Clinical Studies

A recent report of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) has evalu­ated eleven clinical studies on LLLT for wound healing [12]. Among them, nine were rated poor in quality, while one was rated fair, and only was rated to be of good quality. This higher-quality study did not show a higher probability of complete healing at six weeks with the addition of laser treatment, nor did it show benefit for any of the other reported out­comes [13]. This reports concluded that the available data suggested that the addition of laser therapy did not improve wound healing, as the vast majority of comparisons in these studies did not report any group differences in the relevant outcomes.

The authors have concluded that these studies failed to show unequivocal evidence to substantiate the decision for trials with LLLT in a large number of patients. In fact, there were no differences between the results of these experiments and clinical studies.

In conclusion, future studies should be well-controlled investigations with rational selec­tion of lasers and treatment parameters. In the absence of such studies, the literature does not appear to support widespread use of LLLT in wound healing at this time [14]. The LLLT of wounds may increase certain aspects of healing in the early stages, but not to such a degree as to be clinically undisputable [15].

Updated: September 26, 2015 — 7:59 pm