Olaniszyn Gracjan, Kużdżał Adrian, Kawczyński Adam, Matuszczyk Filip, Gałęziok Kamil, Clemente Filipe Manuel, Trybulski Robert
Medical Department Wojciech Korfanty, Upper Silesian Academy, Katowice, Poland.
Physiotherapy Centre "Od Nowa" Racibórz Zamkowa, Racibórz, Poland.
Ann Rehabil Med. 2025 Aug;49(4):208-225. doi: 10.5535/arm.250052. Epub 2025 Aug 29.
To compare the Hong (GH) and sustained insertion (GS) dry needling methods in patients with myofascial neck pain, this experimental study was conducted.
A randomized controlled trial included 30 participants, assigned to either the GH (n=15) or GS (n=15) group. Each group received treatment on either the right or left side, with one side receiving experimental DN and the other receiving control (sham) DN. The GS method involved a single needle insertion per myofascial trigger point for one minute, while the GH method used multiple rapid needle insertions over two minutes without needle retention. Measurements were taken before therapy, 5 minutes post-DN session (post-5min), 24 hours post-session (post-24h), and 7 days post-session (post-7d). Muscle tension (MT) and muscle stiffness (MS) were measured with a myotonometer, pressure pain threshold (PPT) with an algometer, maximum isometric strength (Fmax) with a handheld dynamometer, and transcutaneous perfusion (PU) with laser Doppler flowmetry. Power Doppler Score (PDS) and minor adverse events were also recorded.
Results showed that GH led to significantly higher MT and MS values at post-24h and post-7d (p<0.001). In contrast, GS showed greater PPT and Fmax at post-5min, post-24h, and post-7d (p<0.001). Additionally, GH exhibited higher PU values at post-5min and post-7d (p<0.001), while GS showed higher PDS values at post-5min and post-24h (p<0.001).
The GH method resulted in less favorable outcomes in terms of MT and MS, while the GS method showed superior improvements in pain relief and functional recovery.
为比较洪氏（GH）与持续进针（GS）干针疗法对肌筋膜性颈部疼痛患者的疗效，开展了本实验研究。
一项随机对照试验纳入了30名参与者，分为GH组（n = 15）和GS组（n = 15）。每组在右侧或左侧接受治疗，一侧接受实验性干针治疗，另一侧接受对照（假）干针治疗。GS方法是在每个肌筋膜触发点单次进针1分钟，而GH方法是在两分钟内多次快速进针且不留置针头。在治疗前、干针治疗后5分钟（5分钟后）、治疗后24小时（24小时后）和治疗后7天（7天后）进行测量。使用肌动计测量肌肉张力（MT）和肌肉硬度（MS），使用痛觉计测量压力疼痛阈值（PPT），使用手持测力计测量最大等长肌力（Fmax），使用激光多普勒血流仪测量经皮灌注（PU）。还记录了功率多普勒评分（PDS）和轻微不良事件。
结果显示，GH组在24小时后和7天后的MT和MS值显著更高（p < 0.001）。相比之下，GS组在5分钟后、24小时后和7天后的PPT和Fmax更高（p < 0.001）。此外，GH组在5分钟后和7天后的PU值更高（p < 0.001），而GS组在5分钟后和24小时后的PDS值更高（p < 0.001）。
就MT和MS而言，GH方法的效果较差，而GS方法在缓解疼痛和功能恢复方面显示出更好的改善效果。
