Comparison of the Efficacy of High Intensity Laser Therapy and Low Level Laser Therapy in the Carpal Tunnel Syndrome

Comparison of the Efficacy of High Intensity Laser Therapy and Low Level Laser Therapy in the Carpal Tunnel Syndrome

Carpal tunnel syndrome is the most common entrapment neuropathy and is frequently encountered in clinical practice. Although there is no standard protocol for its treatment, conservative treatment methods are preferred. In our study, we aimed to clinically compare the efficacy of high and low intensity laser treatments in patients with carpal tunnel syndrome. By using methods such as electromyography and ultrasound, we aimed to provide a more objective evaluation

Our study was designed as a prospective, randomised, controlled, single-centre trial. A total of 63 patients aged 18-65 years with electrophysiologically diagnosed mild to moderate carpal tunnel syndrome and 114 hands were included in the study. Patients were divided into 3 groups. Patients in all three groups wore a neutral wrist splint of appropriate size. The second group included patients who additionally received low level laser therapy (LLLT), and the third group included patients who additionally received high intensity laser therapy (HILT). All groups underwent clinical, electrophysiological, and ultrasonographic examinations at the beginning of the treatment, at 1st month, and at 3rd month after the treatment.

Inclusion Criteria:

1. Age between 18 to 65 years
2. Mild CTS (sensory conduction velocity at the second finger wrist < 41.26 m/sec, motor distal latency < 3.60 msec) or Moderate CTS (sensory conduction velocity at the second finger wrist < 41.26 m/sec and motor distal latency > 3.60 msec) according to the electrophysiological data were included in the study.

Exclusion Criteria:

1. Patients with local (osteophytes, ganglion cysts, lipomas, muscle and tendon abnormalities, etc.) and systemic (diabetes mellitus, acromegaly, hypothyroidism, pregnancy, etc.) diseases causing symptoms were included in the study.) causing CTS,
2. Patients who underwent surgical treatment for CTS
3. Patients who received injections for CTS in the last 6 months
4. Patients diagnosed with severe CTS on EMG (SAP not obtained in sensory conduction studies and/or CMAP < 5 mV in motor conduction studies)