Effect of dry needling on lumbar muscle stiffness in patients with low back pain: A double blind, randomized controlled trial using shear wave elastography

Evaluation of the Reproducibility of MR Elastography Measurements of the Lumbar Back Muscles

BACKGROUND

MR elastography (MRE) may provide quantitative imaging biomarkers of lumbar back muscles (LBMs), complementing MRI in spinal diseases by assessing muscle mechanical properties. However, reproducibility analyses for MRE of LBM are lacking.

PURPOSE

To assess technical failure, within-day and inter-day reproducibility, robustness with the excitation source positioning, and inter-observer agreement of MRE of muscles.

STUDY TYPE

Prospective.

SUBJECTS

Seventeen healthy subjects (mean age 28 ± 4 years; 11 females).

FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE

1.5 T, gradient-echo MRE, T1-weighted turbo spin echo.

ASSESSMENT

The pneumatic driver was centered at L3 level. Four MRE were performed during two visits, 2-4 weeks apart, each consisting of two MRE with less than 10 minutes inter-scan interval. At Visit 1, after the first MRE, the coil and driver were removed, then reinstalled. The MRE was repeated. At Visit 2, following the first MRE, only the driver was moved down 5 cm. The MRE was repeated. Two radiologists segmented the multifidus and erector spinae muscles.

STATISTICAL TESTS

Paired t-test, analysis of variance, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). P-values <0.05 were considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Mean stiffness of LBM ranged from 1.44 to 1.60 kPa. Mean technical failure rate was 2.5%. Inter-observer agreement was excellent (ICC ranging from 0.82 [0.64-0.96] to 0.99 [0.98-0.99] in the multifidus, and from 0.85 [0.69-0.92] to 0.99 [0.97-0.99] in the erector spinae muscles). Within-day reproducibility was fair in the multifidus (ICC: 0.53 [0.47-0.77]) and good in the erector spinae muscles (ICC: 0.74 [0.48-0.88]). Reproducibility after moving the driver was excellent in both multifidus (ICC: 0.85 [0.69-0.93]) and erector spinae muscles (ICC: 0.84 [0.67-0.92]). Inter-day reproducibility was excellent in the multifidus (ICC: 0.76 [0.48-0.89]) and poor in the erector spinae muscles (ICC: 0.23 [-0.61 to 0.63]).

DATA CONCLUSION

MRE of LBM provides measurements of stiffness with fair to excellent reproducibility and excellent inter-observer agreement. However, inter-day reproducibility in the multifidus muscles indicated that the herein used MRE protocol may not be optimal for this muscle.

EVIDENCE LEVEL

2 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 1.

Ultrasound elastography of back muscle biomechanical properties: a systematic review and meta-analysis of current methods

OBJECTIVES

To report the current elastography methods used to quantify back muscles' biomechanical characteristics in patients with musculoskeletal disorders (MSKd) and inform on their reliability, validity, and responsiveness.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane library and grey literature were consulted. Predefined criteria allowed for study selection and data extraction. The quality of evidence was rated using the COSMIN tool. Data were meta-analyzed in terms of pooled intraclass correlation coefficient (pICC) for reliability and pooled standardized mean difference (pSMD) for validity and responsiveness. Heterogeneity was assessed.

RESULTS

Seventy-nine studies were included in the meta-analysis (total number of participants N = 3178). Three elastography methods were identified: strain imaging (SI; number of cohorts M = 26), shear wave imaging (SWI; M = 50), and vibration sonoelastography (VSE; M = 3). Strain imaging and SWI studies reported good reliability measurement properties (pICC > 0.70) and a medium pSMD (0.58 for SI and 0.60 for SWI; p ≤ 0.020) in discriminating MSKd from controls' condition (validity). Strain imaging studies reported a medium pSMD (0.64; p = 0.005) in detecting within-group changes over time, whereas SWI pSMD was very high (1.24; p = 0.005). Only SWI reported significant but small pSMD (0.30; p = 0.003) in detecting between-group changes over time. The small number of VSE studies could not be meta-analyzed. Heterogeneity was high (I-squared > 90%; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Elastography presents good reliability results and a medium pSMD in discriminating MSKd from control conditions. Responsiveness data suggest detectable changes within groups over time using SI and SWI, calling for long-term longitudinal studies. Assessing changes between groups over time using elastography still needs to be proven. Highly significant heterogeneity limits meta-analytic results.

CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT

While still in its early-stage exploration phase, musculoskeletal ultrasound elastography may reliably quantify back muscles' biomechanics in asymptomatic individuals, moderately discriminate back musculoskeletal disorders and detect biomechanical changes over time in these conditions, calling for long-term longitudinal studies.

KEY POINTS

Ultrasound elastography is reviewed for back pain and related musculoskeletal disorder assessments. Growing literature supports good reproducibility, some validity and responsiveness. Back muscle elastography considers assumptions calling for standardized protocols.

Is adding dry needling to a standard care protocol beneficial in patients with chronic neck pain? A randomized placebo-controlled trial

PURPOSE

To evaluate the short-term effects of adding a dry needling therapy to a standard care protocol based on education, exercise and electrotherapy, compared to a sham procedure and to a standard care protocol in isolation in patients with chronic neck pain.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A randomized placebo-controlled trial was performed. The participants in the dry needling group received a standard care protocol based on patient education, therapeutic exercise and electrotherapy, as well as two sessions of dry needling in the upper trapezius, levator scapulae, and/or sternocleidomastoid muscles. The participants in the sham dry needling group received the same standard care protocol and two sessions of sham dry needling. The participants in the control group received the same standard care protocol. The outcomes measured were pain intensity, pressure pain threshold, neck disability, range of movement, activation of deep cervical flexor muscles, kinesiophobia, pain catastrophizing, anxiety, and depression.

RESULTS

No significant group by time interactions were found for any of the outcome variables except for lower cervical spine range of movement (F = 3.79; p = 0.030).

CONCLUSION

The addition of two sessions of dry needling in the superficial neck muscles to a standard protocol did not yield superior results compared to either the standard care alone or the standard care plus sham dry needling in patients with chronic neck pain in any outcome except for cervical range of movement.

Changes of trunk muscle stiffness in individuals with low back pain: a systematic review with meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Low back pain (LBP) is one of the most common musculoskeletal conditions. People with LBP often display changes of neuromuscular control and trunk mechanical properties, including trunk stiffness. Although a few individual studies have examined back muscle stiffness in individuals with LBP, a synthesis of the evidence appears to be lacking. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review with meta-analysis was to synthesize and evaluate the available literature investigating back muscle stiffness in association with LBP.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of the literature according to the PRISMA guidelines. We searched Pubmed, Scopus, Web of Science and ScienceDirect for studies, that compared back muscle stiffness, measured either by ultrasound-based elastography or myotonometry, between individuals with and without LBP. Pooled data of the included studies were presented descriptively. Additionally, we performed two meta-analyses to calculate the standardized mean difference between the two groups for resting stiffness of the multifidus and erector spinae muscle. For both meta-analyses, the random effect model was used and the weight of individual studies was calculated using the inverse-variance method. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Analytical Cross-Sectional studies. Furthermore, the certainty of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

Nine studies were included in our systematic review. Our results suggest that individuals with LBP have higher stiffness of the multifidus (SMD = 0.48, 95% CI: 0.15 - 0.81, p < 0.01; I2 = 48 %, p = 0.11) and erector spinae at rest (SMD = 0.37, 95% CI: 0.11 - 0.62, p < 0.01; I2 = 39 %, p = 0.14) compared to asymptomatic controls. On the other hand, the evidence regarding muscle stiffness during submaximal contractions is somewhat contradictory.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the findings of this systematic review we conclude that people with LBP may have higher back muscle stiffness compared to asymptomatic controls. Addressing muscle stiffness might represent an important goal of LBP treatment. Nevertheless, our findings should be interpreted with extreme caution due to a limited quality of evidence, small number of included studies and differences in measurement methodology.

Treating myofascial pain with dry needling: a systematic review for the best evidence-based practices in low back pain

BACKGROUND

 Myofascial pain syndrome (MPS) is a common source of pain in primary care or pain clinics. There are many different ways to manage and treat MPS, such as physical exercise, trigger points massage, and dry needling.

OBJECTIVE

 The objective of this overview is to highlight and discuss the evidence-based treatment of myofascial pain by dry needling in patients with low back pain.

METHODS

 A systematic review was made based on meta-analysis (MA) and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) related to dry needling treatment for myofascial pain in patients with lumbar pain, published from 2000 to 2023.

RESULTS

 A total of 509 records were identified at first. Seventy were published before 2000, so they were excluded. From the remaining 439 studies, ninety-two were RCTs or MA, of which 86 additional studies were excluded for the following reasons: not related to dry needling treatment (n = 79), not published in English (n = 4), duplicated (n = 1), project protocol (n = 1), and not related to myofascial pain (n = 1). So, this review was based on 4 RCTs and two MA. These studies compared dry needling efficacy to other treatments, such as acupuncture, sham dry needling, laser therapy, physical therapy, local anesthetic injection, ischemic compression, and neuroscience education. Despite outcomes and follow-up period varied between them, they showed that dry needling can decrease post-intervention pain intensity and pain disability.

CONCLUSION

 Dry needling is an effective procedure for the treatment of myofascial pain in patients with acute and chronic low back pain. Further high-quality studies are needed to clarify the long-term outcomes.

Systematic Review to Inform a World Health Organization (WHO) Clinical Practice Guideline: Benefits and Harms of Needling Therapies for Chronic Primary Low Back Pain in Adults

PURPOSE

Evaluate benefits and harms of needling therapies (NT) for chronic primary low back pain (CPLBP) in adults to inform a World Health Organization (WHO) standard clinical guideline.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing NT compared with placebo/sham, usual care, or no intervention (comparing interventions where the attributable effect could be isolated). We conducted meta-analyses where indicated and graded the certainty of evidence.

RESULTS

We screened 1831 citations and 109 full text RCTs, yeilding 37 RCTs. The certainty of evidence was low or very low across all included outcomes. There was little or no difference between NT and comparisons across most outcomes; there may be some benefits for certain outcomes. Compared with sham, NT improved health-related quality of life (HRQoL) (physical) (2 RCTs; SMD = 0.20, 95%CI 0.07; 0.32) at 6 months. Compared with no intervention, NT reduced pain at 2 weeks (21 RCTs; MD = - 1.21, 95%CI - 1.50; - 0.92) and 3 months (9 RCTs; MD = - 1.56, 95%CI - 2.80; - 0.95); and reduced functional limitations at 2 weeks (19 RCTs; SMD = - 1.39, 95%CI - 2.00; - 0.77) and 3 months (8 RCTs; SMD = - 0.57, 95%CI - 0.92; - 0.22). In older adults, NT reduced functional limitations at 2 weeks (SMD = - 1.10, 95%CI - 1.71; - 0.48) and 3 months (SMD = - 1.04, 95%CI - 1.66; - 0.43). Compared with usual care, NT reduced pain (MD = - 1.35, 95%CI - 1.86; - 0.84) and functional limitations (MD = - 2.55, 95%CI - 3.70; - 1.40) at 3 months.

CONCLUSION

Based on low to very low certainty evidence, adults with CPLBP experienced some benefits in pain, functioning, or HRQoL with NT; however, evidence showed little to no differences for other outcomes.

Evaluating the efficacy of moving cupping for chronic low back pain using shear wave elastography: A parallel-arm, randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a common condition that affects millions of people worldwide. Moving cupping has gained popularity as a complementary therapy for managing CLBP owing to its noninvasive and cost-effective nature. However, the lack of objective measures to assess its therapeutic effect has been a considerable challenge in evaluating the effectiveness of moving cupping for CLBP management.

METHODS

We developed a randomized controlled trial (RCT) protocol for evaluating the effectiveness of a noninvasive treatment using moving cupping by assessing muscle relaxation with shear wave elastography (SWE). It involves the recruitment of 68 patients with CLBP and randomly assigns them to either the treatment or control group. The treatment group will receive moving cupping therapy for 2 weeks, while the control group will receive placebo treatment. It will utilize SWE to evaluate muscle relaxation at baseline, after 2 weeks of treatment, and 1 week after the end of treatment. Subjective reports of pain intensity and quality of life are also recorded at each time point.

DISCUSSION

The protocol developed here utilizes SWE to objectively measure muscle stiffness, and coupled with moving cupping therapy, may be effective in conveying relative comparisons before and after treatment. Moving cupping therapy is expected to promote muscle relaxation and pain relief in patients with CLBP. This study has the potential to contribute to the development of objective measures for evaluating the therapeutic effects of traditional therapies and to provide valuable insight into their efficacy.