Gracjan Olaniszyn, Adrian Kużdżał, Adam Kawczyński, Filip Matuszczyk, Kamil Gałęziok, Filipe Manuel Clemente, Robert Trybulski
{"title":"Comparing Multiple Versus Sustained Insertion Dry Needling Therapy for Myofascial Neck Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial.","authors":"Gracjan Olaniszyn, Adrian Kużdżał, Adam Kawczyński, Filip Matuszczyk, Kamil Gałęziok, Filipe Manuel Clemente, Robert Trybulski","doi":"10.5535/arm.250052","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the Hong (GH) and sustained insertion (GS) dry needling methods in patients with myofascial neck pain, this experimental study was conducted.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":47738,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Rehabilitation Medicine-ARM","volume":"49 4","pages":"208-225"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12425498/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Rehabilitation Medicine-ARM","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5535/arm.250052","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/8/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: To compare the Hong (GH) and sustained insertion (GS) dry needling methods in patients with myofascial neck pain, this experimental study was conducted.
Methods: 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: 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).
Conclusion: 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.