Liu Kun, Yin Lulu, Ma Zheng, Yu Bo, Ma Yanhong, Huang Lihua
Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University Affiliated Sixth People's Hospital, Shanghai, China.
Department of Critical Care Medicine, Shanghai Tenth People's Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, China.
Front Physiol. 2020 Nov 12;11:596159. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2020.596159. eCollection 2020.
Previous studies made controversial claims about the alleged effects of Kinesio taping (KT) on pain relief. To date, the mechanism by which KT relieves pain remains unclear. Moreover, pain evaluation lacks objective and quantitative parameters. This study compared the acute effects of different KT interventions on the local thresholds of pressure pain and current perception in healthy adults to determine the potential mechanisms by which KT relieves pain.
Thirty healthy female subjects randomly received four KT interventions, namely, no taping (NT), placebo taping (PT), Y strips of KT (KY), and fan strips of KT (KF), on the waist. Current perception threshold (CPT), pressure pain threshold (PPT), soft tissue hardness, and the visual analog scale (VAS) scores of the subjects' perceived pain were immediately measured after taping. Repeated-measures ANOVA was performed to determine significant differences in these parameters among the four interventions.
Significant differences in CPT values among the interventions were observed at the frequency of 5 Hz ( = 3.499, = 0.019, η = 0.111). analysis revealed that CPT was significantly higher for KF than for NT ( = 0.008, 95% CI = 1.390-11.990). Significant differences in PPT values ( = 4.352, = 0.012, η = 0.130) and soft tissue hardness ( = 2.957, = 0.049, η = 0.093) were observed among the different taping conditions. analysis revealed that PPT was significantly higher for KF than for PT ( = 0.011, 95% CI = 0.071-0.749), and soft tissue hardness was significantly higher for KF than for NT ( = 0.010, 95% CI = 0.461-4.586) and KY ( = 0.040, 95% CI = 0.059-3.800). No significant differences in self-perceived pain among the interventions were observed.
The healthy adult females had higher PPT values, lower soft tissue hardness, and higher CPT values at 5 Hz under KF intervention applied on the waist than those under the other taping interventions. Moreover, the different taping conditions had no significant differences in terms of VAS of perceived pain. These results provide guidance for the application of KT on pain management.
以往研究对肌内效贴布（KT）在缓解疼痛方面的所谓效果提出了有争议的主张。迄今为止，KT缓解疼痛的机制仍不清楚。此外，疼痛评估缺乏客观和定量的参数。本研究比较了不同KT干预措施对健康成年人局部压痛阈值和电流感觉阈值的急性影响，以确定KT缓解疼痛的潜在机制。
30名健康女性受试者在腰部随机接受四种KT干预措施，即不贴扎（NT）、安慰剂贴扎（PT）、Y型KT贴布（KY）和扇形KT贴布（KF）。贴扎后立即测量受试者的电流感觉阈值（CPT）、压痛阈值（PPT）、软组织硬度以及疼痛视觉模拟量表（VAS）评分。采用重复测量方差分析来确定这四种干预措施在这些参数上的显著差异。
在5Hz频率下，各干预措施之间的CPT值存在显著差异（F = 3.499，P = 0.019，η² = 0.111）。事后分析显示，KF组的CPT显著高于NT组（P = 0.008，95%CI = 1.390 - 11.990）。在不同的贴扎条件下，PPT值（F = 4.352，P = 0.012，η² = 0.130）和软组织硬度（F = 2.957，P = 0.049，η² = 0.093）存在显著差异。事后分析显示，KF组的PPT显著高于PT组（P = 0.011，95%CI = 0.071 - 0.749），KF组的软组织硬度显著高于NT组（P = 0.010，95%CI = 0.461 - 4.586）和KY组（P = 0.040，95%CI = 0.059 - 3.800）。各干预措施之间在自我感知疼痛方面未观察到显著差异。
在腰部应用KF干预措施时，健康成年女性的PPT值更高，软组织硬度更低，在5Hz时的CPT值更高，高于其他贴扎干预措施。此外，不同的贴扎条件在疼痛VAS方面没有显著差异。这些结果为KT在疼痛管理中的应用提供了指导。
Zotero 插件