled design. ANIMAL POPULATION: Healthy intact female dogs (n = 10). METHODS:Dogs underwent bilateral flank ovariectomy procedures, and open wounds were created bilaterally with a punch biopsy. Each side of the dog (incision and open wound) was randomly assigned to the treatment (TX) group or the control (CN) group. The TX group received LLLT once daily for 5 days with a 980-nm laser and a total energy density of 5 J/cm2 . The CN group received a sham treatment (laser turned off) for an identical amount of time each day. The wounds were assessed visually; measured; photographed at postoperative days 3, 7, 11, and 14; and biopsied on postoperative days 7 and 14. A 2-way repeated measures multivariate analysis of variance was used to analyze differences between groups. RESULTS: There was no difference between groups for subjective assessment of healing time and wound measurements (P = .7). There was no difference in histopathologic assessment except that the CN group had more necrosis and perivascular lymphocytes and macrophages at day 7 (P = .03). The TX group had more perivascular lymphocytes and macrophages at day 14 (P = .01). CONCLUSION: LLLT did not appear to influence the healing of surgically created incisions and small wounds with the methodology reported here. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Results of this study do not support recommending LLLT to stimulate healing of uncomplicated, small wounds and incisions.
Authors: Donna R Webb; Sheba R Churchill; Georgette D Hill; Christopher A McGee; Min Shi; Angela P King-Herbert; Terry L Blankenship-Paris Journal: Comp Med Date: 2021-04-16 Impact factor: 0.982
Authors: Samuel Rico-Holgado; Gustavo Ortiz-Díez; María C Martín-Espada; Cristina Fernández-Pérez; María R Baquero-Artigao; María Suárez-Redondo Journal: J Lasers Med Sci Date: 2021-12-12