4.6 Article

Effects of multiwavelength photobiomodulation for the treatment of traumatic soft tissue injuries associated with bone fractures: A double-blind, randomized controlled clinical trial

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOPHOTONICS
卷 16, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/jbio.202200299

关键词

bone fracture; multiwavelength LED; non-pharmaceutical pain control; photobiomodulation; randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of multiwavelength photobiomodulation (MPBM) in healing soft tissue injuries associated with tibial and/or ankle fractures. MPBM showed improvement in wound healing, daily pain scores, and reduced infection occurrence at the surgical pin sites. MPBM group also had faster wound resolution time. Subgroup analysis indicated greater improvement in less severe patients.
This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of multiwavelength photobiomodulation (MPBM) in healing soft tissue injuries associated with tibial and/or ankle fractures. Participants were randomized into the MPBM or control group. Primary outcome was wound healing, measured by the Bates-Jensen scale. Assessments were performed daily. Twenty-seven hospitalized adults were included. MPBM showed an improvement in the daily mean Bates-Jensen scale (MPBM 32.1 vs. control 34.2; p = 0.029), daily mean pain score change (MPBM 0.5 vs. control 0.2; p = 0.04) and occurrence of infection at the site of the external fixator pins (MPBM 15.3% vs. control 57.1%; p = 0.02). MPBM group also showed faster-wound resolution (MPBM 13.1 vs. control 23.1 days). Subgroup analysis showed improvement in the MPBM group among less severe patients on the Bates-Jensen scale (MPBM 27.4 vs. control 34.7; p = 0.0081) and mean time for wound resolution (MPBM 7.0 vs. control 14.6 days; p = 0.03). MPBM appears safe and effective in reducing wound resolution time, infection in the surgical pin sites, reported pain and time before definitive surgery.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据