Sohns S, Schnieder K, Licht G, von Piekartz H
Fakultät Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften (Abt. Physiotherapie und Rehabilitationswissenschaften), Hochschule Osnabrück, Caprivistr. 30, 49076, Osnabrück, Deutschland.
FORBs Facharztzentrum für Orthopädie und Rehabilitation des Bewegungssystems, Osnabrück, Deutschland.
Schmerz. 2016 Dec;30(6):549-559. doi: 10.1007/s00482-016-0113-x.
Although chronic shoulder pain is highly prevalent and myofascial trigger points (mTrP) are thought to be found in the majority of patients with shoulder complaints, the influence on the pain mechanism remains unclear. There are only very few controlled clinical studies on the effects of manual trigger point compression therapy.
This randomized controlled trial (RCT) compared the short-term effects of manual trigger point compression therapy (n = 6) with manual sham therapy (n = 6) in patients with unilateral shoulder pain due to myofascial syndrome (MFS).
The measurement data were collected before and after two sessions of therapy. Pressure pain thresholds (PPT) of mTrP and symmetrically located points on the asymptomatic side were measured together with neutral points in order to detect a potential unilateral or generalized hyperalgesia. Additionally, the pain was assessed on a visual analog scale (VAS) at rest and during movement and the neck disability index (NDI) and disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand (DASH) questionnaires were also completed and evaluated.
Both treatment modalities led to a significant improvement; however, the manual trigger point compression therapy was significantly more effective in comparison to sham therapy, as measured by different parameters.
The significant improvement of PPT values in the interventional group even at sites that were not directly treated, indicates central mechanisms in pain threshold modulation induced by manual compression therapy. The weaker but still measurable effects of sham therapy might be explained by the sham modality being a hands on technique or by sufficient stimulation of the trigger point region during the diagnostics and PPT measurements.
尽管慢性肩痛非常普遍,且多数肩部不适患者被认为存在肌筋膜触发点(mTrP),但其对疼痛机制的影响仍不明确。关于手动触发点按压疗法效果的对照临床研究极少。
本随机对照试验(RCT)比较了手动触发点按压疗法(n = 6)与手动假治疗(n = 6)对肌筋膜综合征(MFS)所致单侧肩痛患者的短期疗效。
在两次治疗前后收集测量数据。测量触发点和无症状侧对称部位的压力疼痛阈值(PPT)以及中性点,以检测潜在的单侧或全身性痛觉过敏。此外,采用视觉模拟量表(VAS)评估静息和运动时的疼痛情况,并完成和评估颈部功能障碍指数(NDI)以及手臂、肩部和手部功能障碍(DASH)问卷。
两种治疗方式均使症状显著改善;然而,通过不同参数测量发现,与假治疗相比,手动触发点按压疗法效果显著更佳。
干预组即使在未直接治疗的部位PPT值也显著改善,这表明手动按压疗法可通过中枢机制调节疼痛阈值。假治疗效果较弱但仍可测量,这可能是因为假治疗也是一种手法技术,或者是因为在诊断和PPT测量过程中对触发点区域进行了充分刺激。