No open license is recorded for this paper. Reuse terms are set by the publisher.
Abstract
Background
Breast cancer related lymphedema (BCRL) is a prevalent complication secondary to cancer treatments which significantly impacts the physical and psychological health of breast cancer survivors. Previous research shows increasing use of low level laser therapy (LLLT), now commonly referred to as photobiomodulation (PBM) therapy, for BCRL. This systematic review evaluated the effectiveness of LLLT (PBM) in the management of BCRL.
Methods
Clinical trials were searched in PubMed, AMED, Web of Science, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure up to November 2016. Two reviewers independently assessed the methodological quality and adequacy of LLLT (PBM) in these clinical trials. Primary outcome measures were limb circumference/volume, and secondary outcomes included pain intensity and range of motion. Because data were clinically heterogeneous, best evidence synthesis was performed.
Results
Eleven clinical trials were identified, of which seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were chosen for analysis. Overall, the methodological quality of included RCTs was high, whereas the reporting of treatment parameters was poor. Results indicated that there is strong evidence (three high quality trials) showing LLLT (PBM) was more effective than sham treatment for limb circumference/volume reduction at a short-term follow-up. There is moderate evidence (one high quality trial) indicating that LLLT (PBM) was more effective than sham laser for short-term pain relief, and limited evidence (one low quality trial) that LLLT (PBM) was more effective than no treatment for decreasing limb swelling at short-term follow-up.
Conclusions
Based upon the current systematic review, LLLT (PBM) may be considered an effective treatment approach for women with BCRL. Due to the limited numbers of published trials available, there is a clear need for well-designed high-quality trials in this area. The optimal treatment parameters for clinical application have yet to be elucidated.
Gaitero MVC et al., 2025·Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia
This study aimed to investigate the effect of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) on nipple trauma and pain during breastfeeding through a systematic review with a meta-analysis of selected studies. A thorough search was conducted on March 22, 2022, using the databases PubMed, SciELO, LILACS, PEDro, CINAHL, EMBASE, ScienceDirect, Scopus, Google Scholar, MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, Clinical Trials, Web of Science, TRIP, DARE, and ProQuest. The search terms included various combinations of low-level laser therapy, nipple pain, nipple trauma, and breastfeeding. Out of 107 articles identified, only three controlled and randomized clinical trials was included. The extracted data encompassed breast and trauma characteristics, treatment types, outcomes (pain and healing process), evaluation tools, LLLT usage, laser brand, and parameters. Data extraction was performed using RAYYAN for systematic reviews. The risk of bias in the studies was evaluated. Pain was measured using the visual analog scale (VAS). The included studies did not use validated tools for assessing physical conditions. All studies employed LLLT with a 660-nm wavelength, though there were variations in equipment power, energy dose, and application methods. The meta-analysis revealed an average difference of -0.60 points (95% CI: -1.52 to 0.31) in the VAS pain scores between the LLLT and control groups. No heterogeneity was observed among the studies (I2=0%), indicating no significant difference in pain relief between LLLT (red light) and control groups. LLLT may offer a promising option for managing breastfeeding-related complications, though further research is required.
de Holanda Araujo AMP et al., 2020·Lasers in medical science
This study aimed to evaluate the effect of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) on immediate postpartum pain relief during cesarean section. A randomized, parallel controlled trial was carried out. In total, 88 women with immediate postpartum were divided into 4 groups: control group (n = 22), placebo group (n = 22), experimental group I (n = 22, dose of 4 J/cm2), and experimental group II (n = 22, dose of 2 J/cm2). The pain measured by Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), algometry, and Global Change Perception Scale (GCPS) was assessed at 12, 20-24, and 44-48 h postpartum. Two LLLT sessions were performed at 12 and 24 h postpartum. A significant interaction was observed between time versus group for NRS F (2.40) = 36.80, p < 0.001 and algometry F (1.70) = 27.18, p < 0.001. GCPS revealed a significant difference between the groups during second (p = 0.04) and third evaluation (p = 0.04). The NRS and algometry presented a large effect size for the experimental groups. LLLT is an efficient method to reduce pain and enhance the GCP in postcesarean section. No significant clinical differences were found between the laser doses.
Heiskanen V et al., 2018·Photochem Photobiol Sci·Free full text on PubMed Central
Photobiomodulation (PBM) is a treatment method based on research findings showing that irradiation with certain wavelengths of red or near-infrared light has been shown to produce a range of physiological effects in cells, tissues, animals and humans. Scientific research into PBM was initially started in the late 1960s by utilizing the newly invented (1960) lasers, and the therapy rapidly became known as "low-level laser therapy". It was mainly used for wound healing and reduction of pain and inflammation. Despite other light sources being available during the first 40 years of PBM research, lasers remained by far the most commonly employed device, and in fact, some authors insisted that lasers were essential to the therapeutic benefit. Collimated, coherent, highly monochromatic beams with the possibility of high power densities were considered preferable. However in recent years, non-coherent light sources such as light-emitting diodes (LEDs) and broad-band lamps have become common. Advantages of LEDs include no laser safety considerations, ease of home use, ability to irradiate a large area of tissue at once, possibility of wearable devices, and much lower cost per mW. LED photobiomodulation is here to stay.
Low-level light therapy (LLLT) is a recent addition to the pantheon of light-based therapeutic interventions. The absorption of red/near-infrared light energy, a process termed "photobiomodulation," enhances mitochondrial ATP production, cell signaling, and growth factor synthesis, and attenuates oxidative stress. Photobiomodulation is now highly commercialized with devices marketed directly to the consumer. In the gray area between the commercial and therapeutic sectors, harnessing the clinical potential in reproducible and scientifically measurable ways remains challenging. The aim of this article was to summarize the clinical evidence for photobiomodulation and discuss the regulatory framework for this therapy. A review of the clinical literature pertaining to the use of LLLT for skin rejuvenation (facial rhytids and dyschromias), acne vulgaris, wound healing, body contouring, and androgenic alopecia was performed. A reasonable body of clinical trial evidence exists to support the role of low-energy red/near-infrared light as a safe and effective method of skin rejuvenation, treatment of acne vulgaris and alopecia, and, especially, body contouring. Methodologic flaws, small patient cohorts, and industry funding mean there is ample scope to improve the quality of evidence. It remains unclear if light-emitting diode sources induce physiologic effects of compararable nature and magnitude to those of the laser-based systems used in most of the higher-quality studies. LLLT is here to stay. However, its ubiquity and commercial success have outpaced empirical approaches on which solid clinical evidence is established. Thus, the challenge is to prove its therapeutic utility in retrospect. Well-designed, adequately powered, independent clinical trials will help us answer some of the unresolved questions and enable the potential of this therapy to be realized.
Therapeutics › Emerging Therapies › Light Therapy · General Gynecology › Breast Health › Breast Cancer Risk
G David Baxter, Lizhou Liu, Simone Petrich, Angela Spontelli Gisselman, Cathy Chapple, Juanita J Anders, Steve Tumilty
L Liu, S Petrich, A Gisselman, Catherine Chapple, C Chapple, J Anders, Stephen Tumilty, Steven Tumilty, S Tumilty
PMID 29216916 29216916 DOI 10.1186/s12885-017-3852-x 10.1186/s12885-017-3852-x Baxter et al. 2017, Baxter 2017