Skip to main content
Clinical Trials/NCT06419569
NCT06419569Not yet recruitingNot Applicable

Efficacy of High Power Laser Versus Low Level Laser in Ultrasonographic and Functional Outcomes in Patients With Knee Osteoarthritis

Cairo University0 sites90 target enrollmentStarted: May 30, 2024Last updated:
Conditions
Interventions

Trial Snapshot

Phase
Not Applicable
Status
Not yet recruiting
Enrollment
90
Primary Endpoint
hyaline cartilage thickness assessment

Study Overview

Brief Summary

this study will be conducted to compare between high power laser and low-intensity laser on ultrasonographic and functional outcomes in patients with knee osteoarthritis

Detailed Description

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a major source of pain, disability, and socioeconomic cost worldwide. The epidemiology of the disorder is complex and multifactorial, with genetic, biological, and biomechanical components. It is estimated that 63 to 85 percent of Americans over age 65 have radiographic signs of OA and that 35 to 50 percent have symptoms of pain, stiffness or limitation of motion. Between 9 and 12 percent of elderly Americans (approximately 3 million people) have enough impairment from OA that they cannot perform their major activities, and half of these individuals are totally disabled (confined to bed or a wheelchair). High power laser therapy (HPL) that involves higher-intensity laser radiation is a new, painless, and powerful modality that showed significant results in pain reduction. One of the modalities commonly used by clinicians was Low Level Laser Therapy introduced as an alternative, safe and non-invasive treatment for OA about 30 years ago.A more recent systemic review investigated the effects of low-level and high-intensity laser therapy as adjunctive to rehabilitation exercise on pain, stiffness and function in knee osteoarthritis and concluded that Both LLLT and HPL are beneficial as adjuncts to rehabilitation exercise in the management of knee OA. Based on an indirect comparison, the HPL and exercise seems to have higher efficacy in reducing knee pain and stiffness, and in increasing function. To confirm this finding, a direct comparative investigation of the two types of laser therapy may be necessary. ninety patients with knee osteoarthritis will be assigned randomly to three groups; the first experimental will receive high power laser plus conventional physical therapy, second one will receive low-intensity laser and traditional physical therapy, finally, the third group will receive traditionally therapy only

Study Design

Study Type
Interventional
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention Model
Parallel
Primary Purpose
Treatment
Masking
Double (Investigator, Outcomes Assessor)

Masking Description

opaque sealed envelop

Eligibility Criteria

Ages
45 Years to 75 Years (Adult, Older Adult)
Sex
All
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
No

Inclusion Criteria

  • •X-ray stages II and III osteoarthritis
  • •Age between 45 and 75 years.
  • •BMI equal to or less than 35.

Exclusion Criteria

  • •Unwillingness to participate in the study.
  • •Uncompleted evaluation/treatment programs.
  • •Any damage to the knee joint during the study.
  • •Using any treatment other than prescribed therapeutic protocols.

Arms & Interventions

high power laser

Experimental

thirty patients will receive high-power laser and conventional physical therapy three times a week for eight weeks

Intervention: high power laser (Other)

high power laser

Experimental

thirty patients will receive high-power laser and conventional physical therapy three times a week for eight weeks

Intervention: conventional physical therapy (Other)

low level laser

Experimental

thirty patients will receive low level laser and conventional physical therapy three times a week for eight weeks

Intervention: low level laser (Other)

low level laser

Experimental

thirty patients will receive low level laser and conventional physical therapy three times a week for eight weeks

Intervention: conventional physical therapy (Other)

conventional physical therapy

Active Comparator

thirty patients will receive conventional physical therapy three times a week for eight weeks

Intervention: conventional physical therapy (Other)

Outcomes

Primary Outcomes

hyaline cartilage thickness assessment

Time Frame: up to eight weeks

utrasonographe device will be used to assess hyaline cartilage thickness

osteophyte diameter

Time Frame: up to eight weeks

ultrasonographe device will be used to assess the osteophyte diameter

Secondary Outcomes

  • knee range of motion(up to eight weeks)
  • pressure pain threshold(up to eight weeks)
  • knee function(up to eight weeks)
  • pain intensity(up to eight weeks)

Investigators

Sponsor Class
Other
Responsible Party
Principal Investigator
Principal Investigator

Nabil Mahmoud Ismail Abdel-Aal

principle investigator nabil mahmoud ismail abdel-aal

Cairo University

Similar Trials