Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up

Single photobiomodulation session fails to reduce perineal trauma pain in postpartum women

Single photobiomodulation session fails to reduce perineal trauma pain in postpartum women
Photo by Navy Medicine / Unsplash
Key Takeaway
Consider that a single photobiomodulation session with these parameters does not reduce perineal trauma pain or improve healing in postpartum women.

This double-blind, two-center randomized controlled trial enrolled 60 postpartum women with perineal trauma and pain scores of 4 or more on the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS). Participants received either a single application of red light to the lesion and infrared light around it or a sham treatment. The primary outcomes were pain scores on the NRS and tissue healing on the REEDA scale at 30 minutes post-intervention.

At 30 minutes, there was no significant difference between groups in NRS pain scores (experimental: 3.63 ± 2.57; sham: 2.53 ± 2.15; P = 0.089) or SF-MPQ pain scores (experimental: 7.83 ± 8.32; sham: 5.10 ± 6.42; P = 0.108). Similarly, REEDA scores at 30 minutes showed no significant difference (experimental: 5.57 ± 3.05; sham: 4.47 ± 2.42; P = 0.175). Satisfaction at 7-10 days was high in both groups, with 84.09% satisfied or very satisfied.

Adverse events and tolerability were not reported. The study is limited by its small sample size and single application protocol. The findings suggest that a single photobiomodulation session with these parameters does not provide acute pain relief or improve healing compared to sham. Clinicians should consider other evidence-based interventions for perineal trauma pain.

Study Details

Study typeRct
EvidenceLevel 2
PublishedMay 2026
View Original Abstract ↓
OBJECTIVE: To analyze the effects of a single photobiomodulation (PBM) application on perineal pain and healing in women in the immediate postpartum period. METHODS: Randomized controlled trial, double-blind, two-center, with 60 postpartum women with perineal trauma and pain scoring 4 or more on the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS). The experimental group received red light to the lesion and infrared light around it, while the sham group received a simulation. We assessed pain with the NRS and Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ); tissue healing with the REEDA scale (Redness, Edema, Ecchymosis, Discharge, Approximation) at baseline, 30 min (primary outcome), and 12-36 h after intervention and satisfaction with a Likert scale 7-10 days post-intervention. We conducted bivariate analyses and an analysis of variance for repeated measures. RESULTS: The experimental and sham groups showed pain reduction with no difference between them for pain scores or healing 30 min post-intervention (mean ± SD: NRS 3.63 ± 2.57 vs 2.53 ± 2.15; P = 0.089; SF-MPQ 7.83 ± 8.32 vs 5.10 ± 6.42; P = 0.108; and REEDA 5.57 ± 3.05 vs 4.47 ± 2.42; P = 0.175). Analysis of variance revealed no significant interaction between time and group at any time point evaluated. Of the participants, 84.09% were satisfied or very satisfied with the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Although both groups experienced a reduction in pain after the intervention, a single PBM application with these parameters was not superior to a sham treatment. Future research could explore multiple applications or different parameters. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Laser for Pain Relief in Nipple and Perineal Trauma in Postpartum; UTN code U1111-1279-3594 (https://ensaiosclinicos.gov.br/rg/RBR-2qm8jrp/1).
Free Newsletter

Clinical research that matters. Delivered to your inbox.

Join thousands of clinicians and researchers. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.