Skip to content

Dry Needling Versus Intramuscular Stimulation in the Management of the Myofascial Trigger Points

Effectiveness of Dry Needling and Intramuscular Electrostimulation in the Treatment of Myofascial Trigger Points in Patients With Neck Pain

Status
Completed
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT03025230
Enrollment
80
Registered
2017-01-19
Start date
2016-12-31
Completion date
2017-07-31
Last updated
2024-05-08

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Muscle Pain, Myofascial Pain Syndrome, Trigger Point Pain, Myofascial

Brief summary

Hypothesis The application of intramuscular electrostimulation will be more effectiveness than the dry needling in myofascial trigger points treatment. Objetives: To determine the effectiveness of intramuscular electrostimulation in the treatment of trigger points of the levator scapula muscle for the improvement of pain in mechanical cervicalgia. Participants: Subjects with diagnosed of myofascial pain syndrome in cervical region and active trigger points in levator scapulae muscle, randomly assigned to experimental or control group. Intervention: Control group: one session of dry needling in active trigger points; experimental group: one session of intramuscular stimulation in active trigger points. Main Outcomes Measures: Pain, pressure pain threshold (PPT), active cervical range of motion and strength muscle . The measures will be taken before, after and one week after the interventions.

Detailed description

The muscle pain is one of the most common forms of musculoskeletal pain. Within muscular pain, the presence of myofascial trigger points (PG) in the musculature is a important and prevalent problem. Currently one the techniques most used in the treatment of PG is dry needling. Dry needling has been shown effective in the treatment of neck pain associated with PGs. To our knowledge, there are no studies that they have compared the effectiveness of dry needling and intramuscular stimulation by applying an electric current. This study is a randomized clinical trial that aims to demonstrate that the application of an electric current associated with dry needling in the treatment of PG. In this study we will treat subjects with cervical pain who they have active PGs in the levator scapulae muscle.

Interventions

OTHERDry needling and electric stimulation

Dry needling technique and the application of electric stimulation of levator scapulae PG

OTHERDry needling

Treatment of PG with a filiform needle in levator scapulae muscle

Sponsors

University of Alcala
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
SINGLE (Investigator)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 65 Years
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* Cervical pain. * Active trigger points in levator scapulae muscle

Exclusion criteria

* Pain Irradiation toward upper limb * Psychological disorders * Whiplash. * Neuropathic symptoms * Cervical and / or Shoulder Spine Surgery

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Pressure Pain Threshold (PPT)Change from baseline at one weekAn algometer Wagner FPI 10-WA will be used to determine the PPT in levator scapulae trigger points

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Pain Visual Analogue ScaleChange from baseline at one weekThe pain VAS is a unidimensional measure of pain intensity, which has been widely used in diverse adult populations. The VAS is a straight horizontal line of fixed length, usually 100 mm. The ends are defined as the extreme limits of the parameter to be measured from 0 (no pain) to 10 (maximum pain). All the subjects will showed their pain level.
Strength in cervical latero-flexionChange from baseline at one weekDynamic dynamometry with MicroFet-2 will be used while patients will positioned in seated. From this position, patients will performed lateral - flexion

Countries

Spain

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026