Effectiveness of photobiomodulation for pain management and wound healing in the immediate postoperative period after cesarean section: A systematic review
Boaviagem A, Nóbrega Júnior JC, da Silva RCB, Lemos A
Complementary therapies in medicine · 0 citas
Etiquetas de revisión
Financiación no declaradaDatos neutrales que nuestra revisión registró sobre cómo se hizo este estudio. Describen el método, nunca si nos gusta el resultado.
Cómo se estudió
- Diseño
- Revisión sistemática (indexado por PubMed)
- Estudiado en
- Personas
- Resultado principal
- Marcadores de salud y funcionamiento
Quién lo pagó
- Financiación
- Financiación no declarada
Publicación
- Publicado
- 2026-07-15 · Complement Ther Med · vol. 101 · pág. 103403
- Editorial
- Elsevier BV
- Citado
- 1 cita · más que el 88% de estudios similares · 2.1× el promedio de su campo
- Referencias
- 9 trabajos
- Acceso
- Acceso abierto (revista) · CC-BY
- Áreas de investigación
- Laser Applications in Dentistry and Medicine · Anesthesia and Pain Management · Dermatologic Treatments and Research
- Palabras clave
- low-level laser therapy, cesarean section, postoperative pain, wound healing, analgesic use, adjuvant analgesia, laser dosimetry, postoperative complications
- MeSH
- humans, cesarean section, wound healing, pregnancy, female, randomized controlled trials as topic, pain management, low-level light therapy, postoperative pain
4 autores
- Alessandra Boaviagem🇧🇷Universidade Federal de Pernambuco
- Jose Carlos Nóbrega Júnior🇧🇷 · autor de correspondenciaUniversidade Federal de Pernambuco
- Rita de Cassia Barros da Silva🇧🇷Universidade Federal de Pernambuco
- Andréa Lemos🇧🇷Universidade Federal de Pernambuco
Resumen
El texto original del estudio, en el idioma en que se publicó.
Background
Photobiomodulation with low-level laser therapy has been investigated as an adjunctive strategy for postoperative pain and wound healing after cesarean section, but the available trials use heterogeneous protocols and outcomes.
Objective
To evaluate the effects of low-level laser therapy, compared with sham treatment or usual care, on postoperative pain, wound healing, analgesic use, global perception of change, and adverse-event reporting after cesarean section.
Methods
This systematic review followed a protocol registered in PROSPERO (CRD420251077815) and was conducted and reported according to PRISMA 2020 guidance. Electronic databases were searched from inception through June 4, 2025, without language or date restrictions. Randomized and quasi-randomized trials were eligible, although all included studies were randomized controlled trials.
Results
Four randomized controlled trials involving 473 women were included (Poursalehan et al., 2018, n = 80; de Holanda Araújo et al., 2019, n = 88; Saffarieh et al., 2020, n = 65; Kahkhaie et al., 2023, n = 240). A random-effects meta-analysis was considered for pain outcomes but was not performed because of substantial clinical and methodological heterogeneity in laser parameters, comparators, follow-up times, outcome scales, and reporting of effect estimates. Individual studies reported reductions in pain scores or analgesic use in some comparisons, but findings were not sufficiently consistent or reproducible across protocols. Wound-healing outcomes were reported by a limited subset of studies using different indicators. The certainty of evidence was rated low to very low, mainly because of risk of bias, inconsistency, imprecision, and indirectness.
Conclusions
The available evidence is insufficient to support routine clinical use of low-level laser therapy after cesarean section. Photobiomodulation should be considered an experimental or insufficiently validated adjunct in this context until adequately designed trials establish standardized dosimetry, clinically meaningful outcomes, and reproducible effects.
Resumen vía Europe PMC. Los derechos de autor siguen siendo de los autores o la editorial (CC BY).
Confianza de la comunidad
Cargando…
¿Cuánto confías en los hallazgos de este estudio?
Comentarios
¿Algo está mal aquí?
Señala este estudio si su información, etiquetas o financiación parecen incorrectas. Un editor revisa cada señalamiento.
Información educativa sobre investigación publicada. No es consejo médico ni una recomendación para empezar o dejar nada.