Authors (Year) | Participants | Interventions (No. Participants) | Co-intervention | Outcome Measures | Measured Time Points | Conclusions | Comments | Funding Sources |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mayrovitz and Davey (2011) [54] | 38 women, unilateral BCRL; 38 subjects (19 M/19 F), secondary leg lymphedema | (1) LLLT (n = 76) (2) Sham laser (n = 17 secondary ley lymphedema) | Manual lymphatic drainage: following (1) and (2) | Limb circumference | i: Baseline ii: Post-Tx iii: Post a manual lymphatic drainage | LLLT would reduce the skin water and tissue indentation resistance in patients with arm or leg lymphedema. | Observational study in Phase 1- LLLT (n = 76), sham laser in Phase 2- secondary leg lymphedema only | NR |
Dirican et al. (2011) [55] | 17 women, unilateral BCRL limited responsive to current therapy | LLLT (n = 17) | Conventional Tx | I: Limb circumference II: Pain III: Range of motion | i: Baseline ii: End of Cycle 1 iii: End of Cycle 2 | Patients with BCRL received additional benefits from LLLT when used in conjunction with standard treatment. Two cycles were found to be superior. | Small sample size; statistical methods not clear | NR |
Piller and Thelander (1995/ | 10 women, unilateral BCRL | LLLT (n = 10) | Skin care instructions | I: Limb circumference II: Limb volume | i: Baseline, ii: Biweekly in Tx iii: 1 mo post-Tx iv: 3 mo post-Tx v: 6 mo post-Tx vi: 36 mo post-Tx* | LLLT, at least initially, improved most objective and subjective parameters of arm lymphedema. | Small sample size; lacked demographics; statistical significance unknown | Flinders 2000 & Flinders University |