Laser Acupuncture in the treatment of neck and low back pain - randomized clinical trial

INTERVENTION: After evaluations and signing the consent form, profits will be divided by randomization into three groups: low back pain (GDL) and cervical pain (GDC) and control group (CG). Randomization will be performed through the Random.org application by a researcher who will not participate in the assessments and interventions. The GDL with 25 volunteers and the GDC with 25 volunteers will receive 10 LLLT laser applications, men and women from 18 to 60 years old, in the acupuncture points that treat lumbar and cervical pain for 5 weeks (2 times a week). Acupuncture points were selected from a systematic search in the literature, to obtain the most used in cases of chronic low back and cervical pain. and treated with this same characteristic of pain but may vary in treatment with Traditional Chinese Acupuncture, laser or cupping. The laser used will be the LLLT Laser from the company DMC®, which has a power of 100mW. It will be a dose of 4J / 12s per stimulated point, one session will last 15 min. The control group (25 volunteers) will receive postural guidance via message application twice a week for 5 weeks, for positioning and performing the ADL's. C23.888.592.612.107.400 C23.888.592.612.553 CONDITION: E02.190 E02.760.169.063.500 Neck pain; low back pain PRIMARY OUTCOME: Decrease in pain intensity verified through the numerical pain scale, based on the finding of at least 10% in post‐intervention and follow‐up measurements. This difference is also expected when comparing the two groups in the post‐intervention assessment and in the follow‐up assessment. Increase in the pain threshold verified by the digital algometer from the observation of a statistical variation in the post‐intervention evaluation and in the follow‐up evaluation. This difference is also expected when comparing the two groups in the post‐intervention assessment and in the follow‐up assessment Improvement in functional disability verified through the Rolland Morris Disability Questionnaire, from the observation of a variation of at least 1 point in the measurements in the post‐intervention evaluation and in the follow‐up evaluation. This difference is also expected when comparing the two groups in the post‐intervention assessment and in the follow‐up assessment. The improvement in functional capacity will also be verified through the Neck Disability Index Questionnaire, based on the observation of a variation of at least 10% in the measurements in the post‐intervention assessment and in the follow‐up assessment. This difference is also expected when comparing the two groups in the post‐intervention assessment and in the follow‐up assessment. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Men and women aged 18 to 60 years; who have neck pain or low back pain with or without spine stiffness for more than 3 months; self‐reported pain at a score of 3 or more on the Visual Analogue Scale; willing to participate and be randomly allocated to the study groups; good cognitive to provide consent; availability of time to receive the acupuncture laser. SECONDARY OUTCOME: Improvement in functional disability verified using the Rolland Morris Disability Questionnaire, based on the observation of a variation of at least 1 point in the measurements in the post‐intervention assessment and in the follow‐up assessment. This difference is also expected when comparing the two groups in the post‐intervention assessment and in the follow‐up assessment. Increase in the pain threshold verified by the digital algometer from the observation of a statistical variation in the post‐intervention evaluation and in the follow‐up evaluation. This difference is also expected when comparing the two groups in the post‐intervention assessment and in the follow‐up assessment. The improvement in functional capacity will also be verified through the Neck Disability Index Questionnaire, based on the observation of a variation of at least 10% in the measurements in the post‐intervention assessment and in the follow‐up assessment. This difference is also expected when comparing the two groups in the post‐intervention assessment and in the follow‐up assessment.