Outcomes of Ultrasound-Guided Trigger Point Injection for Abdominal Wall Pain

2015 ◽  
Vol 61 (2) ◽  
pp. 572-577 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mhd Firas Alnahhas ◽  
Shawn C. Oxentenko ◽  
G. Richard Locke ◽  
Stephanie Hansel ◽  
Cathy D. Schleck ◽  
...  
Pain ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan M. Moeschler ◽  
E. Morgan Pollard ◽  
Matthew J. Pingree ◽  
Thomas P. Pittelkow ◽  
Mark A. Bendel ◽  
...  

2012 ◽  
Vol 107 ◽  
pp. S713-S714
Author(s):  
Madhusudan Grover ◽  
Giles Locke ◽  
Shawn Oxentenko ◽  
Stephanie Hansel ◽  
Alan Zinsmeister ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 5 (6) ◽  
pp. 99-102 ◽  
Author(s):  
Grisell Vargas-Schaffer ◽  
Michal Nowakowsky ◽  
Marzieh Eghtesadi ◽  
Jennifer Cogan

2008 ◽  
Vol 6;11 (12;6) ◽  
pp. 885-889 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth P. Botwin

Background: Myofascial pain is defined as pain that originates from myofascial trigger points in skeletal muscle. It is prevalent in regional musculoskeletal pain syndromes, either alone or in combination with other pain generators. The myofascial pain syndrome is one of the largest groups of under diagnosed and under treated medical problems encountered in clinical practice. Trigger points are commonly seen in patients with myofascial pain which is responsible for localized pain in the affected muscles as well as referred pain patterns. Correct needle placement in a myofascial trigger point is vital to prevent complications and improve efficacy of the trigger point injection to help reduce or relieve myofascial pain. In obese patients, these injections may not reach the target tissue. In the cervicothoracic spine, a misguided or misplaced injection can result in a pneumothorax. Here, we describe an ultrasound-guided trigger point injection technique to avoid this potential pitfall. Office based ultrasound-guided injection techniques for musculoskeletal disorders have been described in the literature with regard to tendon, bursa, cystic, and joint pathologies. For the interventionalist, utilizing ultrasound yields multiple advantages technically and practically, including observation of needle placement in real-time, ability to perform dynamic studies, the possibility of diagnosing musculoskeletal pathologies, avoidance of radiation exposure, reduced overall cost, and portability of equipment within the office setting. To our knowledge, the use of ultrasound guidance in performing trigger point injection in the cervicothoracic area, particularly in obese patients, has not been previously reported. Methods: A palpable trigger point in the cervicothoracic musculature was localized and marked by indenting the skin with the tip of a plastic needle cover. The skin was then sterile prepped. Then, using an ultrasound machine with sterile coupling gel and a sterile latex free transducer cover, the musculature in the cervicothoracic spine where the palpable trigger point was detected was visualized. Then utilizing direct live ultrasound guidance, a 25-gauge 1.5 inch needle connected to a 3 mL syringe was placed into the muscle at the exact location of the presumed trigger point. This guidance helps confirm needle placement in muscle tissue and not in an adipose tissue or any other non-musculature structure. Results: The technique is simple to be performed by a pain management specialist who has ultrasound system training. Conclusion: Ultrasound-guided trigger point injections may help confirm proper needle placement within the cervicothoracic musculature. The use of ultrasound-guided trigger point injections in the cervicothoracic musculature may also reduce the potential for a pneumothorax by an improperly placed injection. Key words: Trigger point injection, myofascial pain, ultrasound


2005 ◽  
Vol 19 (9) ◽  
pp. 561-565 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jose Nazareno ◽  
Terry Ponich ◽  
Jamie Gregor

OBJECTIVE: Abdominal wall pain (AWP) is a common yet often overlooked source of abdominal pain. Trigger point injections (TPI) into the abdominal wall have been tried in the past. Few studies have looked at the long-term outcome from these injections.METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed on 110 consecutive patients who received TPI for abdominal pain at the University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario. Outcomes from patients whose pain was due to AWP were determined. AWP was defined as fixed or localized pain and superficial or point tenderness (less than 2.5 cm diameter) or a positive Carnett sign (increased pain with tensing abdomen). The primary outcome was long-term efficacy of TPI. The number of diagnostic tests ordered to exclude AWP and the cost of investigating it were determined. Secondary analyses were done to determine if there were significant predictors of response to TPI.RESULTS: Eighty-nine of 110 patients who received TPI met the criteria for AWP. In those who met the criteria for AWP, the average age was 42 years, 84% were female, and the average length of follow-up was 25 months. The primary outcome shows that, at follow-up, 77% had some or complete relief and 23% had no relief. An average of 4.3 diagnostic tests per patient were ordered to exclude other causes of abdominal pain. Secondary analyses show that meeting the criteria for AWP ( P<0.0005), the absence of gastrointestinal symptoms ( P<0.025), and an upper abdominal location of pain ( P<0.025) were statistically significant predictors of a positive response to TPI.CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that TPI, in patients who meet criteria for AWP, are effective over the long term.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document