| Literature DB >> 32334585 |
Enrico Bruno1, Sara Canal1, Michela Antonucci1, Marco Bernardini1,2, Federica Balducci1, Vincenzo Musella3, Matteo Mussoni4, Giuseppe Spinella5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent studies have reported contrasting results of the effects of laser therapy on post-operative intervertebral disk herniation, with a lack of evidence-based advantages of this modality within a rehabilitation protocol. The aim of this study was to report the clinical effects of photobiomodulation therapy within a post-operative rehabilitation protocol in dogs submitted to surgery for thoracolumbar disk extrusion. Twenty-four dogs were included in the study (12 dogs treated with laser therapy and rehabilitation protocol and 12 dogs treated with same rehabilitation protocol but without laser therapy).Entities:
Keywords: Dog; Intervertebral disk extrusion; Photobiomodulation; Rehabilitation therapy; Thoracolumbar spine
Year: 2020 PMID: 32334585 PMCID: PMC7183721 DOI: 10.1186/s12917-020-02333-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Vet Res ISSN: 1746-6148 Impact factor: 2.741
Clinical cases that met the inclusion criteria
| N° | Group | Breed | Sex | Age (years) | BW (Kg) | S-S | MFS T0 | T1 | T2 | MFS T2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1 | GD | F | 4 | 6.5 | 1 | 1 | Y | Y | 4 |
| 2 | 1 | FB | F | 4 | 10.6 | 1 | 3 | N | Y | 4 |
| 3 | 1 | Beagle | F | 6 | 12.2 | 5 | 3 | N | Y | 5 |
| 4 | 1 | GD | M | 13 | 10.1 | 2 | 3 | Y | Y | 5 |
| 5 | 1 | MB | F | 6 | 7 | 2 | 3 | N | N | 3 |
| 6 | 1 | MB | F | 4 | 4.9 | 2 | 3 | Y | Y | 5 |
| 7 | 1 | MB | M | 4 | 16.2 | 1 | 3 | N | Y | 4 |
| 8 | 1 | GD | F | 4 | 4.9 | 21 | 3 | N | Y | 5 |
| 9 | 1 | Beagle | F | 9 | 12 | 30 | 3 | N | N | 3 |
| 10 | 1 | Poodle | F | 5 | 3,9 | 3 | 3 | Y | Y | 5 |
| 11 | 1 | CK | F | 5 | 11.5 | 3 | 2 | N | N | 3 |
| 12 | 1 | GD | M | 6 | 10.5 | 1 | 2 | N | N | 3 |
| 13 | 2 | MB | M | 10 | 37 | 15 | 3 | Y | Y | 5 |
| 14 | 2 | MB | M | 7 | 13 | 30 | 3 | Y | Y | 5 |
| 15 | 2 | MB | M | 9 | 30.5 | 1 | 3 | Y | Y | 5 |
| 16 | 2 | FB | F | 7 | 12 | 14 | 0 | N | N | 0 |
| 17 | 2 | GD | M | 6 | 11 | 1 | 3 | N | Y | 5 |
| 18 | 2 | MB | M | 11 | 16 | 4 | 3 | N | Y | 5 |
| 19 | 2 | MB | F | 15 | 22 | 2 | 3 | Y | Y | 4 |
| 20 | 2 | MB | F | 6 | 16.5 | 7 | 0 | N | N | 0 |
| 21 | 2 | GD | M | 8 | 8 | 1 | 2 | N | Y | 4 |
| 22 | 2 | MB | M | 10 | 13 | 10 | 3 | Y | Y | 5 |
| 23 | 2 | Lagotto | M | 8 | 17 | 0 | 1 | N | Y | 5 |
| 24 | 2 | GD | F | 7 | 7.5 | 2 | 1 | Y | Y | 5 |
Group 1 = no Laser; Group 2 = perilesional laser application; GD = German Dachshund; FB = French Bouledogue; CK = Cavalier King Charles Spaniel; MB = Mixed breed; F = female; M = male; BW = Body Weight; S-S = interval of time, expressed in days, between the appearance of symptoms and surgery; MFS T0 = MFS on admission at rehabilitation center; T1 = neurological evaluation after 14 days of physiotherapy; T2 = neurological evaluation after 30 days of physiotherapy; N = dog not able to ambulate; Y = dog able to ambulate; MFS T2 = MFS after 30 days of physiotherapy. Dogs n.16 and n.20 were discharged with the cart to walk because of their poor prognosis of MFS 0 on admission and no improvement during physiotherapy
Modified Frankel Score as previously reported by Draper et al., 2012 [27]
| Grade 5 | Spinal hyperaesthesia only |
| Grade 4 | Ambulatory with paraparesis and /or ataxia |
| Grade 3 | Non-ambulatory paraparesis |
| Grade 2 | Paraplegia with entire superficial nociception in the pelvic limbs |
| Grade 1 | Paraplegia with entire deep nociception in the pelvic limbs |
| Grade 0 | Paraplegia with absent nociception in pelvic limbs |
Distribution of Modified Frankel Score (MFS) at T0 within the two groups. No significant difference was observed
| MFS AT T0 | Group 1 | Group 2 | P |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | 9/12 | 7/12 | 0,92 |
| 2 | 2/12 | 1/12 | |
| 1 | 1/12 | 2/12 | |
| 0 | 0/12 | 2/12 |
Fig. 1Kaplan-Meier curve demonstrating a non-significant difference between the two groups (excluding the two paraplegic dogs) for time to regain ambulatory ability (P = 0.178)
Fig. 2Comparison of MFS at discharge for the two groups. A significant difference was observed with a better result for group 2 (P = 0.04), after exclusion of two paraplegic dogs. (NO. Dogs = Number of dogs)