Efficacy of Dry Needling for Chronic Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Objective: To evaluate the current evidence of the effectiveness of dry needling in patients with chronic low back pain (LBP). Methods: PubMed, Medline, ScienceDirect, Web of Science, CINAHL and PEDro databases were searched until 2020. Study selection: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that used dry needling as the main treatment and which included participants diagnosed with chronic LBP. Data extraction: Two reviewers independently screened articles, scored methodologic quality, and extracted data. The primary outcomes were pain intensity and functional disability at post-intervention and follow-up. Results: A total of 8 RCTs involving 414 patients were included in the meta-analysis. All trials examined the efficacy of DN in patients with chronic LBP. Results suggested that compared with other treatments, dry needling combined was more effective in alleviating the pain intensity of LBP post-intervention (standardised mean difference [SMD], -0.42; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.79 to -0.05; P = .03) and at short- term (SMD -0.99, 95% CI -1.61 to -0.37, P = .002). Conclusion: Current evidence showed that dry needling, especially if associated with other therapies, could be recommended to relieve the pain intensity of LBP at post-intervention and at short-term follow up. There is no evidence that dry needling alone or in combination improves disability at post-immediate or at short-term follow up. Registration: This review was registered on PROSPERO (PROSPERO CRD42020215781) and was aligned with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for reporting systematic reviews that evaluate healthcare interventions.

Efficacy of e-Health Interventions in Patients with Chronic Low-Back Pain: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis.

Introduction: Low-back pain (LBP) is the leading cause of disability worldwide. Around 75-84% of the world's population will experience LBP at some point, establishing it as a major global health problem. e-Health is the remote delivery of therapeutic services, clinical information, and medical care, and may prove a very useful approach to tackle this pathology. Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy of e-health-based interventions in improving the symptoms of chronic LBP. Methods: A systematic review with meta-analysis was performed in PubMed, Web of Science, and PEDro until January 2022 through the assessment of methodological quality of systematic reviews (AMSTAR). Studies were included in which e-health interventions were used as experimental treatment compared to physical therapy to determine changes in back-specific functional status and pain in patients with chronic LBP. Two reviewers examined the sources individually, calculated the risk of bias, and extracted the data (PROSPERO number CRD42022306130). The effect size was calculated using the standardized mean difference (SMD) and its confidence interval (95% CI). Results: A total of 9 randomized controlled trials with 3,180 participants were included. The results of the findings showed an effect of e-health compared to other physical therapy on short-term (SMD = -0.59, 95% CI: -1.77 to 0.59) and intermediate short-term (SMD = -0.40, 95% CI: -0.91 to 0.11) pain intensity and back-specific functional status in the short term (SMD = -0.20, 95% CI: -0.81 to 0.41) and intermediate short term (SMD = -0.30, 95% CI: -0.74 to 0.14). The effect of e-health compared to minimal intervention on short-term intermediate pain intensity (SMD = -0.64, 95% CI: -1.72 to 0.45) and short-term intermediate back-specific functional status (SMD = -0.39, 95% CI: -0.87 to 0.09). Conclusions: e-Health interventions based on self-maintenance and education are as effective on pain and back-specific functional status as other face-to-face or home-based interventions in patients with chronic LBP, with moderate scientific evidence.

Comparison of efficacy of a supervised versus non-supervised physical therapy exercise program on the pain, functionality and quality of life of patients with non-specific chronic low-back pain: a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of supervised physical therapy program versus non-supervised on pain, functionality, fear of movement and quality of life in patients with non-specific chronic low back pain. DESIGN: A randomized double-blind clinical trial. SETTING: Clinical outpatient unit; home. SUBJECTS: A total of 64 participants with non-specific chronic low back pain were randomized into either supervised exercise group (n = 32) or non-supervised home exercise group (n = 32). INTERVENTIONS: The supervised group was treated with therapy exercises (strengthen lumbopelvic musculature), while the non-supervised received an informative session of the exercises, which were performed un-supervised at home. Both groups received three weekly sessions for eight weeks. MAIN MEASURES: Pain, disability, fear of movement, quality of life, trunk muscle endurance and trunk anteflexion motion were assessed at baseline, two, and six months of follow-up. RESULTS: Although analysis of variance (ANOVA) test showed statistically significant differences between groups for pain (P = 0.028; supervised: 2.5 ± 2.1; non-supervised: 3.5 ± 1.5) and disability for Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (P = 0.004; supervised: 3.1 ± 2.2; non-supervised: 5.1 ± 3.0) and for Oswestry Disability Index (P = 0.034; supervised: 14.5 ± 7.1; non-supervised: 19.2 ± 10.0) at 8 weeks immediately posttreatment, there were no differences between the groups in patient-rated pain, functionality, fear of movement and quality of life at six months of follow-up. CONCLUSION: Patients with chronic low back pain who received supervised exercise showed more improvement in both the short and long term in all patient-rated outcomes over the non-supervised group, but the differences were small and not clinically significant.

Electrical dry needling versus conventional physiotherapy in the treatment of active and latent myofascial trigger points in patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain.

BACKGROUND: Chronic low back pain is considered to be one of the main causes of absenteeism from work and primary and specialized consultations. The symptoms of nonspecific chronic low back pain may be accompanied by the activation of myofascial trigger points in the muscles, together with local and/or referred pain. Electrical dry needling is increasingly used in the treatment of lumbar myofascial pain. Conventional physiotherapy, however, is a popular approach to chronic pathologies, and there is evidence of different modalities of physiotherapy being used in the treatment of chronic low back pain. The aim of this study has been to determine the effectiveness of electrical dry needling versus conventional physiotherapy when applied to active and latent myofascial trigger points in patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain. METHODS: This is a controlled, randomized, two-arm, double-blind study. A total of 92 patients with chronic low back pain (time to onset ≥ 3 months, Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire score ≥ 4) will be recruited from the University of Almería. Participants will be divided into two study groups (n = 40) to receive treatment of low back pain with electrical dry needling and conventional physiotherapy (ischaemic compression, analytic stretching and postural education training dossier). A total of 6 sessions will be administered once a week for 6 weeks. Pain intensity, disability, fear of movement, quality of life, quality of sleep, anxiety and depression, pressure pain threshold, abdominal strength and lumbar mobility will be recorded at 6 weeks (post-immediate) and 2 months after the end of treatment. DISCUSSION: We believe that an approach including electrical dry needling to chronic low back pain dysfunction will be more effective in these patients. The results of this study will inform clinicians on which type of treatment is more beneficial for patients with chronic low back pain. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04804228. Registered on 14 January 2021.

Manipulative therapy of sacral torsion versus myofascial release in patients clinically diagnosed posterior pelvic pain: a consort compliant randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Chronic low back pain represents a health care problem with substantial costs. It is generally accepted that approximately 10% to 25% of patients with persistent chronic low back pain may have pain arising from the sacroiliac joints. PURPOSE: This study aimed to analyze the effects of manipulative therapy of sacral torsion versus myofascial release on disability, pain intensity, and mobility in patients with chronic low back pain and sacroiliac joints. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: A prospective, single-blinded randomized clinical trial. PATIENT SAMPLE: Sixty-four patients (mean±SD age: 51±9; 60% female) with chronic low back pain and sacroiliac joints comprised the patient sample. No participant withdrew because of adverse effects. OUTCOME MEASURES: Self-reported disability (primary), pain intensity, scale of kinesiophobia, quality of life, isometric endurance of trunk flexor muscles, and lumbar mobility in flexion were assessed at baseline, pos-treatment, and one month follow-up. METHODS: Participants were randomly assigned to a sacral torsion manipulation group or myofascial release group, receiving a total of 12 sessions (once weekly). RESULTS: ANCOVA did not showed a statistically significant difference between groups for disability (95% CI -2.40-1.90, p=.177). Effect sizes were large in both groups at both follow-up periods. Similar results were achieved for all secondary outcomes (p˂. 05). The linear model longitudinal analyses showed significant improvements in both groups over time for all outcomes with the exception of fear of movement (manipulative: Minimum within-groups change score 1.91, p˂.001; myofascial: 1.66, p˂.001). CONCLUSION: Manipulative and myofascial release therapy in patients with clinically diagnosed sacroiliac joints syndrome resulted in a similar short-term benefits on patient reported disability. Both groups experienced similar decrease in the intensity of pain over time, although no clinically meaningful effects were demonstrated in either group.