CClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT06219876Updated Jan 23, 2024

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

An interventional study of low level laser treatment and High intensity laser treatment in Carpal Tunnel Syndrome, Electromyography and Low-Level Laser Therapy, sponsored by Ankara City Hospital Bilkent. Completed at 1 site in Turkey. Open to participants aged 18 Years to 65 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2024-01-23.

Sponsored by Ankara City Hospital Bilkent · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment

From the registry’s dates

  • Registered 3 years 6 months after the study started (first participant enrolled Jun 2020, registered Jan 2024).
Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
108
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years to 65 Years
Sex
All
01

Study summary

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

Read the detailed description

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.

02

Conditions studied

  • Carpal Tunnel Syndrome
  • Electromyography
  • Low-Level Laser Therapy
  • Ultrasound Imaging
03

In context

Carpal Tunnel Syndrome

589 studies on the registry are indexed under Carpal Tunnel Syndrome; 140 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 108 is above the median of 60 across 445 interventional studies indexed under Carpal Tunnel Syndrome.

Browse Carpal Tunnel Syndrome studies →

Lead sponsor

Ankara City Hospital Bilkent is the lead sponsor of 424 studies on the registry; 105 are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years to 65 Years
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

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

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)
05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Double (Participant, Care provider)
Enrollment
108 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Active comparator
    Control

    wrist splints of an appropriate size in a neutral position for at least 8 hours at night for 3 months

    Other: wrist splint

  • Active comparator
    Low Level Laser Treatment

    * wrist splints of an appropriate size in a neutral position for at least 8 hours at night for 3 months * received an additional LLLT

    Device: low level laser treatment

  • Active comparator
    High Intensity Laser Treatment

    * wrist splints of an appropriate size in a neutral position for at least 8 hours at night for 3 months * received an additional HILT

    Device: High intensity laser treatment

Interventions

  • Devicelow level laser treatment

    The laser device from Mectronic Medicale was used for LLLT. LASER treatments were to be performed every other day for a total of 10 sessions.

  • DeviceHigh intensity laser treatment

    The laser device from HIRO TT (ASA, Italy) was used for HILT. LASER treatments were to be performed every other day for a total of 10 sessions.

  • Otherwrist splint

    wrist splints of an appropriate size in a neutral position for at least 8 hours at night for 3 months

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. The Boston Symptom Severity Scale (BSSS)

    The Boston Symptom Severity Scale consists of 11 questions, with each question scored between 1 and 5. The average score is calculated by summing the points received for each problem and dividing by the number of questions. A high score indicates that symptoms are severe and functional capacity is limited. The maximum score on this scale is 55 and the minimum score is 11.

    Time frame: end of 1. month

  2. The Boston Functional Capacity Scale (BFCS)

    The Boston Functional Capacity Scale consists of 8 questions, with each question scored between 1 and 5. The average score is calculated by summing the points received for each problem and dividing by the number of questions. A high score indicates that symptoms are severe and functional capacity is limited. The maximum score on this scale is 40 and the minimum score is 8.

    Time frame: end of 1. month

  3. The electrophysiological examination

    The electrophysiological examination was performed using the Nihon Koden Neuropack 2- MEB 7102-K device. During the electrophysiological studies, the room temperature was set at 25 C° and the temperature of the extremities was set above 32 C˚. In our study, the standard data obtained by Oh et al. were used \[17\]. In the study of motor conduction of the median nerve, a superficial rod electrode was used for recording at the abductor pollicis brevis muscle. The wrist and antecubital fossa were stimulated 6 cm proximal to the recording electrode. The combined muscle action potential (CMAP) (mV) and distal motor latency (msec) were recorded. Sensory conduction was examined by orthodromic stimulation at the 2nd finger and recording at the wrist with a superficial rod electrode. The conduction velocity of the sensory action potential (SAP) was recorded.

    Time frame: end of 1. month

  4. The ultrasound examination

    The ultrasound examination was performed with a Logiq 9 (GE Medical Systems®). During the ultrasound examination, the patient was in a sitting position, arms next to the body, the elbow in 90° flexion, the forearm in supination. The cross-sectional area of the median nerve and the minor and major axes were calculated using the available programme of the ultrasound machine. The echogenic line around the nerve was not considered, and a manual drawing was made along the nerve border around the hyperechoic epineurium. From the level of the proximal carpal tunnel (distal wrist line), the scaphoid and carpal bones were determined as landmarks, and the cross-sectional area of the median nerve and the major and minor axes were measured. The flattening ratio resulting from dividing the major axis by the minor axis was recorded.

    Time frame: end of 1. month

Secondary outcomes

  1. The Boston Symptom Severity Scale (BSSS)

    The Boston Symptom Severity Scale consists of 11 questions, with each question scored between 1 and 5. The average score is calculated by summing the points received for each problem and dividing by the number of questions. A high score indicates that symptoms are severe and functional capacity is limited.The maximum score on this scale is 55 and the minimum score is 11.

    Time frame: end of 3. month

  2. The Boston Functional Capacity Scale (BFCS)

    The Boston Functional Capacity Scale consists of 8 questions, with each question scored between 1 and 5. The average score is calculated by summing the points received for each problem and dividing by the number of questions. A high score indicates that symptoms are severe and functional capacity is limited. The maximum score on this scale is 40 and the minimum score is 8.

    Time frame: end of 3. month

  3. The electrophysiological examination

    The electrophysiological examination was performed using the Nihon Koden Neuropack 2- MEB 7102-K device. During the electrophysiological studies, the room temperature was set at 25 C° and the temperature of the extremities was set above 32 C˚. In our study, the standard data obtained by Oh et al. were used \[17\]. In the study of motor conduction of the median nerve, a superficial rod electrode was used for recording at the abductor pollicis brevis muscle. The wrist and antecubital fossa were stimulated 6 cm proximal to the recording electrode. The combined muscle action potential (CMAP) (mV) and distal motor latency (msec) were recorded. Sensory conduction was examined by orthodromic stimulation at the 2nd finger and recording at the wrist with a superficial rod electrode. The conduction velocity of the sensory action potential (SAP) was recorded.

    Time frame: end of 3. month

  4. The ultrasound examination

    The ultrasound examination was performed with a Logiq 9 (GE Medical Systems®). During the ultrasound examination, the patient was in a sitting position, arms next to the body, the elbow in 90° flexion, the forearm in supination. The cross-sectional area of the median nerve and the minor and major axes were calculated using the available programme of the ultrasound machine. The echogenic line around the nerve was not considered, and a manual drawing was made along the nerve border around the hyperechoic epineurium. From the level of the proximal carpal tunnel (distal wrist line), the scaphoid and carpal bones were determined as landmarks, and the cross-sectional area of the median nerve and the major and minor axes were measured. The flattening ratio resulting from dividing the major axis by the minor axis was recorded.

    Time frame: end of 3. month

07

Study locations

1 site
  • Ankara City Hospital
    Ankara, Cankaya 06800, Turkey
08

References and documents

Publications

  • Padua L, Coraci D, Erra C, Pazzaglia C, Paolasso I, Loreti C, Caliandro P, Hobson-Webb LD. Carpal tunnel syndrome: clinical features, diagnosis, and management. Lancet Neurol. 2016 Nov;15(12):1273-1284. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(16)30231-9. Epub 2016 Oct 11. PubMed 27751557 ↗
  • Ezzati K, Laakso EL, Salari A, Hasannejad A, Fekrazad R, Aris A. The Beneficial Effects of High-Intensity Laser Therapy and Co-Interventions on Musculoskeletal Pain Management: A Systematic Review. J Lasers Med Sci. 2020 Winter;11(1):81-90. doi: 10.15171/jlms.2020.14. Epub 2020 Jan 18. PubMed 32099632 ↗
  • Cheung WKW, Wu IXY, Sit RWS, Ho RST, Wong CHL, Wong SYS, Chung VCH. Low-level laser therapy for carpal tunnel syndrome: systematic review and network meta-analysis. Physiotherapy. 2020 Mar;106:24-35. doi: 10.1016/j.physio.2019.06.005. Epub 2019 Jun 20. PubMed 32026843 ↗
  • Hojjati F, Afjei MH, Ebrahimi Takamjani I, Rayegani SM, Sarrafzadeh J, Raeissadat SA, Payami S. The Effect of High-Power and Low-Power Lasers on Symptoms and the Nerve Conduction Study in Patients With Carpal Tunnel Syndrome. A Prospective Randomized Single-Blind Clinical Trial. J Lasers Med Sci. 2020 Fall;11(Suppl 1):S73-S79. doi: 10.34172/jlms.2020.S12. Epub 2020 Dec 30. PubMed 33995973 ↗

Individual participant data

Plan to share: Undecided

09

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Jan 23, 2024, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT06219876
Lead sponsor
Ankara City Hospital Bilkent
Responsible party
Handan Elif Nur BAYRAKTAR (Dr., Ankara City Hospital Bilkent) — Principal investigator
First posted
Jan 23, 2024
Start date
Jun 10, 2020
Primary completion
Mar 1, 2021
Completion
Mar 1, 2021
Last update
Jan 23, 2024

Study contacts

Sidar Burcu Ates Demiroglu
principal investigator · Ankara Bilken City Hospital

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Jan 2024. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion