John S Mason1, Michael Crowell2, Jeffery Dolbeer2, Jamie Morris3, Aspen Terry4, Shane Koppenhaver5, Donald Lee Goss. 1. Womack Army Medical Center, FT Bragg, NC, USA. 2. Baylor University-Keller Army Community Hospital, Division 1 Sports Physical Therapy Fellowship, West Point, NY, USA. 3. San Antonio Military Medical Center, Joint Base San Antonio, TX, USA. 4. Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, AZ, USA. 5. US Army Baylor University Doctoral Physical Therapy Program, Fort Sam Houston, TX, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recently, dry needling has emerged as a popular treatment for muscular pain and impairments. While there are numerous studies detailing the benefits of dry needling for pain, few studies exist examining the effects on soft tissue mobility. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine if the addition of hamstring dry needling to a standard stretching program results in greater improvements in hamstring flexibility compared to sham dry needling and stretching in subjects with atraumatic knee pain. Additionally, squat range of motion, knee pain, and the Lower Extremity Functional Scale were compared between the two groups. STUDY DESIGN: Double blinded randomized controlled trial. METHODS:Thirty-nine subjects were randomized to receive either dry needling (n = 20) or sham (n = 19) dry needling in addition to hamstring stretching, to all detected hamstring trigger points on two visits. All dependent variables were measured at baseline, immediately post intervention, and 1, 3, and 7 days after the initial treatment. Each subject also performed hamstring stretching three times daily for one week. RESULTS: Significant improvements in hamstring range of motion and all other dependent variables were observed across time regardless of treatment group. However, the lack of significant time by group interactions indicated the improvements were not different between dry needling and sham dry needling groups. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the current randomized controlled trial suggest that two sessions of dry needling did not improve hamstring range of motion or other knee pain-related impairments more than sham dry needling in a young active population with atraumatic knee pain. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapy, Level 2.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Recently, dry needling has emerged as a popular treatment for muscular pain and impairments. While there are numerous studies detailing the benefits of dry needling for pain, few studies exist examining the effects on soft tissue mobility. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine if the addition of hamstring dry needling to a standard stretching program results in greater improvements in hamstring flexibility compared to sham dry needling and stretching in subjects with atraumatic knee pain. Additionally, squat range of motion, knee pain, and the Lower Extremity Functional Scale were compared between the two groups. STUDY DESIGN: Double blinded randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Thirty-nine subjects were randomized to receive either dry needling (n = 20) or sham (n = 19) dry needling in addition to hamstring stretching, to all detected hamstring trigger points on two visits. All dependent variables were measured at baseline, immediately post intervention, and 1, 3, and 7 days after the initial treatment. Each subject also performed hamstring stretching three times daily for one week. RESULTS: Significant improvements in hamstring range of motion and all other dependent variables were observed across time regardless of treatment group. However, the lack of significant time by group interactions indicated the improvements were not different between dry needling and sham dry needling groups. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the current randomized controlled trial suggest that two sessions of dry needling did not improve hamstring range of motion or other knee pain-related impairments more than sham dry needling in a young active population with atraumatic knee pain. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapy, Level 2.
Entities:
Keywords:
Flexibility; lower extremity; trigger point
Authors: Joel E Bialosky; Mark D Bishop; Michael E Robinson; Josh A Barabas; Steven Z George Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2008-02-11 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: Jennifer A Janowski; Deanna M L Phelan-Smith; Maria N Kroat Brady; Kelsey L Michels; Alexandra H Timm; Nicole M Boucher; Kedron D Casteen; David Village; Mark D Sleeper Journal: Int J Sports Phys Ther Date: 2021-04-01
Authors: Felicity A Braithwaite; Julie L Walters; Lok Sze Katrina Li; G Lorimer Moseley; Marie T Williams; Maureen P McEvoy Journal: PeerJ Date: 2018-07-31 Impact factor: 2.984