Şebnem Koldaş Doğan

The Effectiveness of Portable Audio Biofeedback Device in Myofascial Pain Syndrome in Neck and Upper Trapezius Muscles

Abstract Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of a portable audio biofeedback device in the treatment of myofascial pain syndrome [MPS]. Methods: Patients referred to the clinic with MPS involving the upper neck and trapezius who were were randomly assigned into two groups. Group 1 was to use a portable audio biofeedback device for 30 min twice a day in addition to completing a home based exercise program. Group 2 received only the home-based exercise program. The home-based exercise program was comprised of neck isometric-isotonic, back extensor stretching and posture exercises five times a week, performing each exercise once a day with 15 repetitions for 4 weeks. Measurements were taken before and after the treatment. The severity of the pain was measured by visual analog scale. The number of trigger points, pressure pain threshold, cervical joint range of motion and head-shoulder angles were also recorded. Disability was assessed by the Neck Pain Disability Scale. Results: About 90 patients with MPS were recruited and 60 patients [45 females, 15 males, 30 patients per treatment group] completed the study. All parameters were improved in both groups [p < 0.05] except cervical range of motion values [p > 0.05] after the treatment. In Group 1, more improvements were detected in head angles compared to Group 2 and the differences were statistically significant [p = 0.017]. There were statistically significant differences between the groups in head angles, while no significant differences were detected in the visual analog scale, number of trigger points, pressure pain threshold, cervical range of motion, shoulder angle or Neck Pain Disability Scale scores [p > 0.05] after the treatment. Conclusion: Exercise therapy seems to be effective in the treatment of MPS; however, portable audio biofeedback treatment does not provide any additive effect except correcting head angle in the treatment of MPS.

The effects of two different low level laser therapies in the treatment of patients with chronic low back pain: A double-blinded randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of two different laser therapy regimens on pain, lumbar range of motions (ROM) and functional capacity in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP). METHODS Forty nine patients with CLBP were randomly assigned into two groups. Group 1 (n= 20) received hot-pack + laser therapy 1 (wavelength of 850 nm Gallium-Aluminum-Arsenide (Ga-Al-As) laser); group 2 (n= 29) received hot-pack + laser therapy 2 (wavelength of 650 nm Helyum-Neon (He-Ne), 785 ve 980 nm Gal-Al-As combined plaque laser) for 15 sessions. Pain severity, patients and physicians global assessments were evaluated with visual analogue scale (VAS). Modified Schober test, right and left lateral flexion measurements were done. Modified Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (MODQ) was used for evaluation of functional disability. Measurements were done before and after the treatment. RESULTS After treatment there were statistically significant improvements in pain severity, patients and physicians global assessment, ROM and MODQ scores in both groups (P< 0.05). After the treatment there were statistically significant differences between the groups in lateral flexion measurements and MODQ scores (P< 0.05) except in pain severity, Modified Schober test, patients and physicians global assessments (P> 0.05) in favor of those patients who received combined plaque laser therapy (group 2). CONCLUSION Laser therapy applied with combined He-Ne and Ga-Al-As provides more improvements in lateral flexion measurements and disability of the patients, however no superiority of the two different laser devices to one another were detected on pain severity.

Erratum to: Is low-level laser therapy effective in acute or chronic low back pain?

The sentence; “Pain was evaluated by visual analog scale (VAS) and Likert scale.” In the Abstract should be replaced by; “Pain was evaluated by visual analog scale (VAS).” The second sentence; “Patients were treated for 4 min at each point, producing energy of approximately 40 J/cm2 using a 850 nm gallium-aluminum-arsenide laser” in the Materials and methods is incomplete. The correct sentence is; “Patients were treated for 4 min at each side, producing total energy of approximately 40 J (43.2 J) for both sides of the paraspinal tissues using a 850 nm gallium-aluminumarsenide laser.”