Campa-Moran Irene, Rey-Gudin Etelvina, Fernández-Carnero Josué, Paris-Alemany Alba, Gil-Martinez Alfonso, Lerma Lara Sergio, Prieto-Baquero Almudena, Alonso-Perez José Luis, La Touche Roy
Faculty of Health Science, Department of Physiotherapy, The Center for Advanced Studies University La Salle, Faculty of Health Science, The Autonomous University of Madrid, Aravaca, Madrid, Spain.
Department of Physical Therapy, Occupational Therapy, Rehabilitation and Physical Medicine, King Juan Carlos University, Alcorcón, Madrid, Spain ; Hospital La Paz Institute for Health Research, IdiPAZ, Madrid, Spain ; Motion in Brains Research Group, The Center for Advanced Studies University La Salle, The Autonomous University of Madrid, Spain.
Pain Res Treat. 2015;2015:327307. doi: 10.1155/2015/327307. Epub 2015 Nov 10.
Objective. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of three interventions for the treatment of myofascial chronic neck pain. Methods. Thirty-six patients were randomly assigned to one of three intervention groups: orthopedic manual therapy (OMT), dry needling and stretching (DN-S), and soft tissue techniques (STT). All groups received two treatment sessions with a 48 h time interval. Outcome measures included neck pain intensity measured using a visual analogue scale, cervical range of motion (ROM), pressure pain threshold for measuring mechanical hyperalgesia, and two self-reported questionnaires (neck disability index and pain catastrophizing scale). Results. The ANOVA revealed significant differences for the group × time interaction for neck disability, neck pain intensity, and pain catastrophizing. The DN-S and OMT groups reduced neck disability. Only the OMT group showed decreases in mechanical hyperalgesia and pain catastrophizing. The cervical ROM increased in OMT (i.e., flexion, side-bending, and rotation) and DN-S (i.e., side-bending and rotation) groups. Conclusions. The three interventions are all effective in reducing pain intensity. Reduction in mechanical hyperalgesia and pain catastrophizing was only observed in the OMT group. Cervical ROM improved in the DN-S and OMT groups and also neck disability being only clinically relevant for OMT group.
目的。本研究旨在比较三种治疗肌筋膜性慢性颈痛干预措施的疗效。方法。36例患者被随机分配至三个干预组之一:骨科手法治疗(OMT)、干针疗法与拉伸(DN-S)以及软组织技术(STT)。所有组均接受两次治疗,间隔48小时。疗效指标包括使用视觉模拟量表测量的颈部疼痛强度、颈椎活动范围(ROM)、用于测量机械性痛觉过敏的压力疼痛阈值以及两份自我报告问卷(颈部功能障碍指数和疼痛灾难化量表)。结果。方差分析显示,在颈部功能障碍、颈部疼痛强度和疼痛灾难化方面,组×时间交互作用存在显著差异。DN-S组和OMT组颈部功能障碍减轻。仅OMT组机械性痛觉过敏和疼痛灾难化有所降低。OMT组(即前屈、侧屈和旋转)和DN-S组(即侧屈和旋转)颈椎ROM增加。结论。三种干预措施均能有效降低疼痛强度。仅在OMT组观察到机械性痛觉过敏和疼痛灾难化降低。DN-S组和OMT组颈椎ROM改善,且仅OMT组颈部功能障碍具有临床相关性。