Cargando…

Intramuscular stimulation vs sham needling for the treatment of chronic midportion Achilles tendinopathy: A randomized controlled clinical trial

BACKGROUND: The insertion of filiform needles intramuscularly (a.k.a. intramuscular stimulation/dry needling) has been suggested as a possible treatment for various painful musculoskeletal conditions. Our aim was to answer the question, is intramuscular stimulation more effective than sham intramusc...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Solomons, Lyndal, Lee, Jenny J. Y., Bruce, Margaret, White, Lynita D., Scott, Alex
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7478532/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32898170
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238579
_version_ 1783580072976842752
author Solomons, Lyndal
Lee, Jenny J. Y.
Bruce, Margaret
White, Lynita D.
Scott, Alex
author_facet Solomons, Lyndal
Lee, Jenny J. Y.
Bruce, Margaret
White, Lynita D.
Scott, Alex
author_sort Solomons, Lyndal
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The insertion of filiform needles intramuscularly (a.k.a. intramuscular stimulation/dry needling) has been suggested as a possible treatment for various painful musculoskeletal conditions. Our aim was to answer the question, is intramuscular stimulation more effective than sham intramuscular stimulation/dry needling for the treatment of Achilles tendinopathy? METHODS: 52 participants with persistent midportion Achilles tendinopathy began and 46 completed one of three treatment protocols which were randomly assigned: (G3) a 12-week rehabilitation program of progressive tendon loading plus intramuscular stimulation (n = 25), (G2) the same rehabilitation program but with sham intramuscular stimulation (n = 19), or (G1) a reference group of rehabilitation program alone (as an additional control) (n = 8). The a priori primary outcome measure was change in VISA-A score at 12 weeks–VISA-A was also measured at 6 weeks, and at 6 and 12 months. Secondary outcome measures include the proportion of patients who rated themselves as much or very much improved (%), dorsiflexion range of motion (degrees), and tendon thickness (mm). RESULTS: The study retention was 94% at 12 weeks and 88% at 1 year. VISA-A score improved in all three groups over time (p<0.0001), with no significant difference among the three groups in VISA-A score at the start of the study (mean ± SD: G3 59 ± 13, G2 57 ± 17, G1 56 ± 22), at 12 weeks (G3 76 ± 14, G2 76 ± 15, G1 82 ± 11) or at any other timepoint. The percentage of patients who rated themselves as much or very much improved (i.e. treatment success) was not different after 12 weeks (G3 70%, G2 89%, G1 86% p = 0.94), or at 26 (p = 0.62) or 52 weeks (p = 0.71). No clinically significant effects of intervention group were observed in any of the secondary outcome measures. CONCLUSION: The addition of intramuscular stimulation to standard rehabilitation for Achilles tendinopathy did not result in any improvement over the expected clinical benefit achieved with exercise-based rehabilitation alone.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7478532
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-74785322020-09-18 Intramuscular stimulation vs sham needling for the treatment of chronic midportion Achilles tendinopathy: A randomized controlled clinical trial Solomons, Lyndal Lee, Jenny J. Y. Bruce, Margaret White, Lynita D. Scott, Alex PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: The insertion of filiform needles intramuscularly (a.k.a. intramuscular stimulation/dry needling) has been suggested as a possible treatment for various painful musculoskeletal conditions. Our aim was to answer the question, is intramuscular stimulation more effective than sham intramuscular stimulation/dry needling for the treatment of Achilles tendinopathy? METHODS: 52 participants with persistent midportion Achilles tendinopathy began and 46 completed one of three treatment protocols which were randomly assigned: (G3) a 12-week rehabilitation program of progressive tendon loading plus intramuscular stimulation (n = 25), (G2) the same rehabilitation program but with sham intramuscular stimulation (n = 19), or (G1) a reference group of rehabilitation program alone (as an additional control) (n = 8). The a priori primary outcome measure was change in VISA-A score at 12 weeks–VISA-A was also measured at 6 weeks, and at 6 and 12 months. Secondary outcome measures include the proportion of patients who rated themselves as much or very much improved (%), dorsiflexion range of motion (degrees), and tendon thickness (mm). RESULTS: The study retention was 94% at 12 weeks and 88% at 1 year. VISA-A score improved in all three groups over time (p<0.0001), with no significant difference among the three groups in VISA-A score at the start of the study (mean ± SD: G3 59 ± 13, G2 57 ± 17, G1 56 ± 22), at 12 weeks (G3 76 ± 14, G2 76 ± 15, G1 82 ± 11) or at any other timepoint. The percentage of patients who rated themselves as much or very much improved (i.e. treatment success) was not different after 12 weeks (G3 70%, G2 89%, G1 86% p = 0.94), or at 26 (p = 0.62) or 52 weeks (p = 0.71). No clinically significant effects of intervention group were observed in any of the secondary outcome measures. CONCLUSION: The addition of intramuscular stimulation to standard rehabilitation for Achilles tendinopathy did not result in any improvement over the expected clinical benefit achieved with exercise-based rehabilitation alone. Public Library of Science 2020-09-08 /pmc/articles/PMC7478532/ /pubmed/32898170 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238579 Text en © 2020 Solomons et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Solomons, Lyndal
Lee, Jenny J. Y.
Bruce, Margaret
White, Lynita D.
Scott, Alex
Intramuscular stimulation vs sham needling for the treatment of chronic midportion Achilles tendinopathy: A randomized controlled clinical trial
title Intramuscular stimulation vs sham needling for the treatment of chronic midportion Achilles tendinopathy: A randomized controlled clinical trial
title_full Intramuscular stimulation vs sham needling for the treatment of chronic midportion Achilles tendinopathy: A randomized controlled clinical trial
title_fullStr Intramuscular stimulation vs sham needling for the treatment of chronic midportion Achilles tendinopathy: A randomized controlled clinical trial
title_full_unstemmed Intramuscular stimulation vs sham needling for the treatment of chronic midportion Achilles tendinopathy: A randomized controlled clinical trial
title_short Intramuscular stimulation vs sham needling for the treatment of chronic midportion Achilles tendinopathy: A randomized controlled clinical trial
title_sort intramuscular stimulation vs sham needling for the treatment of chronic midportion achilles tendinopathy: a randomized controlled clinical trial
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7478532/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32898170
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238579
work_keys_str_mv AT solomonslyndal intramuscularstimulationvsshamneedlingforthetreatmentofchronicmidportionachillestendinopathyarandomizedcontrolledclinicaltrial
AT leejennyjy intramuscularstimulationvsshamneedlingforthetreatmentofchronicmidportionachillestendinopathyarandomizedcontrolledclinicaltrial
AT brucemargaret intramuscularstimulationvsshamneedlingforthetreatmentofchronicmidportionachillestendinopathyarandomizedcontrolledclinicaltrial
AT whitelynitad intramuscularstimulationvsshamneedlingforthetreatmentofchronicmidportionachillestendinopathyarandomizedcontrolledclinicaltrial
AT scottalex intramuscularstimulationvsshamneedlingforthetreatmentofchronicmidportionachillestendinopathyarandomizedcontrolledclinicaltrial