Effect of myofascial cupping vs integrated neuromuscular inhibition techniques on pain and neck movement in individuals with latent trigger point in trapezius.

Pub Date : 2023-06-01 DOI:10.1142/S1013702523500117
Preeti Gazbare, Manisha Rathi, Dhanashree Channe
{"title":"Effect of myofascial cupping vs integrated neuromuscular inhibition techniques on pain and neck movement in individuals with latent trigger point in trapezius.","authors":"Preeti Gazbare,&nbsp;Manisha Rathi,&nbsp;Dhanashree Channe","doi":"10.1142/S1013702523500117","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Pain is the most common symptom for seeking therapeutic alternative to conventional medicine. Trigger points (TrP) being the most debilitating cause of nonspecific neck pain, are found to be more prevalent in trapezius muscle. Various instrument-based and other manual therapy techniques are effective in the treatment of TrP.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the effect of Myofascial Cupping (MFC) and Integrated Neuromuscular Inhibition Technique (INIT) on the upper trapezius latent TrP on pain intensity, pressure pain threshold (PPT) & cervical range.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>A randomized trial controlled on 40 individuals aged 20-40 years, both gender with latent TrPs in upper trapezius excluding ones who have taken treatment for upper trapezius TrPs within 6 months. Participants were randomly allocated into 2 groups by chit method, one group received MFC and other INIT. Pre- and post-intervention assessment was done using NPRS, pressure algometer and goniometer.</p><p><strong>Result: </strong>Within group, pain has significantly reduced after MFC and INIT with mean difference of <math><mn>6</mn><mo>.</mo><mn>05</mn><mo>±</mo><mn>0</mn><mo>.</mo><mn>8</mn></math> and <math><mn>4</mn><mo>.</mo><mn>95</mn><mo>±</mo><mn>0</mn><mo>.</mo><mn>7</mn></math>, respectively (<math><mi>p</mi><mo><</mo><mn>0</mn><mo>.</mo><mn>001</mn></math>). PPT increased in both groups (<math><mi>p</mi><mo><</mo><mn>0</mn><mo>.</mo><mn>001</mn></math>) with mean difference of <math><mn>0</mn><mo>.</mo><mn>63</mn><mo>±</mo><mn>0</mn><mo>.</mo><mn>3</mn></math> and <math><mn>0</mn><mo>.</mo><mn>28</mn><mo>±</mo><mn>0</mn><mo>.</mo><mn>11</mn></math>, respectively. Comparison between the groups showed significant difference in pain intensity (<math><mi>p</mi><mo>=</mo><mn>0</mn><mo>.</mo><mn>003</mn></math>) suggesting MFC was more effective in reducing pain. However, a PPT (<i>p</i>=0.606) and neck lateral flexion to the contralateral side of TrP (<math><mi>p</mi><mo>=</mo><mn>0</mn><mo>.</mo><mn>74</mn></math>) were not significant.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>MFC was more effective than INITs in improving pain, however both interventions showed similar effect on PPT and neck lateral flexion on latent TrP in trapezius.</p>","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/e0/2d/hkpj-43-073.PMC10423684.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1142/S1013702523500117","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Pain is the most common symptom for seeking therapeutic alternative to conventional medicine. Trigger points (TrP) being the most debilitating cause of nonspecific neck pain, are found to be more prevalent in trapezius muscle. Various instrument-based and other manual therapy techniques are effective in the treatment of TrP.

Objective: To compare the effect of Myofascial Cupping (MFC) and Integrated Neuromuscular Inhibition Technique (INIT) on the upper trapezius latent TrP on pain intensity, pressure pain threshold (PPT) & cervical range.

Method: A randomized trial controlled on 40 individuals aged 20-40 years, both gender with latent TrPs in upper trapezius excluding ones who have taken treatment for upper trapezius TrPs within 6 months. Participants were randomly allocated into 2 groups by chit method, one group received MFC and other INIT. Pre- and post-intervention assessment was done using NPRS, pressure algometer and goniometer.

Result: Within group, pain has significantly reduced after MFC and INIT with mean difference of 6.05±0.8 and 4.95±0.7, respectively (p<0.001). PPT increased in both groups (p<0.001) with mean difference of 0.63±0.3 and 0.28±0.11, respectively. Comparison between the groups showed significant difference in pain intensity (p=0.003) suggesting MFC was more effective in reducing pain. However, a PPT (p=0.606) and neck lateral flexion to the contralateral side of TrP (p=0.74) were not significant.

Conclusion: MFC was more effective than INITs in improving pain, however both interventions showed similar effect on PPT and neck lateral flexion on latent TrP in trapezius.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

分享
查看原文
肌筋膜拔罐与综合神经肌肉抑制技术对斜方肌潜在触发点个体疼痛和颈部运动的影响。
背景:疼痛是寻求替代常规药物治疗的最常见症状。触发点(TrP)是非特异性颈部疼痛的最衰弱原因,在斜方肌中更为普遍。各种基于仪器和其他手工治疗技术在TrP治疗中是有效的。目的:比较肌筋膜拔罐(MFC)和综合神经肌肉抑制技术(INIT)对斜方肌上段潜伏TrP疼痛强度、压痛阈值(PPT)和颈椎范围的影响。方法:随机对照试验40例,年龄20-40岁,男女均为上斜方肌潜伏性TrPs患者,不包括6个月内接受过上斜方肌TrPs治疗的患者。按分组法随机分为两组,一组给予MFC,另一组给予INIT。采用NPRS、压力测量仪和角计进行干预前后评估。结果:组内MFC和INIT术后疼痛明显减轻,平均差异分别为6.05±0.8和4.95±0.7 (p0.001)。两组患者PPT均升高(p0.001),平均差异分别为0.63±0.3和0.28±0.11。两组间疼痛强度比较差异有统计学意义(p=0.003),提示MFC在减轻疼痛方面更有效。然而,PPT (p=0.606)和颈侧屈曲到TrP对侧(p=0.74)无统计学意义。结论:MFC比INITs更有效地改善疼痛,但两种干预对PPT和颈部侧屈对斜方肌潜伏性TrP的影响相似。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信