|
N_Oo_B
Mar 21, 2009, 4:15 AM
Post #1 of 80
(4763 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 21, 2007
Posts: 463
|
anybody else undergone this to help speed recovery?
|
|
|
|
|
ubu
Mar 21, 2009, 1:34 PM
Post #2 of 80
(4708 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 17, 2008
Posts: 1485
|
This has scam written all over it.
Acupuncture is questionable enough. Acupuncture with lasers? Um, yeah...
|
|
|
|
|
altelis
Mar 21, 2009, 1:54 PM
Post #3 of 80
(4700 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 2168
|
ubu wrote: This has scam written all over it. Acupuncture is questionable enough. Acupuncture with lasers? Um, yeah...
How is acupuncture questionable?
|
|
|
|
|
ubu
Mar 21, 2009, 2:18 PM
Post #4 of 80
(4695 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 17, 2008
Posts: 1485
|
Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest acupuncture is a scam per se. But given the limited and sometimes contradictory clinical study results for acupuncture, the idea of trying an even *less* well understood method that claims to work by the same (poorly defined) mechanisms seems like quackery to me.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Mar 21, 2009, 2:53 PM
Post #5 of 80
(4681 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
altelis wrote: ubu wrote: This has scam written all over it. Acupuncture is questionable enough. Acupuncture with lasers? Um, yeah... How is acupuncture questionable?
It has no valid theoretical foundation, and controlled tests have failed to prove its effectiveness.
Jay
(This post was edited by jt512 on Mar 21, 2009, 2:54 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
N_Oo_B
Mar 21, 2009, 3:06 PM
Post #6 of 80
(4678 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 21, 2007
Posts: 463
|
I'm not asking to be flamed because you don't know enough about it. I'm asking if anybody here has done this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photobiomodulation
^
The wiki writeup on Photobiomodulation.
In reply to: Observed biological and physiological effects include changes in cell membrane permeability, up-regulation and down-regulation of adenosine triphosphate and nitric oxide.
Chasing that information down we find Adenosine Triphosphate is closely related to cell devision.
|
|
|
|
|
ubu
Mar 21, 2009, 3:11 PM
Post #7 of 80
(4672 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 17, 2008
Posts: 1485
|
N_Oo_B wrote: I'm not asking to be flamed because you don't know enough about it. I'm asking if anybody here has done this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photobiomodulation ^ The wiki writeup on Photobiomodulation. In reply to: Observed biological and physiological effects include changes in cell membrane permeability, up-regulation and down-regulation of adenosine triphosphate and nitric oxide. Chasing that information down we find Adenosine Triphosphate is closely related to cell devision.
This has the sound of typical alternative medicine speak: here are some known physiological / biological facts, and if we string them together we can create the illusion that we know the mechanism of action without actually doing the hard work of putting together a cogent hypothesis, and without really understanding or evaluating anything.
Just sayin'.
|
|
|
|
|
altelis
Mar 21, 2009, 3:43 PM
Post #8 of 80
(4662 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 2168
|
jt512 wrote: altelis wrote: ubu wrote: This has scam written all over it. Acupuncture is questionable enough. Acupuncture with lasers? Um, yeah... How is acupuncture questionable? It has no valid theoretical foundation, and controlled tests have failed to prove its effectiveness. Actually, there are some very good studies demonstrating that acupuncture is the most effective treatment for IBS. Granted this is a very small specific subset of the population, but those are effective uses of acupuncture. Jay |
|
|
|
|
aerili
Mar 21, 2009, 7:19 PM
Post #9 of 80
(4630 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 13, 2006
Posts: 1166
|
A chiro I went to years ago used it on me for an elbow injury (and I think he used it on me for the foot injuries I had too...can't remember).
Unfortunately I cannot say I felt the laser had any real effect whatsoever. Then again, no treatment really seemed to help my elbow: not chiro, not PT, not NSAIDs. Only time resolved it.
ubu wrote: This has the sound of typical alternative medicine speak: here are some known physiological / biological facts, and if we string them together we can create the illusion that we know the mechanism of action without actually doing the hard work of putting together a cogent hypothesis, and without really understanding or evaluating anything. Just sayin'.
Well said. This is exactly the case with a lot of healthcare, fitness, and nutrition quackery. They weave in just enough legitimate science to make it sound convincing.
|
|
|
|
|
xtrmecat
Mar 21, 2009, 8:45 PM
Post #10 of 80
(4598 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 1, 2004
Posts: 548
|
I also have been through this therapy. I cannot say yes or no, whether it had any affect. I do know it did not hurt me, with the exception of cost, which I was not directly responsible for.
If asked to pay for it next time, no way, no how. The exercises and time were the greatest benefit. Shoulder joint issue.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
angry
Mar 22, 2009, 12:15 AM
Post #11 of 80
(4564 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2003
Posts: 8405
|
N_Oo_B wrote: I'm not asking to be flamed because you don't know enough about it. I'm asking if anybody here has done this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photobiomodulation ^ The wiki writeup on Photobiomodulation. In reply to: Observed biological and physiological effects include changes in cell membrane permeability, up-regulation and down-regulation of adenosine triphosphate and nitric oxide. Chasing that information down we find Adenosine Triphosphate is closely related to cell devision.
It sounds like you are only listening to what you want to hear.
|
|
|
|
|
N_Oo_B
Mar 22, 2009, 12:46 AM
Post #12 of 80
(4551 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 21, 2007
Posts: 463
|
Well I see the corrilation, but I'm open to new ideas. I'm just hoping to hear in a manor that doesn't sound like it's coming from a 12 year old. With some patience I got some replies worth reading.
|
|
|
|
|
onceahardman
Mar 22, 2009, 1:00 AM
Post #13 of 80
(4537 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2007
Posts: 2493
|
Aside from my own practice, I do some per diem work at a local rehab center. We have a cold laser machine.
I'm highly skeptical, but another PT who I respect swears by it. There is some fair research showing some efficacy for things like chronic pain. As far as things like increased membrane permeability, well, exercise does that too, and probably better, and has a lot more supporting research.
So, I remain skeptical, but I'd try it on someone who couldn't move or exercise actively.
|
|
|
|
|
shoo
Mar 22, 2009, 1:08 AM
Post #14 of 80
(4531 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 22, 2006
Posts: 1501
|
As a researcher in health economics, part of my job is to rip apart clinical studies and determine whether the claims the authors make can actually be backed up by the study methodology and data. This tends to be especially true of psuedo-scientific herbal, electronic, magnetic, and home remedies. I wouldn't be surprised if this cold laser stuff fell into the same category.
Part of the problem with acupuncture studies (and yes, I've read through a few), is that you can't effectively blind the patient or the clinicians, and therefore cannot effectively test against a placebo. The only honest attempt I've ever seen to do so is using "sham acupuncture," or sticking needles in random places instead of traditional acupuncture spots. If I remember correctly, the patients did not have a statistically different pain relief level in either group. However, you can very easily make the argument that this isn't really a blinding process either, and that the "true" mechanism of action (if there is one) is identical for random vs traditional needle placement. The treatment effect in this study was essentially for traditional vs random needle placement, rather than for acupuncture as a whole.
In short, bring me your trial, and I promise it's BS.
Edited for clarity.
(This post was edited by shoo on Mar 22, 2009, 1:09 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Mar 22, 2009, 2:04 AM
Post #15 of 80
(4511 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
shoo wrote: Part of the problem with acupuncture studies (and yes, I've read through a few), is that you can't effectively blind the patient or the clinicians, and therefore cannot effectively test against a placebo. The only honest attempt I've ever seen to do so is using "sham acupuncture," or sticking needles in random places instead of traditional acupuncture spots.
You can effectively blind the patients. There is a validated sham acupuncture procedure that uses a device that simulates acupuncture, but does not pierce the skin. This device is placed on non-acupuncture points. Patients cannot distinguish between "real" acupuncture and the sham procedure. Thus the blinding should be effective.
In reply to: If I remember correctly, the patients did not have a statistically different pain relief level in either group.
There is a 2006 Chochrane systematic review, by Lim et al, of controlled clinical trials of acupuncture on IBT. There was no significant difference between the effectiveness of real and sham acupuncture.
In reply to: However, you can very easily make the argument that this isn't really a blinding process either, and that the "true" mechanism of action (if there is one) is identical for random vs traditional needle placement.
This is incorrect for the reason stated above.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
onceahardman
Mar 22, 2009, 3:36 AM
Post #16 of 80
(4489 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2007
Posts: 2493
|
Frankly, I don't know whether acupuncture "works" or not. I'll point out there are no double-blinded, controlled studies involving "sham" ACL repair, rotator cuff repair, or, for that matter, coronary artery bypass graft.
I will say, I have seen firsthand some things which are difficult to explain.
Quick C&P from the wiki page:
In reply to: World Health Organization statement In 2003, the World Health Organization (WHO) published a review and analysis of controlled clinical trials on acupuncture. They listed the following as "Diseases, symptoms or conditions for which acupuncture has been proved - through controlled trials - to be an effective treatment":[92] Adverse reactions to radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy Allergic rhinitis (including hay fever) Biliary colic Depression (including depressive neurosis and depression following stroke) Dysentery, acute bacillary Dysmenorrhoea, primary Epigastralgia, acute (in peptic ulcer, acute and chronic gastritis, and gastrospasm) Facial pain (including craniomandibular disorders) Headache Hypertension, essential Hypotension, primary Induction of labour Knee pain Leukopenia Low back pain Malposition of fetus, correction of Morning sickness Nausea and vomiting Neck pain Pain in dentistry (including dental pain and temporomandibular dysfunction) Periarthritis of shoulder Postoperative pain Renal colic Rheumatoid arthritis Sciatica Sprain Stroke Tennis elbow
(This post was edited by onceahardman on Mar 22, 2009, 3:50 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
shoo
Mar 22, 2009, 3:59 AM
Post #17 of 80
(4479 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 22, 2006
Posts: 1501
|
jt512 wrote: There is a 2006 Chochrane systematic review, by Lim et al, of controlled clinical trials of acupuncture on IBT. There was no significant difference between the effectiveness of real and sham acupuncture Jay
Interesting sham procedure. This was I'll be sure to check that out when I have some free time at the office. The Cochrane reviews are always fantastic sources of info. Though I've read a few studies here and there, I've certainly never directly studied the available literature on acupuncture in terms of clinical efficacy outside of the few studies I've read in passing.
A quick search has brought up the abstract for the paper to which I was referring (Scharf et al., 2006), linked below. I think you can agree that my statements above are correct regarding this study.
http://www.annals.org/...nt/abstract/145/1/12
Edited to change mistaken quote to the correct original quote. My apologies to Jay for the accidental placement of words.
(This post was edited by shoo on Mar 23, 2009, 4:42 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Mar 22, 2009, 5:50 AM
Post #18 of 80
(4446 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
shoo wrote: jt512 wrote: There is a 2006 Chochrane systematic review, by Lim et al, of controlled clinical trials of acupuncture on IBT. There was no significant difference between the effectiveness of real and sham acupuncture in terms of clinical efficacy. [the struck out words were not in my original post—jt512] Jay Interesting sham procedure. This was I'll be sure to check that out when I have some free time at the office.
Also check out "Components of placebo effect: randomised controlled trial in patients with irritable bowel syndrome"; Kaptchuk TJ et al; BMJ 2008 May 3;336(7651):999-1003.
Edit: Shoo, I have no idea why you would arbitrarily append your own words to a quote you claim to be mine, but I would appreciate it that in the future, if you choose to quote me, that you do so accurately.
Jay
(This post was edited by jt512 on Mar 22, 2009, 6:26 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Mar 22, 2009, 6:16 AM
Post #19 of 80
(4437 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
N_Oo_B wrote: anybody else undergone this to help speed recovery?
Well, whatever this laser therapy does would necessarily be restricted to the very surface of the skin, it seems to me. The absorption depth of any common laser light is very shallow.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
N_Oo_B
Mar 22, 2009, 6:22 AM
Post #20 of 80
(4433 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 21, 2007
Posts: 463
|
So we've established that few feel it has an effect, but neighter side has any proof.
We've quoted many sources of info, but they are inconclusive. There is no study subjecting humans to acl damage and seeing the results... that would just be cruel by our standards.
none the less, for only 22$ / treatment it makes me feel better to do something about my injury than to sit idle. True I've read (as previously stated) that this treatment caused more NO as well as Adenosine Triphosphate. So the NO is a free radical and I can help balance that with anti-oxidants in my diet.
so, it comes to reason that when light hits a cell it causes this kind of healing jumpstart. well it's not an open wound... but if penitrating the cells with light via laser, they would have the same effect would reason to be logical.
maybe true, maybe false, I just wanted to hear from others who had taken the same treatment. I'm glad to hear from some who even disagree, it gives a new point of view.
So be it
Keep the posts coming
|
|
|
|
|
ubu
Mar 22, 2009, 12:21 PM
Post #21 of 80
(4403 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 17, 2008
Posts: 1485
|
N_Oo_B wrote: So we've established that few feel it has an effect, but neighter side has any proof.
There are no "sides" here. Nobody is saying cold laser treatment doesn't work. Some are just pointing out that this treatment has many of the hallmarks of an alternative medicine scam.
Here is one data point for you: http://www.healinglightseminars.com/...letal_Myofascial.pdf
This paper is a meta-analysis of laser therapy on musculoskeletal pain. The conclusion: no difference between placebo and laser therapy.
By the way, you might want to keep in mind that the alternative medicine industry lives off 3 facts:
1. people will pay anything and try anything that gives them hope, regardless of proof of efficacy
2. for any given "treatment", you can *always* find somebody who "got better", yet somehow this improvement in outcome doesn't translate to larger populations...hmm....
3. far too many people consider anecdotal evidence (see #2) as good as statistically-sound trial results
(This post was edited by ubu on Mar 22, 2009, 12:27 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
roy_hinkley_jr
Mar 22, 2009, 3:56 PM
Post #22 of 80
(4379 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 8, 2005
Posts: 652
|
N_Oo_B wrote: So we've established that few feel it has an effect, but neighter side has any proof.
Part of the problem is the term "cold laser" is undefined in many cases. They can be as little as 5 milliwatts (basically a fancy flashlight) up to 500 mW. Surgical lasers (class 4) generally start at 1W and go up but even some of those are being used for "cold laser therapy."
It appears more akin to prolotherapy than accupuncture since the concept is to stimulate the body into healing itself. But quacks are making all sorts of other claims too.
|
|
|
|
|
ubu
Mar 22, 2009, 4:40 PM
Post #23 of 80
(4368 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 17, 2008
Posts: 1485
|
roy_hinkley_jr wrote: N_Oo_B wrote: So we've established that few feel it has an effect, but neighter side has any proof. Part of the problem is the term "cold laser" is undefined in many cases. They can be as little as 5 milliwatts (basically a fancy flashlight) up to 500 mW. Surgical lasers (class 4) generally start at 1W and go up but even some of those are being used for "cold laser therapy." It appears more akin to prolotherapy than accupuncture since the concept is to stimulate the body into healing itself. But quacks are making all sorts of other claims too.
Yes, that is certainly part of the problem: from a glance at the literature, nobody seems to have any idea what relationship there may (or may not) be between laser dose and efficacy. Same thing for laser wavelength.
|
|
|
|
|
shoo
Mar 23, 2009, 4:41 AM
Post #24 of 80
(4320 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 22, 2006
Posts: 1501
|
jt512 wrote: Edit: Shoo, I have no idea why you would arbitrarily append your own words to a quote you claim to be mine, but I would appreciate it that in the future, if you choose to quote me, that you do so accurately. Jay
Ah, my apologies. As you can see, I had placed that in my own post. It somehow got copied into yours. This was not intended. I will promptly edit the quote to remove this mistake, and mark where the mistake was made.
In any case, thanks for the literature.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Mar 23, 2009, 5:31 AM
Post #25 of 80
(4298 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
ubu wrote: roy_hinkley_jr wrote: N_Oo_B wrote: So we've established that few feel it has an effect, but neighter side has any proof. Part of the problem is the term "cold laser" is undefined in many cases. They can be as little as 5 milliwatts (basically a fancy flashlight) up to 500 mW. Surgical lasers (class 4) generally start at 1W and go up but even some of those are being used for "cold laser therapy." It appears more akin to prolotherapy than accupuncture since the concept is to stimulate the body into healing itself. But quacks are making all sorts of other claims too. Yes, that is certainly part of the problem: from a glance at the literature, nobody seems to have any idea what relationship there may (or may not) be between laser dose and efficacy. Same thing for laser wavelength.
Sounds pretty much like Voodoo to me.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
