Effectiveness of Instrument-assisted Soft-tissue Mobilization Versus Dry Cupping on Pain and Cervical Range of Motion in Treatment of Neck Pain.

Abstract

Background: Neck pain is characterized by symptoms of a nonspecific nature of the pain, which is of mechanical origin.[12] Frequently observed manifestations of neck discomfort encompass muscle pain, muscle spasms, headaches, facet joint pain, nerve pain, referred pain, and bone pain.[3] Instrument-assisted soft-tissue mobilization (IASTM) stands as a proficient myofascial intervention used for the treatment of soft tissues. Here, using instruments typically crafted from stainless steel featuring beveled edges and anatomically contoured designs to accommodate various body regions, this technique allows for enhanced depth of penetration.[4] Primarily used for the identification and therapeutic management of soft-tissue disorders, the approach involves the application of these specialized instruments.[5] Dry cupping, alternatively recognized as air cupping or suction cupping, constitutes a therapeutic methodology, wherein a vacuum is generated within cups and subsequently applied to targeted regions of the body. These cups, fabricated from diverse materials such as glass, silicone, or plastic, induce suction effects. Through the application of this suction, dry cupping serves to promote circulation, alleviate muscle tension, and facilitate the energetic flow within the treated areas.

Material and methods: The purpose of the study to effectiveness of instrument-assisted soft-tissue mobilization versus dry cupping on pain and cervical range of motion in treatment of neck pain. The study is comparative in nature, and total subjects were 15 subjects in each group. The assessment of pain and range of motion of cervical flexion and lateral flexion were taken before starting the treatment of both the groups. The patients were randomly assigned by lottery method for both the groups, and assessments were taken on 0 day and at the end of 4^th week by VAS and ROM by a goniometer.

Results: In IASTM treatment, the P value is 0.031. This suggests that there is a statistically significant difference between the pre-treatment and post-treatment values for the IASTM group. But, in dry cupping, the P value is 0.001. This indicates a highly significant difference between the precupping and postcupping values for this treatment group. The scores of variables VAS and ROM were improved significantly better in the subjects treated with dry cupping as compared to the group variables treated with instrument-assisted soft-tissue mobilization.

Conclusion: The study conclude that the dry cupping is more beneficial for the treatment of neck pain and range of motion.