Salemi Parsa, Hosseini Majid, Daryabor Aliyeh, Fereydounnia Sara, Smith Joseph H
Student Research Committee, Department of Physiotherapy, School of Rehabilitation, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Department of Physiotherapy, School of Rehabilitation, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
J Chiropr Med. 2024 Mar-Jun;23(1-2):23-36. doi: 10.1016/j.jcm.2024.02.005. Epub 2024 Sep 19.
The purpose of this review was to evaluate the effectiveness of dry needling (DN) to improve function, proprioception, and balance and to reduce pain in individuals with chronic ankle instability (CAI).
We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines for this review. We searched PubMed, ISI Web of Knowledge, Scopus, Science Direct, Google Scholar, and ProQuest databases from inception until July 2022 using the PICO (population, intervention, comparison, outcome) method. Inclusion criteria were as follows: studies that (1) investigated individuals with CAI; (2) used DN as a main intervention; (3) compared DN with exercise therapy, shockwave therapy, and placebo DN; and (4) compared the effect of DN in CAI cases with healthy individuals. The risk of bias assessment was examined through the Downs and Black checklist. Where possible, a meta-analysis was performed using standardized mean difference (SMD; Cohen's d) and 95% CIs. A narrative analysis was conducted where data pooling was not feasible.
Seven studies consisting of 169 individuals with a history of CAI in chronic phase (more than 12 months after the initial injury) were selected for final evaluation. Using DN in fibularis longus may positively have immediate, short-term (1 week), and medium-term (1 month) effects on pain (SMD: -1.31, 95% CI: -3.21 to 0.59), function, proprioception, and static and dynamic postural control compared with before intervention ( < .05). One study reported the superiority of DN over shockwave therapy to significantly improve range of motion of ankle ( < .05) but not for pain. Additionally, the results of 1 study were in favor of the superiority of DN intervention compared with placebo DN with regard to postural control and pre-activation variables. Moreover, spinal plus peripheral DN was not preferable to peripheral DN for improving patients' outcomes ( > .05).
Although almost all of the reviewed articles showed some immediate, short-term, and medium-term benefits of DN for improving postural control, pain, and function for people with CAI, this review found that there was heterogeneity among included trials and many of them had a high risk of null findings due to insufficient power and inconsistent techniques, control groups, and outcome measures. Therefore, scientific evidence supporting the use of DN for ankle instability is premature, and the results of the current review should be interpreted with caution. This area may be worth exploring by conducting large-scale, placebo-controlled randomized trials.
本综述的目的是评估干针疗法(DN)对改善慢性踝关节不稳(CAI)患者的功能、本体感觉和平衡以及减轻疼痛的有效性。
本综述遵循系统评价和Meta分析的首选报告项目指南。我们使用PICO(人群、干预措施、对照、结局)方法,检索了从数据库建立至2022年7月的PubMed、ISI 科学网、Scopus、科学Direct、谷歌学术和ProQuest数据库。纳入标准如下:(1)研究CAI患者的研究;(2)将DN作为主要干预措施的研究;(3)将DN与运动疗法、冲击波疗法和安慰剂干针疗法进行比较的研究;(4)比较DN对CAI患者与健康个体影响的研究。通过唐斯和布莱克清单对偏倚风险进行评估。在可能的情况下,使用标准化均数差(SMD;科恩d值)和95%可信区间进行Meta分析。在无法进行数据合并时进行叙述性分析。
七项研究共纳入169例处于慢性期(初始损伤后超过12个月)的CAI病史患者,进行最终评估。与干预前相比,对腓骨长肌使用DN可能对疼痛(SMD:-1.31,95%CI:-3.21至0.59)、功能、本体感觉以及静态和动态姿势控制产生积极的即时、短期(1周)和中期(1个月)影响(P<0.05)。一项研究报告称,与冲击波疗法相比,DN在显著改善踝关节活动范围方面更具优势(P<0.05),但对疼痛的改善无差异。此外,一项研究结果表明,在姿势控制和预激活变量方面,与安慰剂干针疗法相比,DN干预更具优势。此外,在改善患者结局方面,脊柱加外周干针疗法并不优于外周干针疗法(P>0.05)。
尽管几乎所有纳入综述的文章都显示,DN对改善CAI患者的姿势控制、疼痛和功能具有一些即时、短期和中期益处,但本综述发现,纳入的试验之间存在异质性,其中许多试验由于样本量不足以及技术、对照组和结局测量不一致,存在较高的无效应发现风险。因此,支持使用DN治疗踝关节不稳的科学证据尚不成熟,对本综述结果的解读应谨慎。该领域可能值得通过开展大规模、安慰剂对照的随机试验进行探索。