Dataset Information

Qualitative ultrasonography scale of the intensity of local twitch response during dry needling and its association with modified joint range of motion: a cross-sectional study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The relevance of local twitch response (LTR) during dry needling technique (DNT) is controversial, and it is questioned whether LTR is necessary for successful outcomes. Furthermore, because the LTR during the deep DNT may be evoked with different intensities, it is unknown whether the magnitude of LTR intensity is associated with optimal clinical results, especially concerning to the effects of joint maximal range of motion (ROM). This study aimed to (i) determine whether visual inspections can quantify the LTR intensity during the DNT through a qualitative ultrasonography scale of LTR intensity (US-LTR scale), and (ii) assess the differences of US-LTR scale associated with changes in the maximal joint ROM.

Methods

Using a cross-sectional design, seven asymptomatic individuals were treated with DNT in the latent myofascial trigger point in both medial gastrocnemius muscles. During DNT, three consecutive LTRs were collected. The US-LTR scale was used to classify the LTRs into strong, medium, and weak intensities. The categories of US-LTR were differentiated by the velocity of LTRs using the optical flow algorithm. ROM changes in ankle dorsiflexion and knee extension were assessed before and immediately after DNT.

Results

The US-LTR scale showed the third LTR was significantly smaller than the first one (p < 0.05). A significant difference in velocity was observed between US-LTR categories (p < 0.001). A significant difference in the ROM was observed between the strong and weak-medium intensity (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

The present findings suggest that the LTR intensity can be assessed using a qualitative US-LTR scale, and the effects of DNT on joint maximal ROM is maximized with higher LTR intensity. This study reports a novel qualitative method for LTR analysis with potential applications in research and clinical settings. However, further research is needed to achieve a broader application.

SUBMITTER: Cruz-Montecinos C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8442322 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background:Dry needling (DN) has been established as an effective treatment for myofascial pain, however, there are no studies thus far investigating the benefit to movement and motor control. Purpose:The primary purpose of this study was to compare differences in a series of outcomes between dry needling, dry needling and stretching, and stretching only in a sample of healthy males. A secondary purpose was to compare change over time. Design:Blinded, randomized controlled trial. Methods:Thirty healthy male subjects were randomly assigned to one of three intervention groups: DN, stretching, or combination DN +stretching. Subjects in the DN group and DN+stretch group received DN to a palpated trigger point (TrP) in the triceps surae to elicit local twitch response. Subjects in the stretch group and DN+stretch group were instructed in a home stretching program for gastrocnemius and soleus muscles. All groups were tested for dorsiflexion range of motion and performed functional tasks (overhead deep squat, and Y-Balance test, Lower Quarter) prior to intervention, directly after intervention, and four days post intervention. Group comparisons were performed using a repeated measure Analysis of Variance and a partial eta squared calculation for effect size. For all measures a p-value of?<?0.05 was used to determine significance. Cohen's criteria were used to categorize strength of effect size. Results:There were no statistically significant differences among groups for range of motion nor functional measures, with the exception of the deep squat. Proportionally, the DN group improved significantly in deep squat performance (p<0.01) compared to the other groups. Time oriented improvements were seen for the YBT posterior-lateral reach (p = 0.02) only. Between groups effect sizes ranged from 0.02 (small) to 0.17 (large). Conclusions:Including DN did not markedly influence range of motion nor functional assessment measures, excluding those seen during the overhead deep squat. Effect measures suggest the lack of significant findings may be an issue of statistical power. Level of Evidence:1b.

Project description:Introduction/backgroundThe depth and breadth of research on dry needling (DN) has not been evaluated specifically for symptomatic spine related disorders (SRD) from myofascial trigger points (TrP), disc, nerve and articular structures not due to serious pathologies. Current literature appears to support DN for treatment of TrP. Goals of this review include identifying research published on DN treatment for SRD, sites of treatment and outcomes studied.MethodsA scoping review was conducted following Levac et al.'s five part methodological framework to determine the current state of the literature regarding DN for patients with SRD.ResultsInitial and secondary search strategies yielded 55 studies in the cervical (C) region (71.43%) and 22 in the thoracolumbar-pelvic (TLP) region (28.57%). Most were randomized controlled trials (60% in C, 45.45% in TLP) and clinical trials (18.18% in C, 22.78% in TLP). The most commonly treated condition was TrP for both the C and TLP regions. In the C region, DN was provided to 23 different muscles, with the trapezius as treatment site in 41.88% of studies. DN was applied to 31 different structures in the TLP region. In the C region, there was one treatment session in 23 studies (41.82%) and 2-6 treatments in 25 (45.45%%). For the TLP region, one DN treatment was provided in 8 of the 22 total studies (36.36%) and 2-6 in 9 (40.9%). The majority of experimental designs had DN as the sole intervention. For both C and TLP regions, visual analogue scale, pressure pain threshold and range of motion were the most common outcomes.ConclusionFor SRD, DN was primarily applied to myofascial structures for pain or TrP diagnoses. Many outcomes were improved regardless of diagnosis or treatment parameters. Most studies applied just one treatment which may not reflect common clinical practice. Further research is warranted to determine optimal treatment duration and frequency. Most studies looked at DN as the sole intervention. It is unclear whether DN alone or in addition to other treatment procedures would provide superior outcomes. Functional outcome tools best suited to tracking the outcomes of DN for SRD should be explored.