Llamas-Ramos Rocio, Pecos-Martín Daniel, Gallego-Izquierdo Tomás, Llamas-Ramos Inés, Plaza-Manzano Gustavo, Ortega-Santiago Ricardo, Cleland Joshua, Fernández-de-Las-Peñas César
Department of Physical Therapy, Universidad de Alcalá, Alcalá de Henares, Spain.
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2014 Nov;44(11):852-61. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2014.5229. Epub 2014 Sep 30.
Randomized clinical study.
To compare the effects of trigger point (TrP) dry needling (DN) and TrP manual therapy (MT) on pain, function, pressure pain sensitivity, and cervical range of motion in subjects with chronic mechanical neck pain.
Recent evidence suggests that TrP DN could be effective in the treatment of neck pain. However, no studies have directly compared the outcomes of TrP DN and TrP MT in this population.
Ninety-four patients (mean ± SD age, 31 ± 3 years; 66% female) were randomized into a TrP DN group (n = 47) or a TrP MT group (n = 47). Neck pain intensity (11-point numeric pain rating scale), cervical range of motion, and pressure pain thresholds (PPTs) over the spinous process of C7 were measured at baseline, postintervention, and at follow-ups of 1 week and 2 weeks after treatment. The Spanish version of the Northwick Park Neck Pain Questionnaire was used to measure disability/function at baseline and the 2-week follow-up. Mixed-model, repeated-measures analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were used to determine if a time-by-group interaction existed on the effects of the treatment on each outcome variable, with time as the within-subject variable and group as the between-subject variable.
The ANOVA revealed that participants who received TrP DN had outcomes similar to those who received TrP MT in terms of pain, function, and cervical range of motion. The 4-by-2 mixed-model ANOVA also revealed a significant time-by-group interaction (P<.001) for PPT: patients who received TrP DN experienced a greater increase in PPT (decreased pressure sensitivity) than those who received TrP MT at all follow-up periods (between-group differences: posttreatment, 59.0 kPa; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 40.0, 69.2; 1-week follow-up, 69.2 kPa; 95% CI: 49.5, 79.1; 2-week follow-up, 78.9 kPa; 95% CI: 49.5, 89.0).
The results of this clinical trial suggest that 2 sessions of TrP DN and TrP MT resulted in similar outcomes in terms of pain, disability, and cervical range of motion. Those in the TrP DN group experienced greater improvements in PPT over the cervical spine. Future trials are needed to examine the effects of TrP DN and TrP MT over long-term follow-up periods.
Therapy, level 1b.
随机临床试验。
比较触发点(TrP)针刺干针疗法(DN)和TrP手法治疗(MT)对慢性机械性颈部疼痛患者的疼痛、功能、压痛敏感性和颈椎活动范围的影响。
最近的证据表明,TrP针刺干针疗法可能对颈部疼痛有效。然而,尚无研究直接比较该人群中TrP针刺干针疗法和TrP手法治疗的效果。
94例患者(平均年龄±标准差,31±3岁;66%为女性)被随机分为TrP针刺干针疗法组(n = 47)或TrP手法治疗组(n = 47)。在基线、干预后以及治疗后1周和2周的随访中,测量颈部疼痛强度(11点数字疼痛评分量表)、颈椎活动范围和C7棘突上的压痛阈值(PPTs)。使用Northwick Park颈部疼痛问卷的西班牙语版本在基线和2周随访时测量残疾/功能情况。采用混合模型重复测量方差分析(ANOVA)来确定治疗对每个结果变量的影响是否存在时间×组间交互作用,将时间作为受试者内变量,组作为受试者间变量。
方差分析显示,接受TrP针刺干针疗法的参与者在疼痛、功能和颈椎活动范围方面的结果与接受TrP手法治疗的参与者相似。4×2混合模型方差分析还显示,在压痛阈值方面存在显著的时间×组间交互作用(P<.001):在所有随访期内,接受TrP针刺干针疗法的患者压痛阈值升高幅度更大(压力敏感性降低),高于接受TrP手法治疗的患者(组间差异:治疗后,59.0 kPa;95%置信区间[CI]:40.0, 69.2;1周随访,69.2 kPa;95% CI:49.5, 79.1;2周随访,78.9 kPa;95% CI:49.5, 89.0)。
该临床试验结果表明,2次TrP针刺干针疗法和TrP手法治疗在疼痛、残疾和颈椎活动范围方面产生了相似的结果。TrP针刺干针疗法组患者颈椎的压痛阈值改善更大。需要进一步的试验来研究TrP针刺干针疗法和TrP手法治疗的长期随访效果。
治疗,1b级。