Suppr超能文献

单纯肌筋膜触发点针刺与肌筋膜触发点针刺联合肌肉内电刺激改善肌筋膜疼痛的速率和维持:一项随机对照试验。

Rate and maintenance of improvement of myofascial pain with dry needling alone vs. dry needling with intramuscular electrical stimulation: a randomized controlled trial.

机构信息

Doctor of Physical Therapy Program, University of Mary Hardin-Baylor, Belton, TX, USA.

Department of Physical Therapy, Virginia Sportsmedicine Institute, Arlington, VA, USA.

出版信息

J Man Manip Ther. 2021 Aug;29(4):216-226. doi: 10.1080/10669817.2020.1824469. Epub 2020 Sep 29.

Abstract

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective, randomized.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the difference in rate and maintenance of improvement of pain and disability for Dry Needling (DN) compared to Dry Needling with Intramuscular Electrical Stimulation (DN/IMES), in Myofascial Pain Syndrome (MPS).

BACKGROUND

DN and neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) have been shown to be efficacious in treating MPS. DN/IMES for MPS treatment has not been studied extensively, but initial results are promising.

METHODS

Forty-five subjects were randomly assigned to the DN (n = 25) or DN/IMES (n = 20) group. Both groups received six consecutive weekly treatments and completed NDI and NPRS questionnaires (week 0, 3, 6, and 12).

RESULTS

Both DN and DN/IMES groups showed significant improvement between weeks 0-6 on NDI (p = 0.008 and 0.00002, respectively) and NPRS scores (0 = 0.017 and p = 0.018, respectively). DN/IMES group showed significant within group changes on the NPRS between weeks 0-3 (p = 0.029). No changes were noted in the DN or DN/IMES groups between week 6-12 on NDI (p = 0.497 and p = 0.714, respectively) or NPRS (p = 0.801 and p = 0.164, respectively).

CONCLUSION

DN and DN/IMES demonstrated improvement and maintenance in disability and pain for 6 weeks. No differences in improvement of disability or pain existed between the groups at week 6 or 12.

摘要

研究设计

前瞻性、随机。

目的

确定与单独使用干针(DN)相比,干针结合肌内电刺激(DN/IMES)治疗肌筋膜疼痛综合征(MPS)时疼痛和残疾改善率及维持率的差异。

背景

DN 和神经肌肉电刺激(NMES)已被证明对治疗 MPS 有效。DN/IMES 治疗 MPS 的研究尚未广泛开展,但初步结果很有前景。

方法

45 名受试者被随机分为 DN(n=25)或 DN/IMES(n=20)组。两组均接受连续 6 周的治疗,并在第 0、3、6 和 12 周完成 NDI 和 NPRS 问卷。

结果

DN 和 DN/IMES 组在第 0-6 周的 NDI(p=0.008 和 0.00002)和 NPRS 评分(p=0.017 和 p=0.018)上均有显著改善。DN/IMES 组在第 0-3 周的 NPRS 上的组内变化有显著差异(p=0.029)。DN 或 DN/IMES 组在第 6-12 周时,NDI(p=0.497 和 p=0.714)或 NPRS(p=0.801 和 p=0.164)评分均无变化。

结论

DN 和 DN/IMES 在 6 周内改善了残疾和疼痛,并维持了改善。在第 6 周或 12 周时,两组间的残疾或疼痛改善无差异。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e484/8366661/a5ad5049ef80/YJMT_A_1824469_UF0001_OC.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验