Effects of Capacitive and Resistive Energy Transfer Therapy (TECAR) and Low-Level Laser Therapy (LLLT) on Blood Pressure During the Musculoskeletal Treatment: A Preliminary Study

TL;DR

This study examines how TECAR and LLLT affect blood pressure in patients with musculoskeletal issues, finding minimal and transient changes.

Contribution

The study provides preliminary evidence on the cardiovascular safety of TECAR and LLLT in patients with and without hypertension.

Findings

TECAR and LLLT caused small, statistically significant reductions in systolic blood pressure.

Diastolic blood pressure remained stable throughout the treatment.

Hypertensive and normotensive patients showed similar responses to the therapies.

Abstract

Introduction: The systemic effects of capacitive and resistive energy transfer therapy (TECAR) and low-level laser therapy (LLLT) on hemodynamic parameters remain insufficiently documented. Although these procedures are known for their local impact on microcirculation, there is no solid clinical evidence regarding their influence on blood pressure. This study aims to describe the evolution of systolic and diastolic blood pressure during a standardized therapeutic protocol and to evaluate the safety of these interventions in patients with musculoskeletal disorders, including those with treated hypertension.

Materials and methods: A prospective observational study with repeated measurements was conducted across two clinical centers in Galați, Romania, between October 2023 and June 2025. A total of 268 patients with clinically and imaging-confirmed musculoskeletal disorders were included. Systolic and diastolic blood pressure were measured before and after TECAR and LLLT at three evaluation points (day 1, day 5, and day 10). Statistical analysis employed repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) and linear mixed models to compare responses between hypertensive and normotensive patients.

Results: Statistical analyses revealed a discrete yet statistically significant reduction in systolic blood pressure at specific points within the therapeutic protocol. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test indicated deviations from normality for post-procedure systolic values on days 1 and 5 following TECAR therapy (p = 0.010; p < 0.001), and on day 10 after LLLT (p = 0.044), suggesting increased variability in systolic responses at these stages. Comparisons between hypertensive and normotensive patients showed similar overall response patterns. Although initial sessions exhibited small group-dependent fluctuations, these differences progressively diminished, and systolic values converged by day 10, indicating a comparable hemodynamic profile and preserved safety across both categories. Diastolic blood pressure remained stable throughout the intervention, with no significant changes detected between pre- and post-session measurements. Repeated-measures ANOVA confirmed significant variations only in systolic values, while diastolic measurements showed no statistically relevant fluctuations.

Conclusion: This study showed that TECAR and LLLT are cardiovascularly well tolerated, producing only minimal and transient variations in blood pressure, with modest statistically significant reductions in systolic values and no significant changes in diastolic pressure. Responses were similar in hypertensive and normotensive patients, supporting an adequate safety profile. Controlled clinical studies are needed to further clarify any potential systemic hemodynamic effects of these therapies.