Low-Level Laser Therapy Versus Mirror Therapy for Post-Stroke Complex Regional Pain Syndrome Type I: A Randomised Controlled Trial
De SK, Mukherjee U, Majumdar S
Physiotherapy research international : the journal for researchers and clinicians in physical therapy · 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
- Ensayo controlado aleatorizado (indexado por PubMed)
- Estudiado en
- Personas
- Resultado principal
- Marcadores de salud y funcionamiento
Quién lo pagó
- Financiación
- Financiación no declarada
Publicación
- Publicado
- 2026-09-17 · Physiother Res Int · vol. 31 · número 4 · pág. e70349
- Editorial
- Wiley
- Citado
- 0 citas · más que el 77% de estudios similares · 0.0× el promedio de su campo
- Referencias
- 14 trabajos
- Acceso
- Lectura gratuita
- Áreas de investigación
- Pain Management and Treatment · Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery · Laser Applications in Dentistry and Medicine
- Palabras clave
- low-level laser therapy, mirror therapy, complex regional pain syndrome type I, post-stroke pain, stroke rehabilitation, sensorimotor recovery, pain intensity, kinesiotherapy, upper limb
- MeSH
- humans, reflex sympathetic dystrophy, pain measurement, treatment outcome, adult, aged, middle aged, female, male, stroke, low-level light therapy, stroke rehabilitation, mirror movement therapy
3 autores
- Saumen Kumar De🇮🇳Medical College and Hospital, Kolkata
- Ushnish Mukherjee🇮🇳 · autor de correspondenciaInstitute of Post Graduate Medical Education and Research
- Saswato Majumdar
Resumen
El texto original del estudio, en el idioma en que se publicó.
Background
Complex Regional Pain Syndrome type 1 (CRPS-I) following stroke has been managed by several conservative methods to date. But the efficacy of Low-level laser therapy (LLLT) was never compared with the Mirror therapy (MT) in these cases.
Aim and objective
To compare the efficacy of LLLT versus MT in post-stroke CRPS-I.
Material and methods
This comparative interventional study (Trial registration number: CTRI/2025/05/086943) was initially conducted with 47 patients with post-stroke CRPS-I after considering the inclusion and exclusion criteria. After obtaining informed consent, they were randomly divided into two groups. Along with kinesiotherapy in both the groups, LLLT was administered for Group 1 and MT for Group 2. Intensity of pain was measured by the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), and the Fugl-Meyer Assessment-Upper Extremity (FMA-UE) was used for assessing sensorimotor recovery. All the variables were measured at the baseline, 4 weeks/visit 2, 8 weeks/visit 3 and 12 weeks/visit 4. A total of 44 cases (22 in each group) were analysed, as there were 3 dropouts on subsequent follow-ups.
Results
Intra-group analysis showed significant improvement in both the parameters during all the follow-ups (p adj = 0.039) and sensorimotor recovery (Padj = 0.022), but subsequent follow-up visits showed no significant difference between the groups (Padj > 0.05).
Conclusion
LLLT demonstrated an early between-group advantage over MT at 4 weeks in pain reduction and sensorimotor recovery in post-stroke CRPS-I. However, in the long run, no overall between-group superiority was noted, as both groups achieved comparable outcomes.
Trial registration
Institutional Scientific and Ethics committee (Reg. No: ECINEW/INST/2023/1862) approval no: NRSMC/IEC/149/2024.Trial Reg. no of this study under Clinical Trials Registry-India: CTRI/2025/05/086943.
Resumen vía Europe PMC. Los derechos de autor siguen siendo de los autores o la editorial.
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.