Trigger Point Dry Needling

A problem acupuncture research has to face is the concept of a control group. If, in control groups, non-acupoint needling is done, physiological acupuncture effects are implied. Therefore the effects shown in this group are often close to those shown in the acupuncture group. In other trials, control groups have received obviously different treatments, such as transcutaneous electrical nervous stimulation or TENS-laser treatment; it is not clear if the effects of acupuncture are due only to the psychological effects of the treatment. We developed a placebo acupuncture needle, with which it should be possible to simulate an acupuncture procedure without penetrating the skin. In a cross-over experiment with 60 volunteers we tested whether needling with the placebo needle feels any different from real acupuncture. Of 60 volunteers, 54 felt a penetration with acupuncture (mean visual analogue scale [VAS] 13.4; SD 10.58) and 47 felt it with placebo (VAS 8.86; SD 10.55), 34 felt a dull pain sensation (DEQI) with acupuncture and 13 with placebo. None of the volunteers suspected that the needle may not have penetrated the skin. The placebo needle is sufficiently credible to be used in investigations of the effects of acupuncture.

Acupuncture is widely used to prevent migraine attacks, but the available evidence of its benefit is scarce. To investigate the effectiveness of acupuncture compared with sham acupuncture and with no acupuncture in patients with migraine. Three-group, randomized, controlled trial (April 2002-January 2003) involving 302 patients (88% women), mean (SD) age of 43 (11) years, with migraine headaches, based on International Headache Society criteria. Patients were treated at 18 outpatient centers in Germany. Acupuncture, sham acupuncture, or waiting list control. Acupuncture and sham acupuncture were administered by specialized physicians and consisted of 12 sessions per patient over 8 weeks. Patients completed headache diaries from 4 weeks before to 12 weeks after randomization and from week 21 to 24 after randomization. Difference in headache days of moderate or severe intensity between the 4 weeks before and weeks 9 to 12 after randomization. Between baseline and weeks 9 to 12, the mean (SD) number of days with headache of moderate or severe intensity decreased by 2.2 (2.7) days from a baseline of 5.2 (2.5) days in the acupuncture group compared with a decrease to 2.2 (2.7) days from a baseline of 5.0 (2.4) days in the sham acupuncture group, and by 0.8 (2.0) days from a baseline if 5.4 (3.0) days in the waiting list group. No difference was detected between the acupuncture and the sham acupuncture groups (0.0 days, 95% confidence interval, -0.7 to 0.7 days; P = .96) while there was a difference between the acupuncture group compared with the waiting list group (1.4 days; 95% confidence interval; 0.8-2.1 days; P<.001). The proportion of responders (reduction in headache days by at least 50%) was 51% in the acupuncture group, 53% in the sham acupuncture group, and 15% in the waiting list group. Acupuncture was no more effective than sham acupuncture in reducing migraine headaches although both interventions were more effective than a waiting list control.

This article explores how myofascial trigger points (MTrPs) may relate to musculoskeletal dysfunction (MSD) in the workplace and what might be done about it. The cause of much MSD and pain is often enigmatic to modern medicine and very costly, just as the cause of MTrPs has been elusive for the past century, despite an extensive literature that is confusing because of restricted regional approaches and a seemingly endless variety of names. MTrPs are activated by acute or persistent muscle overload, which is characteristic of MSD in the workplace. MTrPs can involve any, and sometimes many, of the skeletal muscles in the body and are a major, complex cause of musculoskeletal pain. The clinical and etiological characteristics of MTrPs have been underexplored by investigators, leading to undertraining of health care professionals, underappreciation of their clinical importance. MTrPs have no gold standard diagnostic criterion, and no routinely available laboratory or imaging test. MTrPs require a specific non-routine examination and muscle-specific treatment for prompt relief when acute, and also resolution of perpetuating factors when chronic. After identifying a critical false assumption, electrodiagnostic studies are now making encouraging progress toward clarifying the etiology of MTrPs based on the 5- or 6-step positive-feedback model of the integrated hypothesis. Specific research needs are noted. MTrPs are treatable and they deserve increased attention and consideration by research investigators and clinicians.