Rajfur Joanna, Rajfur Katarzyna, Matusz Tomasz, Malarska Maria, Walewicz Karolina, Ptaszkowski Kuba, Dymarek Robert, Taradaj Jakub
Institute of Health Sciences, University of Opole, Opole, 45-040, Poland.
Department of Clinical Genetics, Medical University of Lodz, Lodz, 90-419, Poland.
J Pain Res. 2024 Mar 13;17:1041-1053. doi: 10.2147/JPR.S450119. eCollection 2024.
Dry needling (DN) has gained popularity for musculoskeletal conditions, but its commercial use often surpasses scientific evidence. The novel Five Regulatory Systems Concept (FRSc) of DN shows potential therapeutic mechanisms, including chronic low back pain (LBP). However, rigorous clinical assessment with patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and objective measures are necessary. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of DN according to pain levels, postural control and selected gait parameters in patients with chronic LBP.
This prospective, double-blinded, randomized controlled study involved 30 patients with LBP allocated in the experimental (n=15, rehabilitation+ FRSc DN) or control group (n=15, rehabilitation + sham DN). The Roland-Morris questionnaire (RMQ) and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) were used as PROMs. Moreover, the posturography method for posture and balance control and the treadmill for gait analysis were used as objective tools. Measurements were taken before and immediately after the intervention and during 1- and 3-month follow up.
There was a statistically significantly greater improvement in the RMQ in the experimental group compared to the controls (p=0.923 before and p<0.001 after treatment, as well as p<0.001 after 1 and 3 months). Despite the favorable analgesic effect, a significant advantage of the experimental group over the controls in this respect is worth noting (p=0.001 in favor of DN in all intergroup comparisons concerning results from the subjective assessment of pain (VAS). A statistically insignificant post-treatment improvement in balance and postural stability was noted in both groups, although the effects appeared to be short-term. Surprisingly, again, DN had no advantage over sham interventions. In both groups, all changes in the swing phase were statistically insignificant (p=0.201 for the dominant and p=0.283 for the non-dominant side) for the initial swing phase. In both groups, all changes in the stance phase were statistically insignificant (p=0.480 for the dominant and p=0.410 for the non-dominant side of the body).
DN based on the FRSc appears promising as an effective adjunct to standard rehabilitation for LBP, showing improvements in functional performance and pain reduction.
干针疗法(DN)在肌肉骨骼疾病的治疗中越来越受欢迎,但其商业应用往往超出了科学证据的支持范围。新颖的干针疗法五调控系统概念(FRSc)显示出潜在的治疗机制,包括对慢性下腰痛(LBP)的治疗。然而,采用患者报告结局指标(PROMs)和客观指标进行严格的临床评估是必要的。本研究旨在评估干针疗法对慢性下腰痛患者疼痛程度、姿势控制和选定步态参数的影响。
这项前瞻性、双盲、随机对照研究纳入了30名下腰痛患者,分为实验组(n = 15,康复 + FRSc干针疗法)或对照组(n = 15,康复 + 假干针疗法)。采用罗兰·莫里斯问卷(RMQ)和视觉模拟量表(VAS)作为患者报告结局指标。此外,采用姿势和平衡控制的姿势描记法以及步态分析的跑步机作为客观工具。在干预前、干预后即刻以及1个月和3个月随访时进行测量。
与对照组相比,实验组的罗兰·莫里斯问卷(RMQ)有统计学意义上的显著改善(治疗前p = 0.923,治疗后p < 0.001,1个月和3个月后p < 0.001)。尽管有良好的镇痛效果,但在这方面实验组相对于对照组的显著优势值得注意(在所有关于疼痛主观评估结果(VAS)的组间比较中,支持干针疗法的p = 0.001)。两组在治疗后平衡和姿势稳定性方面有统计学意义上不显著的改善,尽管效果似乎是短期的。令人惊讶的是,干针疗法再次没有比假干预更具优势。两组在初始摆动期摆动相的所有变化在统计学上均不显著(优势侧p = 0.201,非优势侧p = 0.283)。两组在站立相的所有变化在统计学上均不显著(身体优势侧p = 0.480,非优势侧p = 0.410)。
基于FRSc的干针疗法作为慢性下腰痛标准康复治疗的有效辅助手段似乎很有前景,在功能表现改善和疼痛减轻方面均有成效。