Comparing dry needling or local acupuncture to various wet needling injection types for musculoskeletal pain and disability. A systematic review of randomized clinical trials

Botulinum Toxin-A for the Treatment of Myogenous Temporomandibular Disorders: An Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews

OBJECTIVE

Temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) encompass several conditions that cause pain and impair function of the masticatory muscles (M-TMDs) and temporomandibular joints. There is a large interest among clinicians and researchers in the use of botulinum toxin-A (BoNT-A) as a treatment for M-TMD. However, due to the lack of consistent evidence regarding the efficacy as well as adverse events of BoNT-A, clinical decision making is challenging. Therefore, this umbrella review aimed to systematically assess systematic reviews (SRs) evaluating BoNT-A treatment effects on pain intensity, mandibular movements, and adverse events in patients with M-TMDs.

METHOD

An electronic search was undertaken in the databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science, Epistemonikos, ClinicalTrials.gov, and ICTRP to identify SRs investigating BoNT-A effects on M-TMDs, published from the inception of each database until 6 December 2023. The quality of evidence was rated according to the critical appraisal checklist developed by the umbrella review methodology working group. Only high-quality SRs were included.

RESULTS

In total, 18 SRs were included. BoNT-A was shown to be more effective than placebo to reduce pain intensity, but not compared to standard treatments. Additionally, BoNT-A was not superior to placebo or standard treatments regarding improvement of mandibular movements. BoNT-A was considered to have a higher risk for adverse events on muscle and bony tissue compared with other treatments.

CONCLUSION

The synthesis in this umbrella review provides the highest level of evidence present. Taken together, there are indications of effectiveness of BoNT-A for treatment of M-TMDs, supported by moderate evidence. However, considering the risk of causing serious adverse events, treatment with BoNT-A is recommended to be the last treatment alternative.

Dry Needling with the Use of FRSc Technique in Addition to Standard Rehabilitation Program for Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial Using Both PROMs and Measurement Tools

Purpose

Dry needling (DN) has gained popularity for musculoskeletal conditions, but its commercial use often surpasses scientific evidence. The novel Five Regulatory Systems Concept (FRSc) of DN shows potential therapeutic mechanisms, including chronic low back pain (LBP). However, rigorous clinical assessment with patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and objective measures are necessary. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of DN according to pain levels, postural control and selected gait parameters in patients with chronic LBP.

Patients and Methods

This prospective, double-blinded, randomized controlled study involved 30 patients with LBP allocated in the experimental (n=15, rehabilitation+ FRSc DN) or control group (n=15, rehabilitation + sham DN). The Roland-Morris questionnaire (RMQ) and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) were used as PROMs. Moreover, the posturography method for posture and balance control and the treadmill for gait analysis were used as objective tools. Measurements were taken before and immediately after the intervention and during 1- and 3-month follow up.

Results

There was a statistically significantly greater improvement in the RMQ in the experimental group compared to the controls (p=0.923 before and p<0.001 after treatment, as well as p<0.001 after 1 and 3 months). Despite the favorable analgesic effect, a significant advantage of the experimental group over the controls in this respect is worth noting (p=0.001 in favor of DN in all intergroup comparisons concerning results from the subjective assessment of pain (VAS). A statistically insignificant post-treatment improvement in balance and postural stability was noted in both groups, although the effects appeared to be short-term. Surprisingly, again, DN had no advantage over sham interventions. In both groups, all changes in the swing phase were statistically insignificant (p=0.201 for the dominant and p=0.283 for the non-dominant side) for the initial swing phase. In both groups, all changes in the stance phase were statistically insignificant (p=0.480 for the dominant and p=0.410 for the non-dominant side of the body).

Conclusion

DN based on the FRSc appears promising as an effective adjunct to standard rehabilitation for LBP, showing improvements in functional performance and pain reduction.