Evaluation and Treatment for Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy

Diabetes Mellitus (DM) is a chronic disease that currently affects approximately 589 million adults, aged between 20 and 79 years, worldwide. Alarming projections indicate that, by 2050, this number could exceed 853 million individuals in the same age group. The DPN is one of the most common complications of DM, characterized by a set of syndromes with diverse clinical and subclinical manifestations. The neurological damage tends to be extensive, largely compromising the peripheral nervous system in its sensorimotor and autonomic components. The pain has variable intensity, being a constant complaint, commonly described as tingling, burning or a sensation of pins and needles in the extremities, often accompanied by abnormal sensory changes, such as allodynia and hyperalgesia. Early diagnosis of DPN and ongoing monitoring are essential, as they promote education and awareness among diabetic patients, in addition to contributing to delaying or minimizing more serious complications as the disease progresses. This study aims to compare conventional diabetic neuropathy screening techniques with technological and easy-to-use equipment and, from there, evaluate the effects of the combined application of photobiomodulation and therapeutic ultrasound in the treatment of DPN in its early stages, aiming to prevent severe complications, such as the development of diabetic foot (sensory nerve). Sixty participants were recruited and evaluated with various DPN screening instruments. They were then randomly assigned to two groups: a treatment group and a control group. The treatment group received combined stimulation with photobiomodulation and therapeutic ultrasound in the sural nerve region, with the following parameters: continuous laser, wavelength of 808 nm, and therapeutic ultrasound with a frequency of 1 MHz, pulsed mode, for 6 minutes on each sural nerve, with rotational movement of the transducer. The results of objective assessments performed with the DPN Check® showed that, in the treatment group, there was an increase in the "normal" rating, while the "moderate" rating, which was predominant at baseline, increased. In subjective assessments, considering a broad analysis of nerve fiber types, the "normal" rating increased while the "moderate" rating decreased. In the control group, the "normal" rating remained low, and the "moderate" rating remained at 70% in objective assessments. In the subjective evaluations, there was no change in the "normal" classification (remaining at 0% from start to finish), and the "moderate" classification varied little.