Home > Journals > Medicina dello Sport > Past Issues > Medicina dello Sport 2002 March;55(1) > Medicina dello Sport 2002 March;55(1):43-50

CURRENT ISSUE
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Reprints

MEDICINA DELLO SPORT

A Journal on Sports Medicine


Official Journal of the Italian Sports Medicine Federation
Indexed/Abstracted in: BIOSIS Previews, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch), Scopus
Impact Factor 0,163


eTOC

 

THERAPEUTICAL SECTION  


Medicina dello Sport 2002 March;55(1):43-50

language: Italian

Efficacy of Low Level Laser Therapy (LLLT): comparison between randomized double blind clinical trials

Fortuna D. 1, Zati A. 2, Mondardini P. 3, Ronconi L. 4, Paolini C. 5, Billotta T. W. 2, Masotti L. 6

1 Dipartimento Cardio Toracico, Università degli Studi - Pisa;
2 Istituti Ortopedici Rizzoli - Bologna;
3 Istituto di Medicina dello Sport, FSMI - CONI;
4 El. En. Group - Calenzano Firenze;
5 Deka Mela - El. En. Group - Calenzano Firenze;
6 Dipartimento Elettronica e Telecomunicazioni, Università degli Studi - Firenze


PDF  


Background. There are several studies in the literature regarding the clinical efficacy of Low Level Laser Therapy (LLLT), however the very few randomized, double blind clinical trials available present contrasting views. The purpose of this trial is to understand whether the efficacy of inefficacy of laser can be correlated to the type and management of the equipment used. Our intention has not been to evaluate the quality of the bibliographical studies and therefore we have not proceeded with methanalytical techniques.
Methods. We have only selected randomized, double blind clinical trials in which diode lasers have been used. The data contained in the articles were recorded on an electronic sheet and then analyzed. In order to partially integrate the technical data referred by the authors, in some cases it was necessary to contact directly the authors and manufacturers. Two groups were then identified: “Effective LLLT” and “Ineffective LLLT”, after which we compared the various parameters and processed the statistical analysis.
Results. The comparison between the 2 groups, “Effective LLLT” and “Ineffective LLLT”, revealed a highly significant difference in relation to the peak power density (W/cm2) and a significant difference with regard to the fluence (J/cm2).
Conclusions. In conclusion, this trial shows that there is a greater therapeutic efficacy in the case of laser equipment operating with pulses rather than with continuous emission, and that the therapeutic effect is correlated to the exceeding of specific dosimetric thresholds that have been identified.

top of page

Publication History

Cite this article as

Corresponding author e-mail