[DRB]

So what's better - a massage therapist or a chiro?

Depends on which one gives you the happy ending....

 

[SkaredShtles]

Depends on which one gives you the happy ending....

Does the gender of the provider matter?

 

[DRB]

Does the gender of the provider matter?

To me yes..... to some probably not.

 

[brungeman]

thanks for the link, a bit of digging and i found this:



well that's great, and i am not being facetious...my whole point is that these treatments need to subjected to the rigorous scrutiny as other forms of medicine, using the scientific method.

from rob's first post about 'hydromusculature blah blah blah' it seemed like the chiropractic field was littered w/ treatments that had snazzy marketing terms applied and little else. basically a step up from snake oil.

your skepticism, and wanting of a scientific approach is understandable... I am not sure how much in my case the actual treatment with a cold laser helped, but I will tell you that the adjustments made when I could barely walk into the office (and definitely not without help) and then walked out with only minor discomfort was enough to convince me... it was nothing less than miraculous...

 

[brungeman]

So what's better - a massage therapist or a chiro?

They are both valuable...

 

[JRB]

To me yes..... to some probably not.

hahaha

 

[SkaredShtles]

<snip>. it was nothing less than miraculous...

Puhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhraaaaaaaaaaaaze Jeeeezus!

 

[brungeman]

Puhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhraaaaaaaaaaaaze Jeeeezus!

dont you mean Jeeeebus?

 

[johnbryanpeters]

Low-energy lasers (also known as cold lasers) have been promoted as an effective way to produce analgesia and accelerate healing of a variety of clinical conditions.

By definition, low energy laser therapy uses irradiation intensities that induce minimal temperature elevation (not more than 0.1-0.5&#176;C), if any. For practical purposes, this restricts treatment energies to a few J/cm&#178; and laser powers to 50 mW or less.

Despite these constraints, a wide variety of types of lasers, treatment schedules, and techniques have been used. Consequently, apparently conflicting results from studies of low-intensity lasers may not be in conflict, and may represent fundamental, but poorly understood, differences in treatment approaches.

Although the results from large, uncontrolled, open trials of low-energy lasers in inducing wound healing have shown benefit, controlled trials have shown little or no benefit. The analgesic effects of low-energy lasers have been most intensely studied in rheumatoid arthritis. Recent well-designed, controlled studies have found no benefit from low energy lasers in relieving pain in rheumatoid arthritis or other musculoskeletal conditions. Furthermore, although positive effects were found in some earlier studies, it was not clear that the pain relief achieved was large enough to have either clinical significance or to replace conventional therapies.

Published systematic reviews of the evidence have concluded that there is a lack of adequate evidence of effectiveness of cold laser therapy for treatment of chronic wounds (e.g., Schneider and Hailey, 1999; Cullum et al, 2002; Flemming and Cullum, 2002; Samson, et al., 2004; Simon, et al., 2004; Wang, 2004), musculoskeletal disorders (de Bie et al, 1998; Abdulwadud, 2001; Ohio BWC, 2004; Wang, 2004), arthritis (Brosseau et al, 2002a; Brosseau et al., 2002b; Marks and de Palma, 1999; Puett and Griffin, 1994; Wang, 2004), tuberculosis (Vlassov, et al., 2002), tinnitus (Waddell & Canter, 2002), and pain (Crawford et al, 2002; Gross et al, 2002; van der Heijden et al, 2002; Binder, 2002; Crawford, 2002; Speed and Hazleman, 2002). Systematic evidence reviews have also concluded that low-energy laser therapy (e.g., Microlight 830, Microlight Corporation of America, Missouri City, TX) is ineffective in treating carpal tunnel syndrome (Gerritsen et al, 2002; O'Connor et al, 2003; Ohio BWC, 2004; Wang, 2004).

A recent study (Hirschl et al, 2004) evaluated the effectiveness of low-level laser therapy in patients with primary Raynaud's phenomenon (n = 48). Laser and sham therapy each were applied 5 days a week for 3 weeks. The authors found that low-level laser therapy reduced the frequency and severity of Raynaud attacks. The findings of this study are interesting but need to be validated by further investigation with more patients and follow-up.

Kreisler et al (2004) assessed the effect of low-level laser application on post-operative pain after endodontic surgery in a double-blind, randomized clinical study. Fifty-two healthy adults undergoing endodontic surgery were included into the study. After suturing, 26 patients had the operation site treated with an 809 nm-GaAlAs-laser at a power output of 50 mW and an irradiation time of 150 s. Laser treatment was simulated in another 26 patients. Patients were instructed to evaluate their post-operative pain on 7 days following surgery by means of a visual analogue scale. The results revealed that the pain level in the laser-treated group was lower than in the placebo group throughout the 7 day follow-up period. The differences, however, were significant only on the first post-operative day. The authors stated that low-level laser therapy can be beneficial for the reduction of post-operative pain. However, its clinical effectiveness and applicability with regard to endodontic surgery need further investigation, especially in terms of the optimal energy dosage and the number of laser treatments needed after surgery.

 

[brungeman]

Low-energy lasers (also known as cold lasers) have been promoted as an effective way to produce analgesia and accelerate healing of a variety of clinical conditions.

By definition, low energy laser therapy uses irradiation intensities that induce minimal temperature elevation (not more than 0.1-0.5°C), if any. For practical purposes, this restricts treatment energies to a few J/cm² and laser powers to 50 mW or less.

Despite these constraints, a wide variety of types of lasers, treatment schedules, and techniques have been used. Consequently, apparently conflicting results from studies of low-intensity lasers may not be in conflict, and may represent fundamental, but poorly understood, differences in treatment approaches.

Although the results from large, uncontrolled, open trials of low-energy lasers in inducing wound healing have shown benefit, controlled trials have shown little or no benefit. The analgesic effects of low-energy lasers have been most intensely studied in rheumatoid arthritis. Recent well-designed, controlled studies have found no benefit from low energy lasers in relieving pain in rheumatoid arthritis or other musculoskeletal conditions. Furthermore, although positive effects were found in some earlier studies, it was not clear that the pain relief achieved was large enough to have either clinical significance or to replace conventional therapies.

Published systematic reviews of the evidence have concluded that there is a lack of adequate evidence of effectiveness of cold laser therapy for treatment of chronic wounds (e.g., Schneider and Hailey, 1999; Cullum et al, 2002; Flemming and Cullum, 2002; Samson, et al., 2004; Simon, et al., 2004; Wang, 2004), musculoskeletal disorders (de Bie et al, 1998; Abdulwadud, 2001; Ohio BWC, 2004; Wang, 2004), arthritis (Brosseau et al, 2002a; Brosseau et al., 2002b; Marks and de Palma, 1999; Puett and Griffin, 1994; Wang, 2004), tuberculosis (Vlassov, et al., 2002), tinnitus (Waddell & Canter, 2002), and pain (Crawford et al, 2002; Gross et al, 2002; van der Heijden et al, 2002; Binder, 2002; Crawford, 2002; Speed and Hazleman, 2002). Systematic evidence reviews have also concluded that low-energy laser therapy (e.g., Microlight 830, Microlight Corporation of America, Missouri City, TX) is ineffective in treating carpal tunnel syndrome (Gerritsen et al, 2002; O'Connor et al, 2003; Ohio BWC, 2004; Wang, 2004).

A recent study (Hirschl et al, 2004) evaluated the effectiveness of low-level laser therapy in patients with primary Raynaud's phenomenon (n = 48). Laser and sham therapy each were applied 5 days a week for 3 weeks. The authors found that low-level laser therapy reduced the frequency and severity of Raynaud attacks. The findings of this study are interesting but need to be validated by further investigation with more patients and follow-up.

Kreisler et al (2004) assessed the effect of low-level laser application on post-operative pain after endodontic surgery in a double-blind, randomized clinical study. Fifty-two healthy adults undergoing endodontic surgery were included into the study. After suturing, 26 patients had the operation site treated with an 809 nm-GaAlAs-laser at a power output of 50 mW and an irradiation time of 150 s. Laser treatment was simulated in another 26 patients. Patients were instructed to evaluate their post-operative pain on 7 days following surgery by means of a visual analogue scale. The results revealed that the pain level in the laser-treated group was lower than in the placebo group throughout the 7 day follow-up period. The differences, however, were significant only on the first post-operative day. The authors stated that low-level laser therapy can be beneficial for the reduction of post-operative pain. However, its clinical effectiveness and applicability with regard to endodontic surgery need further investigation, especially in terms of the optimal energy dosage and the number of laser treatments needed after surgery.

thats what I said!!!

 

[I Are Baboon]

By definition, low energy laser therapy uses irradiation intensities that induce minimal temperature elevation (not more than 0.1-0.5°C), if any. For practical purposes, this restricts treatment energies to a few J/cm² and laser powers to 50 mW or less.

I could not disagree more.

 

[johnbryanpeters]

I could not disagree more.

C'mon, try harder. Put a few Joules into it.

 

[Toshi]

why should this field be treated any differently from other forms treatment, in regards to regulation and scientific scrutiny?

\well that's great, and i am not being facetious...my whole point is that these treatments need to subjected to the rigorous scrutiny as other forms of medicine, using the scientific method.

from rob's first post about 'hydromusculature blah blah blah' it seemed like the chiropractic field was littered w/ treatments that had snazzy marketing terms applied and little else. basically a step up from snake oil.

x 2

as for "cold laser" therapy the evidence exists, and the results are not surprising. http://laser-therapy.us/cold laser low level laser/Musculoskeletal_Myofascial[1].pdf

from the above (LLLT is "cold laser" aka low level laser therapy)

In the double-blind trials, the mean difference in pain between LLLT and
placebo was 0.3% (S.E.(d) 4.6%, confidence limits -10.3-10.9%). In the insufficiently
blinded trials the mean difference in pain was 9.5% (S.E.(d) 4.5%, confidence limits -2.9-
21.8%). We conclude that LLLT has no effect on pain in musculoskeletal syndromes.

Subjects rated the placebo treatment significantly more beneficial than LLLT (p = .04). [...] The results indicate no beneficial effect of LLLT for myofascial pain.