Kużdzał Adrian, Clemente Filipe Manuel, Klich Sebastian, Kawczyński Adam, Trybulski Robert
Institute of Health Sciences, College of Medical Sciences, University of Rzeszów, Poland.
Department of Biomechanics and Sport Engineering, Gdansk University of Physical Education and Sport, Poland.
J Sports Sci Med. 2024 Dec 1;23(4):852-862. doi: 10.52082/jssm.2024.852. eCollection 2024 Dec.
This study aimed to compare the effects of manual therapy combined with dry needling (MTDN) to a control group, focusing on the impact on pressure pain threshold (PPT), muscle tone (MT), muscle stiffness (MS), muscle strength, and range of motion in the neck muscles of adult combat sports athletes. A randomized controlled study design was employed, with one group of athletes (n = 15) receiving MTDN intervention, while the other group (n = 15) underwent a control treatment (CG) involving a quasi-needle technique combined with manual therapy. Both groups participated in three sessions, either in the MTDN intervention or the control condition. All athletes, who were experiencing neck pain, were evaluated at rest, after one session, after three sessions, and again 72 hours after the third session. Muscle tone (MT) and muscle stiffness (MS) were measured using myotonometry, pressure pain threshold (PPT) was assessed with an algesiometer, muscle strength was evaluated using a handheld dynamometer, and range of motion was measured with an electronic goniometer. Group comparisons revealed significantly higher MT in CG compared to MTDN after the 3rd session ( < 0.001; = 1.50). Additionally, CG showed significantly greater MS than MTDN after the 3rd session ( < 0.001; = 1.75) and at 72 hours post-session ( < 0.001; = 2.45). Conversely, MTDN exhibited significantly greater PPT than CG at 72 hours post-session ( < 0.001; = 1.80). Our results suggest that MTDN is significantly more effective in improving muscle tone, stiffness, and acute pain compared to manual therapy alone. However, no significant impact was observed on maximal strength or neck range of motion. A combined approach may offer benefits by more rapidly reducing neck pain and better preparing muscle properties for future activities.
本研究旨在比较手法治疗联合干针疗法(MTDN)与对照组的效果,重点关注对成年格斗运动运动员颈部肌肉的压力疼痛阈值(PPT)、肌张力(MT)、肌肉僵硬度(MS)、肌肉力量和活动范围的影响。采用随机对照研究设计,一组运动员(n = 15)接受MTDN干预,另一组(n = 15)接受对照治疗(CG),包括准针刺技术联合手法治疗。两组均参加三次治疗,分别处于MTDN干预或对照条件下。所有有颈部疼痛的运动员在休息时、一次治疗后、三次治疗后以及第三次治疗后72小时进行评估。肌张力(MT)和肌肉僵硬度(MS)使用肌动测量法测量,压力疼痛阈值(PPT)用痛觉计评估,肌肉力量用手持测力计评估,活动范围用电子测角计测量。组间比较显示,第三次治疗后CG的MT显著高于MTDN(<0.001;=1.50)。此外,第三次治疗后CG的MS显著大于MTDN(<0.001;=1.75),且在治疗后72小时也是如此(<0.001;=2.45)。相反,MTDN在治疗后72小时的PPT显著高于CG(<0.001;=1.80)。我们的结果表明,与单独的手法治疗相比,MTDN在改善肌张力、僵硬度和急性疼痛方面显著更有效。然而,未观察到对最大力量或颈部活动范围有显著影响。联合治疗方法可能通过更快减轻颈部疼痛和更好地为未来活动准备肌肉特性而带来益处。