干针与矫形手法治疗肌筋膜慢性颈部疼痛患者的比较:一项单盲、随机试验研究

Q2 Medicine
Irene Campa-Moran, Etelvina Rey-Gudin, J. Fernández-Carnero, A. Paris‐Alemany, A. Gil-Martínez, S. Lerma Lara, Almudena Prieto-Baquero, José Luis Alonso-Pérez, R. La Touche
{"title":"干针与矫形手法治疗肌筋膜慢性颈部疼痛患者的比较:一项单盲、随机试验研究","authors":"Irene Campa-Moran, Etelvina Rey-Gudin, J. Fernández-Carnero, A. Paris‐Alemany, A. Gil-Martínez, S. Lerma Lara, Almudena Prieto-Baquero, José Luis Alonso-Pérez, R. La Touche","doi":"10.1155/2015/327307","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of three interventions for the treatment of myofascial chronic neck pain. Methods. Thirty-six patients were randomly assigned to one of three intervention groups: orthopedic manual therapy (OMT), dry needling and stretching (DN-S), and soft tissue techniques (STT). All groups received two treatment sessions with a 48 h time interval. Outcome measures included neck pain intensity measured using a visual analogue scale, cervical range of motion (ROM), pressure pain threshold for measuring mechanical hyperalgesia, and two self-reported questionnaires (neck disability index and pain catastrophizing scale). Results. The ANOVA revealed significant differences for the group × time interaction for neck disability, neck pain intensity, and pain catastrophizing. The DN-S and OMT groups reduced neck disability. Only the OMT group showed decreases in mechanical hyperalgesia and pain catastrophizing. The cervical ROM increased in OMT (i.e., flexion, side-bending, and rotation) and DN-S (i.e., side-bending and rotation) groups. Conclusions. The three interventions are all effective in reducing pain intensity. Reduction in mechanical hyperalgesia and pain catastrophizing was only observed in the OMT group. Cervical ROM improved in the DN-S and OMT groups and also neck disability being only clinically relevant for OMT group.","PeriodicalId":19786,"journal":{"name":"Pain Research and Treatment","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-11-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1155/2015/327307","citationCount":"46","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Dry Needling versus Orthopedic Manual Therapy in Patients with Myofascial Chronic Neck Pain: A Single-Blind, Randomized Pilot Study\",\"authors\":\"Irene Campa-Moran, Etelvina Rey-Gudin, J. Fernández-Carnero, A. Paris‐Alemany, A. Gil-Martínez, S. Lerma Lara, Almudena Prieto-Baquero, José Luis Alonso-Pérez, R. La Touche\",\"doi\":\"10.1155/2015/327307\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objective. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of three interventions for the treatment of myofascial chronic neck pain. Methods. Thirty-six patients were randomly assigned to one of three intervention groups: orthopedic manual therapy (OMT), dry needling and stretching (DN-S), and soft tissue techniques (STT). All groups received two treatment sessions with a 48 h time interval. Outcome measures included neck pain intensity measured using a visual analogue scale, cervical range of motion (ROM), pressure pain threshold for measuring mechanical hyperalgesia, and two self-reported questionnaires (neck disability index and pain catastrophizing scale). Results. The ANOVA revealed significant differences for the group × time interaction for neck disability, neck pain intensity, and pain catastrophizing. The DN-S and OMT groups reduced neck disability. Only the OMT group showed decreases in mechanical hyperalgesia and pain catastrophizing. The cervical ROM increased in OMT (i.e., flexion, side-bending, and rotation) and DN-S (i.e., side-bending and rotation) groups. Conclusions. The three interventions are all effective in reducing pain intensity. Reduction in mechanical hyperalgesia and pain catastrophizing was only observed in the OMT group. Cervical ROM improved in the DN-S and OMT groups and also neck disability being only clinically relevant for OMT group.\",\"PeriodicalId\":19786,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pain Research and Treatment\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-11-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1155/2015/327307\",\"citationCount\":\"46\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pain Research and Treatment\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/327307\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pain Research and Treatment","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/327307","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 46

摘要

目标。本研究的目的是比较三种干预措施治疗肌筋膜慢性颈部疼痛的疗效。方法。36例患者被随机分配到三个干预组中的一个:骨科手工疗法(OMT),干针拉伸(DN-S)和软组织技术(STT)。所有组均接受两次治疗,每次治疗间隔48 h。结果测量包括使用视觉模拟量表测量颈部疼痛强度,颈椎活动度(ROM),测量机械痛觉过敏的压力痛阈值,以及两份自我报告问卷(颈部残疾指数和疼痛灾难量表)。结果。方差分析显示,组×时间交互作用在颈部残疾、颈部疼痛强度和疼痛灾难化方面存在显著差异。DN-S组和OMT组降低了颈部残疾。只有OMT组表现出机械性痛觉过敏和疼痛灾变的减少。OMT组(即屈曲、侧屈和旋转)和DN-S组(即侧屈和旋转)的颈椎活动度增加。结论。这三种干预措施对减轻疼痛强度都是有效的。仅在OMT组中观察到机械性痛觉过敏和疼痛灾变的减少。DN-S组和OMT组颈椎活动度改善,颈部残疾仅与OMT组有临床相关性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of Dry Needling versus Orthopedic Manual Therapy in Patients with Myofascial Chronic Neck Pain: A Single-Blind, Randomized Pilot Study
Objective. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of three interventions for the treatment of myofascial chronic neck pain. Methods. Thirty-six patients were randomly assigned to one of three intervention groups: orthopedic manual therapy (OMT), dry needling and stretching (DN-S), and soft tissue techniques (STT). All groups received two treatment sessions with a 48 h time interval. Outcome measures included neck pain intensity measured using a visual analogue scale, cervical range of motion (ROM), pressure pain threshold for measuring mechanical hyperalgesia, and two self-reported questionnaires (neck disability index and pain catastrophizing scale). Results. The ANOVA revealed significant differences for the group × time interaction for neck disability, neck pain intensity, and pain catastrophizing. The DN-S and OMT groups reduced neck disability. Only the OMT group showed decreases in mechanical hyperalgesia and pain catastrophizing. The cervical ROM increased in OMT (i.e., flexion, side-bending, and rotation) and DN-S (i.e., side-bending and rotation) groups. Conclusions. The three interventions are all effective in reducing pain intensity. Reduction in mechanical hyperalgesia and pain catastrophizing was only observed in the OMT group. Cervical ROM improved in the DN-S and OMT groups and also neck disability being only clinically relevant for OMT group.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Pain Research and Treatment
Pain Research and Treatment Medicine-Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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