Needling: is there a point?

Focused ultrasound as an alternative to dry needling for the treatment of tendinopathies: A murine model

Tendinopathies account for 30% of 102 million annual musculoskeletal injuries occurring annually in the United States. Current treatments, like dry needling, induce microdamage to promote healing but produce mixed success rates. Previously, we showed focused ultrasound can noninvasively create microdamage while preserving mechanical properties in ex vivo murine tendons. This present study compared growth factor, histological, and mechanical effects after focused ultrasound or dry needling treatments in an in vivo murine tendon injury model. Partial Achilles tenotomy was performed in 26 rats. One-week postsurgery, tendons were treated with focused ultrasound (1.5 MHz, 1-ms pulses at 10 Hz for 106 s, p+  = 49 MPa, p-  = 19 MPa) or dry needling (30 G needle, 5 fenestrations over 20 s) and survived for 1 additional week. Blood was collected immediately before and after treatment and before euthanasia; plasma was assayed for growth factors. Treated tendons and contralateral controls were harvested for histology or mechanical testing. No differences were found between treatments in release of insulin growth factor 1 and transforming growth factor beta; vascular endothelial growth factor A concentrations were too low for detection. Histologically, focused ultrasound and dry needling tendons displayed localized fibroblast infiltration without collagen proliferation with no detectable differences between treatments. Mechanically, stiffness and percent relaxation of dry needling tendons were lower than controls (p = 0.0041, p = 0.0441, respectively), whereas stiffness and percent relaxation of focused ultrasound tendons were not different from controls. These results suggest focused ultrasound should be studied further to determine how this modality can be leveraged as a therapy for tendinopathies.

Clinical Effectiveness of Dry Needling in Patients with Musculoskeletal Pain-An Umbrella Review

The number of systematic reviews (SR) summarizing the literature regarding the clinical effects of Dry Needling (DN) has increased rapidly. Yet, rigorous evidence about the clinical effectiveness of this technique is still lacking. The aim of this umbrella review is to summarize the evidence about the clinical effects of trigger point DN on musculoskeletal disorders across all body regions. PubMed, Web of Science and Embase were searched to identify SRs examining the effect of DN (as a stand-alone intervention or combined with another treatment modality) compared to sham/no intervention or a physical therapy (PT) intervention with at least one clinical outcome in the domain of pain or physical functioning. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed with the AMSTAR-2 tool. Quantification of the overlap in primary studies was calculated using the corrected covered area (CCA). The electronic search yielded 2286 results, of which 36 SRs were included in this review. Overall, DN is superior to sham/no intervention and equally effective to other interventions for pain reduction at short-term regardless of the body region. Some SRs favored wet needling (WN) over DN for short-term pain reductions. Results on physical functioning outcomes were contradictory across body regions. Limited data is available for mid- and long-term effects. DN has a short-term analgesic effect in all body regions and may be of additional value to the interventions that are used to date in clinical practice. Several studies have shown an additional treatment effect when combining DN to physiotherapeutic interventions compared to these interventions in isolation. There is a substantial need for the standardization of DN protocols to address the problem of heterogeneity and to strengthen the current evidence.

Effects of focused ultrasound and dry needling on tendon mechanical properties

Tendon injuries are extremely common, resulting in mechanically weaker tendons that could lead to tendon rupture. Dry needling (DN) is widely used to manage pain and function after injury. However, DN is invasive and high inter-practitioner variability has led to mixed success rates. Focused ultrasound (fUS) is a non-invasive medical technology that directs ultrasound energy into a well-defined focal volume. fUS can induce thermal ablation or mechanical fractionation, with bioeffect type controlled through ultrasound parameters. Tendons must withstand high physiological loads, thus treatments maintaining tendon mechanical properties while promoting healing are needed. Our objective was to evaluate mechanical effects of DN and 3 fUS parameter sets, chosen to prioritize mechanical fractionation, on Achilles and supraspinatus tendons. Ex vivo rat Achilles and supraspinatus tendons (50 each) were divided into sham, DN, fUS-1, fUS-2, and fUS-3 (n = 10/group). Following treatment, tendons were mechanically tested. Elastic modulus of supraspinatus tendons treated with DN (126.64 ± 28.1 MPa) was lower than sham (153.02 ± 29.3 MPa; p = 0.0280). Stiffness and percent relaxation of tendons treated with DN (Achilles: 114.40 ± 31.6 N/mm; 49.10 ± 6.1%; supraspinatus: 109.53 ± 30.8 N/mm; 50.17 ± 7.6%) were lower (all p < 0.0334) than sham (Achilles: 141.34 ± 20.9 N/mm; 60.30 ± 7.7%; supraspinatus: 135.14 ± 30.2 N/mm; 60.85 ± 15.4%). Modulus of Achilles and supraspinatus tendons treated with fUS-1 (159.88 ± 25.7 MPa; 150.12 ± 22.0 MPa, respectively) were similar to sham (156.35 ± 23.0 MPa; 153.02 ± 29.3 MPa, respectively). These results suggest that fUS preserves mechanical properties better than DN, with fUS-1 performing better than fUS-2 and fUS-3. fUS should be studied further to fully understand its mechanical and healing effects to help evaluate fUS as an alternative, non-invasive treatment for tendon injuries.

Dry Needling and Photobiomodulation Decreases Myofascial Pain in Trapezius of Women: Randomized Blind Clinical Trial

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to assess whether dry needling (DN) added to photobiomodulation (PBM) has effects on the treatment of active myofascial trigger points in the upper trapezius.

METHODS

This study was a randomized clinical trial, with 43 participants divided into 3 groups: DN and PBM (DNP), DN, and DN outside of the trigger point (DNout). Each group received 1 session of DN followed by PBM therapy with the machine turned on or off. Pain, disability, pain pressure threshold, and muscle activity were assessed before the intervention and afterward at intervals of 10 minutes, 30 minutes, 1 week, and 1 month.

RESULTS

Pain decreased after intervention in the DNP and DNout groups, with mean differences, respectively, of 1.33 cm (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.019-2.647) and 2.78 cm (95% CI, 1.170-2.973). Scores for the disability questionnaire decreased in all groups after intervention (F = 36.53, P < .0001) after the intervention, with mean differences of 3.8 points in the DNP group (95% CI, 1.082-5.518), 3.57 in the DN group (95% CI, 0.994-6.149), and 5.43 in the DNout group (95% CI, 3.101-7.756). There were no significant differences between or within groups in pain pressure threshold (F = 2.14, P = .139), with mean differences after 30 minutes of 0.139 kgf for the DNP group (95% CI, -0.343 to 0.622), 0.273 for the DN group (95% CI, -0.661 to 1.209), and -0.07 for the DNout group (95% CI, -0.465 to 0.324). Muscle activation for the DN group increased 8.49% after the intervention, where for the DNP group it decreased 11.5%, with a significant difference between groups.

CONCLUSION

DN added to PBM presented similar results compared to DNout and DN. In this sample, the effects of the application of DN outside of the trigger point had better effects on pain and disability scores than DN applied directly on the trigger point.

Dry needling for spine related disorders: a scoping review

Introduction/Background

The depth and breadth of research on dry needling (DN) has not been evaluated specifically for symptomatic spine related disorders (SRD) from myofascial trigger points (TrP), disc, nerve and articular structures not due to serious pathologies. Current literature appears to support DN for treatment of TrP. Goals of this review include identifying research published on DN treatment for SRD, sites of treatment and outcomes studied.

Methods

A scoping review was conducted following Levac et al.’s five part methodological framework to determine the current state of the literature regarding DN for patients with SRD.

Results

Initial and secondary search strategies yielded 55 studies in the cervical (C) region (71.43%) and 22 in the thoracolumbar-pelvic (TLP) region (28.57%). Most were randomized controlled trials (60% in C, 45.45% in TLP) and clinical trials (18.18% in C, 22.78% in TLP). The most commonly treated condition was TrP for both the C and TLP regions. In the C region, DN was provided to 23 different muscles, with the trapezius as treatment site in 41.88% of studies. DN was applied to 31 different structures in the TLP region. In the C region, there was one treatment session in 23 studies (41.82%) and 2–6 treatments in 25 (45.45%%). For the TLP region, one DN treatment was provided in 8 of the 22 total studies (36.36%) and 2–6 in 9 (40.9%). The majority of experimental designs had DN as the sole intervention. For both C and TLP regions, visual analogue scale, pressure pain threshold and range of motion were the most common outcomes.

Conclusion

For SRD, DN was primarily applied to myofascial structures for pain or TrP diagnoses. Many outcomes were improved regardless of diagnosis or treatment parameters. Most studies applied just one treatment which may not reflect common clinical practice. Further research is warranted to determine optimal treatment duration and frequency. Most studies looked at DN as the sole intervention. It is unclear whether DN alone or in addition to other treatment procedures would provide superior outcomes. Functional outcome tools best suited to tracking the outcomes of DN for SRD should be explored.