Farhad Adelmanesh1, Ali Jalali, Seyed Mostafa Jazayeri Shooshtari, Gholam Reza Raissi, Seyed Mehdi Ketabchi, Yoram Shir. 1. From the The Alan Edwards Pain Management Unit, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Quebec, Canada (FA, YS); Ear, Nose, Throat, Head and Neck Surgery Department and Research Center, Rasoul Akram Hospital, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran (AJ); Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran (SMJS); Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran (GRR); and International Neuroscience Institute, Hannover, Germany (SMK).
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the prevalence of gluteal trigger point in patients with lumbosacral radiculopathy with that in healthy volunteers. DESIGN: In a cross-sectional, multistage sampling method, patients with clinical, electromyographic, and magnetic resonance imaging findings consistent with lumbosacral radiculopathy were examined for the presence of gluteal trigger point. Age- and sex-matched clusters of healthy volunteers were selected as the control group. The primary outcome of the study was the presence or absence of gluteal trigger point in the gluteal region of the patients and the control group. RESULTS: Of 441 screened patients, 271 met all the inclusion criteria for lumbosacral radiculopathy and were included in the study. Gluteal trigger point was identified in 207 (76.4%) of the 271 patients with radiculopathy, compared with 3 (1.9%) of 152 healthy volunteers (P < 0.001). The location of gluteal trigger point matched the side of painful radiculopathy in 74.6% of patients with a unilateral radicular pain. There was a significant correlation between the side of the gluteal trigger point and the side of patients' radicular pain (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Although rare in the healthy volunteers, most of the patients with lumbosacral radiculopathy had gluteal trigger point, located at the painful side. Further studies are required to test the hypothesis that specific gluteal trigger point therapy could be beneficial in these patients.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the prevalence of gluteal trigger point in patients with lumbosacral radiculopathy with that in healthy volunteers. DESIGN: In a cross-sectional, multistage sampling method, patients with clinical, electromyographic, and magnetic resonance imaging findings consistent with lumbosacral radiculopathy were examined for the presence of gluteal trigger point. Age- and sex-matched clusters of healthy volunteers were selected as the control group. The primary outcome of the study was the presence or absence of gluteal trigger point in the gluteal region of the patients and the control group. RESULTS: Of 441 screened patients, 271 met all the inclusion criteria for lumbosacral radiculopathy and were included in the study. Gluteal trigger point was identified in 207 (76.4%) of the 271 patients with radiculopathy, compared with 3 (1.9%) of 152 healthy volunteers (P < 0.001). The location of gluteal trigger point matched the side of painful radiculopathy in 74.6% of patients with a unilateral radicular pain. There was a significant correlation between the side of the gluteal trigger point and the side of patients' radicular pain (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Although rare in the healthy volunteers, most of the patients with lumbosacral radiculopathy had gluteal trigger point, located at the painful side. Further studies are required to test the hypothesis that specific gluteal trigger point therapy could be beneficial in these patients.