Percutaneous tendon dry needling and thrust manipulation as an adjunct to multimodal physical therapy in patients with lateral elbow tendinopathy: A multicenter randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the effects of adding electrical dry needling and thrust manipulation into a multimodal program of exercise, mobilization, and ultrasound in patients with lateral elbow tendinopathy. DESIGN: Randomized, single-blinded, multicenter, parallel-group trial. SETTING: Thirteen outpatient physical therapy clinics in nine different US states. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred and forty-three participants (n = 143) with lateral elbow tendinopathy were randomized. INTERVENTION: Cervical spine manipulation, extremity manipulation, and percutaneous tendon electrical dry needling plus multimodal physical therapy (n = 73) or multimodal physical therapy (n = 70) alone. MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome was elbow pain intensity and disability as measured by the Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation at baseline, 1 week, 4 weeks, and 3 months. Secondary outcomes included the Numeric Pain Rating Scale, Tennis Elbow Functional Scale, Global Rating of Change, and medication intake. RESULTS: The 2 × 4 analysis of covariance demonstrated that individuals with lateral elbow tendinopathy receiving electrical dry needling and thrust manipulation plus multimodal physical therapy experienced significantly greater improvements in disability (Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation: F = 19.675; P < 0.001), elbow pain intensity (Numeric Pain Rating Scale: F = 22.769; P < 0.001), and function (Tennis Elbow Function Scale: F = 13.269; P < 0.001) than those receiving multimodal physical therapy alone at 3 months. The between-group effect size was large for pain and disability (Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation: standardized mean difference = 1.13; 95% confidence interval: 0.78, 1.48) in favor of the electrical dry needling and thrust manipulation group. CONCLUSIONS: The inclusion of percutaneous tendon electrical dry needling and thrust manipulation into a multimodal program of exercise, mobilization and ultrasound was more effective than multimodal physical therapy alone in individuals with lateral elbow tendinopathy.Trial Registration: www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT03167710 May 30, 2017.

Spinal manipulation and electrical dry needling as an adjunct to conventional physical therapy in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: a multi-center randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Nonoperative management of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) includes activity modification, medication, injections, and physical therapy. Conventional physical therapy includes a multimodal approach of exercise, manual therapy, and electro-thermal modalities. There is a paucity of evidence supporting the use of spinal manipulation and dry needling as an adjunct to conventional physical therapy in patients with LSS. PURPOSE: This study aimed to determine the effects of adding thrust spinal manipulation and electrical dry needling to conventional physical therapy in patients with LSS. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Randomized, single-blinded, multi-center, parallel-group clinical trial. PATIENT SAMPLE: One hundred twenty-eight (n=128) patients with LSS from 12 outpatient clinics in 8 states were recruited over a 34-month period. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes included the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Secondary outcomes included the Roland Morris Disability Index (RMDI), Global Rating of Change (GROC), and medication intake. Follow-up assessments were taken at 2 weeks, 6 weeks, and 3 months. METHODS: Patients were randomized to receive either spinal manipulation, electrical dry needling, and conventional physical therapy (MEDNCPT group, n=65) or conventional physical therapy alone (CPT group, n=63). RESULTS: At 3 months, the MEDNCPT group experienced greater reductions in overall low back, buttock, and leg pain (NPRS: F=5.658; p=.002) and related-disability (ODI: F=9.921; p<.001; RMDI: F=7.263; p<.001) compared to the CPT group. Effect sizes were small at 2 and 6 weeks, and medium at 3 months for the NPRS, ODI, and RMDI. At 3 months, significantly (p=.003) more patients in the MEDNCPT group reported a successful outcome (GROC≥+5) than the CPT group. CONCLUSION: Patients with LSS who received electrical dry needling and spinal manipulation in addition to impairment-based exercise, manual therapy and electro-thermal modalities experienced greater improvements in low back, buttock and leg pain and related-disability than those receiving exercise, manual therapy, and electro-thermal modalities alone at 3 months, but not at the 2 or 6 week follow-up.

Spinal manipulation and perineural electrical dry needling in patients with cervicogenic headache: a multicenter randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Spinal manipulation, spinal mobilization, and exercise are commonly used in individuals with cervicogenic headache (CH). Dry needling is being increasingly used in the management of CH. However, questions remain about the effectiveness of these therapies and how they compare to each other. PURPOSE: The present study aims to compare the combined effects of spinal manipulation and dry needling with spinal mobilization and exercise on pain and disability in individuals with CH. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Randomized, multicenter, parallel-group trial. PATIENT SAMPLE: One hundred forty-two patients (n=142) with CH from 13 outpatient clinics in 10 different states were recruited over a 36-month period. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was headache intensity as measured by the Numeric Pain Rating Scale. Secondary outcomes included headache frequency and duration, disability (Neck Disability Index), medication intake, and the Global Rating of Change (GROC). Follow-up assessments were taken at 1 week, 4 weeks, and 3 months. METHODS: Patients were randomized to receive upper cervical and upper thoracic spinal manipulation plus electrical dry needling (n=74) or upper cervical and upper thoracic spinal mobilization and exercise (n=68). In addition, the mobilization group also received a program of craniocervical and peri-scapular resistance exercises; whereas, the spinal manipulation group also received up to eight sessions of perineural electrical dry needling. The treatment period for both groups was 4 weeks. The trial was prospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02373605). Drs Dunning, Butts and Young are faculty within the AAMT Fellowship and teach postgraduate courses in spinal manipulation, spinal mobilization, dry needling, exercise and differential diagnosis. The other authors declare no conflicts of interest. None of the authors received any funding for this study. RESULTS: The 2 × 4 analysis of covariance revealed that individuals with CH who received thrust spinal manipulation and electrical dry needling experienced significantly greater reductions in headache intensity (F=23.464; p<.001), headache frequency (F=13.407; p<.001), and disability (F=10.702; p<.001) than those who received nonthrust mobilization and exercise at a 3-month follow-up. Individuals in the spinal manipulation and electrical dry needling group also experienced shorter duration of headaches (p<.001) at 3 months. Based on the cutoff score of ≥+5 on the GROC, significantly (X2=54.840; p<.001) more patients (n=57, 77%) within the spinal manipulation and electrical dry needling group achieved a successful outcome compared to the mobilization and exercise group (n=10, 15%) at 3-month follow-up. Between-groups effect sizes were large (0.94

Unilateral and Multiple Cavitation Sounds During Lumbosacral Spinal Manipulation.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine from which side of the spine the popping sound (PS) emanates during side-lying, rotatory high-velocity low-amplitude (HVLA) thrust manipulation directed to the L5-S1 articulation using a time-frequency analysis. Secondary aims were to calculate the average number of PSs, the duration of lumbar thrust manipulation, and the duration of a single PS. METHODS: Thirty-four asymptomatic participants received 2 lumbar HVLA thrust manipulations targeting the right and left L5-S1 articulations. Two high sampling rate accelerometers were secured bilaterally 25 mm lateral to the midline of the L5-S1 interspace. For each manipulation, 2 audio signals were extracted and singularly processed via spectrogram calculation to obtain the release of energy over time on each side of the lumbosacral junction. RESULTS: During 60 HVLA thrust manipulations, it was measured a total of 320 PSs. Of those PSs, 176 occurred ipsilateral and 144 occurred contralateral to the targeted L5-S1 articulation; that is, the PS was no more likely to occur on the upside than the downside facet after right or left rotatory L5-S1 HVLA thrust manipulation. Moreover, PSs occurring on both sides at the same time were detected very rarely (ie, 2% of cases) with the lumbar HVLA thrust manipulations. The mean number of audible PSs per lumbosacral HVLA thrust manipulation was 5.27 (range 2-9). The mean duration of a single manipulation was 139.13 milliseconds (95% confidence interval: 5.61-493.79), and the mean duration of a single PS was 2.69 milliseconds (95% confidence interval: 0.95-4.59). CONCLUSION: Based on our findings, spinal manipulative therapy practitioners should expect multiple PSs that most often occur on the upside or the downside facet articulations when performing HVLA thrust manipulation to the lumbosacral junction (ie, L5-S1). However, whether the multiple PSs found in this study emanated from the same joint or adjacent ipsilateral or contralateral facet joints remains unknown. A single model may not necessarily be able to explain all of the audible sounds during HVLA thrust manipulation.

CAVITATION SOUNDS DURING CERVICOTHORACIC SPINAL MANIPULATION.

BACKGROUND: No study has previously investigated the side, duration or number of audible cavitation sounds during high-velocity low-amplitude (HVLA) thrust manipulation to the cervicothoracic spine. PURPOSE: The primary purpose was to determine which side of the spine cavitates during cervicothoracic junction (CTJ) HVLA thrust manipulation. Secondary aims were to calculate the average number of cavitations, the duration of cervicothoracic thrust manipulation, and the duration of a single cavitation. STUDY DESIGN: Quasi-experimental study. METHODS: Thirty-two patients with upper trapezius myalgia received two cervicothoracic HVLA thrust manipulations targeting the right and left T1-2 articulation, respectively. Two high sampling rate accelerometers were secured bilaterally 25 mm lateral to midline of the T1-2 interspace. For each manipulation, two audio signals were extracted using Short-Time Fourier Transformation (STFT) and singularly processed via spectrogram calculation in order to evaluate the frequency content and number of instantaneous energy bursts of both signals over time for each side of the CTJ. RESULT: Unilateral cavitation sounds were detected in 53 (91.4%) of 58 cervicothoracic HVLA thrust manipulations and bilateral cavitation sounds were detected in just five (8.6%) of the 58 thrust manipulations; that is, cavitation was significantly (p<0.001) more likely to occur unilaterally than bilaterally. In addition, cavitation was significantly (p<0.0001) more likely to occur on the side contralateral to the clinician's short-lever applicator. The mean number of audible cavitations per manipulation was 4.35 (95% CI 2.88, 5.76). The mean duration of a single manipulation was 60.77 ms (95% CI 28.25, 97.42) and the mean duration of a single audible cavitation was 4.13 ms (95% CI 0.82, 7.46). In addition to single-peak and multi-peak energy bursts, spectrogram analysis also demonstrated high frequency sounds, low frequency sounds, and sounds of multiple frequencies for all 58 manipulations. DISCUSSION: Cavitation was significantly more likely to occur unilaterally, and on the side contralateral to the short-lever applicator contact, during cervicothoracic HVLA thrust manipulation. Clinicians should expect multiple cavitation sounds when performing HVLA thrust manipulation to the CTJ. Due to the presence of multi-peak energy bursts and sounds of multiple frequencies, the cavitation hypothesis (i.e. intra-articular gas bubble collapse) alone appears unable to explain all of the audible sounds during HVLA thrust manipulation, and the possibility remains that several phenomena may be occurring simultaneously. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2b.