Skip to content

The Dry Needling in Elderly

Benefits of Dry Needling in Muscle Performance of Elderly Active

Status
Active, not recruiting
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Interventional
Source
REBEC
Registry ID
RBR-97sqsb
Enrollment
Unknown
Registered
2019-06-05
Start date
2018-10-01
Completion date
Unknown
Last updated
2025-10-27

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

Conditions

Elderly

Interventions

The volunteers will be allocated randomly by block randomization in 2 groups: Dry Needling Group (DNG) with 25 participants and Control Group (CG) also with 25 participants.The CG participants will no
Other
E02.190.599

Sponsors

Famema
Lead Sponsor

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
Female
Age
60 Years to 85 Years

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: According to the Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE); the elderly; female; older than 60 years of age; are physically independent and present a cognitive state preserved according to their level of education; according to the International Physical Activity Questionnaire ( IPAQ - Short Version); besides presenting a latent trigger point in the evaluated musculature.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: Do not perform the tests; do not present trigger points in the evaluated muscles; fear of needle; history of adverse reaction to needle insertion; carry out therapy with anticoagulants; present area or limb with lymphedema or after lymphotomy surgery,; have compromised immune system ( hepatitis, bacterial endocarditis and acute rheumatoid arthritis); incapacitating lesion that does not allow testing; recent fracture of the lower limb; use of orthoses and prostheses in the lower limb; uncorrected visual disturbances; neurological disorders; uncontrolled cardiac problems and have used DN in the last 2 years.

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frame
Decreased pain after treatment, evaluated by numerical visual scale, from the 10% variation in the intragroup analysis.;Pain decreased in the DNG group around 34.22% on the right side, and the left presented a decrease of 31.11%, while the CG group did not differ in the intragroup analysis.;Decrease in pressure threshold after treatment, evaluated by pressure algometer, from the 10% variation in intragroup analysis.;The pressure pain threshold showed an increase in intragroup analysis for the right side (14.03%) and left (14.92%) in the DNG group, while the CG group showed no significant difference.;Increased functional capacity after treatment, evaluated by the Short Physical Performance Battery, from the 10% variation in the intragroup analysis.;The functional capacity of the GDN group presented in the intragroup analysis an increase of the total score of 8.95%, while the CG group showed no significant difference.;Decreased postural alteration after treatment, evaluated by computerized biophotogrammetry, from the 10% variation in intragroup analysis.;There was no significant difference in the postural evaluation of the GDN and GC groups.

Secondary

MeasureTime frame
Decreased time of balance, gait velocity and muscle strength, assessed during the functional capacity test after treatment, evaluated by the Short Physical Performance Battery, from the 5% variation in the intragroup analysis.;The DNG group presented less time in the mean velocity (11.73%) and muscle strength (18.51%), and balance maintenance. The CG group did not present a significant difference in the intragroup analysis.

Countries

Brazil

Contacts

Public ContactBeatriz ;Camila Tozim;Martins

Unesp;Famema

beatriztozim@yahoo.com.br;ca_morabito_fisio@hotmail.com+55 (14) 34021300;+55 (14)3402-1744

Outcome results

None listed

Source: REBEC (via WHO ICTRP) · Data processed: Feb 11, 2026