Electrical dry needling versus a non-invasive multicomponent intervention in the treatment of myofascial trigger points in patients with chronic low back pain: A randomised clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of electrical dry needling with a non-invasive multi-component intervention in patients with chronic low back pain. DESIGN: A randomised single-blind clinical trial. SETTING: Outpatient Physiotherapy Clinic; home. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty-four patients with chronic low back pain aged 30-65 years. INTERVENTIONS: Six-week electrical dry needling on myofascial trigger points, and a non-invasive multicomponent intervention (home exercise programme, stretching and ischemic compression). MAIN MEASURES: Pain (Visual Analogue Scale), disability (Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and Oswestry Disability Index), kinesiophobia (Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia), quality of life and sleep (Short Form 36-item Health Survey and Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index), isometric endurance of trunk flexor muscles (McQuade test), lumbar mobility in flexion (finger-to-floor distance), and pressure pain threshold (algometer) were assessed at baseline, after 6 weeks, and after 2 months. RESULTS: ANOVA showed statistically significant differences in group-by-time interaction for most pain pressure thresholds of myofascial trigger points (P < 0.05), for disability (Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire: F = 6.14, P = 0.016; and Oswestry Disability Index: F = 7.36, P = 0.009), for trunk anteflexion (F = 10.03, P = 0.002) and for habitual sleep efficacy (F = 6.65, P = 0.012), use of hypnotics (F = 4.77, P = 0.033) and total score of quality of sleep (F = 8.23, P = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: In comparison to a non-invasive multicomponent intervention, electrical dry needling has more positive effects on disability, pain intensity, kinesiophobia, and reducing patients' sensitivity to myofascial trigger points pressure, at post-treatment and at 2 months. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04804228. Registered on May 28th, 2021. Available at https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04804228.

Effects of Motor Control Exercises in Patients With Chronic Nonspecific Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this systematic review is to assess whether motor control exercises consisting of the methodology described by Richardson and Hodges improve the pain and disability of patients with nonspecific low back pain. DESIGN: Systematic review and a meta-analysis. SETTING: A literature review was conducted using PubMed, PEDro, Scielo, CINAHL, Web of Science, Dialnet, Scopus, and MEDLINE from inception to November 2021. PATIENTS: Patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain. INTERVENTIONS: Randomized controlled trials assessing motor control exercises versus inactive control, placebo or minimal intervention, and other exercises. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Pain intensity, disability, and physical activity were considered as primary outcomes. RESULTS: Eighteen studies with 1356 patients were finally included in the systematic review, of which only 13 randomized clinical trials could be meta-analyzed. Statistically significant results were found in favor of the motor control group for the comparison with other exercises in disability at postintervention term (Mean Difference, 95% Confidence Interval [CI], -3.13 [-5.87 to -0.38], P = 0.03); for the comparison with inactive control, placebo, or minimal intervention in pain at postintervention term (MD, 95% CI, -18.10 [-30.79 to -5.41], P = 0.008); and for comparison with general exercises (MD, 95% CI, -12.70 [-20.80 to -4.60], P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Moderate-quality evidence regarding the effectiveness of motor control exercises to reduce pain intensity and disability exists, but the reduction should be interpreted with caution.

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.

Osteopathic Manual Therapy for Infant Colic: A Randomised Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Infant colic is a multifactorial syndrome for which various therapeutic strategies have been proposed. In this study, we evaluate the effectiveness of osteopathic manual therapy in treating symptoms related to infant colic. METHOD: A prospective, randomised, blinded clinical trial was conducted of patients diagnosed with infant colic. The treatment group were given osteopathic manual therapy, and their parents received two sessions of counselling. The control group received no such therapy, but their parents attended the same counselling sessions. The non-parametric Mann-Whitney U test was applied to determine whether there were significant differences between the groups for the numerical variables considered. For the qualitative variables, Fisher's exact test was used. The threshold assumed for statistical significance was 0.05. RESULTS: A total of 42 babies were assigned to each group. Those in the experimental group presented less severe infant colic with a trend towards statistical significance after the first session (p = 0.09). In sucking, excretion, eructation and gas there were no significant differences between the groups. Crying was a statistically significant dimension both after the first intervention (p = 0.03) and two weeks after (p = 0.04). Regurgitation values were significantly lower in the experimental group during the three weeks of follow-up (p = 0.05). Values for sleep were lower in the experimental group, but the differences were not statistically significant. In both groups, colic severity decreased over time, with no side effects. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with osteopathic manual therapy alleviates the symptoms of infant colic and could be recommended for this purpose from the onset of the condition.

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.

Comparing an e-Health program vs home rehabilitation program in patients with non-specific low back pain: A study protocol randomized feasibility trial.

BACKGROUND: There is little evidence on the reliability of the web application-based rehabilitation systems to treat chronic low back pain (CLBP). METHODS: This protocol describes a double-blind, randomized controlled feasibility trial of an e-Health intervention developed to support the self-management of people with CLBP in primary care physiotherapy. Three Hospitals with primary care for outpatients will be the units of randomisation, in each Hospital the participants will be randomized to one of two groups, a pragmatic control group receiving either the usual home program based on electrostimulation and McKenzie Therapy and e-Health intervention. Patients are followed up at 2 and 6 months. The primary outcomes are (1) acceptability and demand of the intervention by GPs, physiotherapists and patients and (2) feasibility and optimal study design/methods for a definitive trial. Secondary outcomes will include analysis in the clinical outcomes of pain, disability, fear of movement, quality of life, isometric resistance of the trunk flexors, lumbar anteflexion and lumbar segmental range of motion. DISCUSSION: The specific e-Health programs to home could increase adherence to treatment, prevent stages of greater pain and disability, and improve the painful symptomatology. CONCLUSIONS: The e-Health programs could be an effective healthcare tool that can reach a large number of people living in rural or remote areas.

Comparison of the effectiveness of an e-health program versus a home rehabilitation program in patients with chronic low back pain: A double blind randomized controlled trial.

OBJETIVE: We conducted a randomized double blind clinical trial, to compare the effectiveness of McKenzie exercises and electroanalgesia via an e-Health program versus a home rehabilitation program on functionality, pain, fear of movement and quality of life in patients with non-specific chronic low back pain. METHODS: Seventy-four participants with non-specific chronic low back pain were randomized to either the e- Health program group (n = 39) or the home rehabilitation program group (n = 35). The interventions consisted of the e-Health program group performing McKenzie exercises and received transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, while the home rehabilitation group attended an information session to explain the exercises, which they then performed at home with printed instructions. Both groups performed 3 weekly sessions for 8 weeks. The following were analyzed main measures: pain, disability, fear of movement, quality of life, trunk muscle endurance and trunk anteflexion motion were assessed at baseline and at 2 months. RESULTS: Independent samples Student's t-tests showed that although the patients who followed the e-Health program showed significantly greater improvement than those who followed the home disability rehabilitation program in terms of intensity of pain, lumbar flexion mobility (P < 0.001), and the following dimensions of quality of life (P < 0.005), both groups improved significantly in the immediate post-treatment follow up compared with baseline scores. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with chronic low back pain who followed an unsupervised home intervention supported by an individualized video exercise program showed greater post-treatment improvement than those who followed the same program with printed instructions.