Comparison of shoulder strength in males with and without myofascial trigger points in the upper trapezius

2017 ◽  
Vol 49 ◽  
pp. 134-138 ◽  
Author(s):  
H.A. Kim ◽  
U.J. Hwang ◽  
S.H. Jung ◽  
S.H. Ahn ◽  
J.H. Kim ◽  
...  
BMJ Open ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 3 (5) ◽  
pp. e002825 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maryam Abbaszadeh-Amirdehi ◽  
Noureddin Nakhostin Ansari ◽  
Soofia Naghdi ◽  
Gholamreza Olyaei ◽  
Mohammad Reza Nourbakhsh

2019 ◽  
Vol 02 (02) ◽  
pp. 068-068
Author(s):  
López San Miguel G. ◽  
Barbe Mendibil I. ◽  
Torres Chica B. ◽  
Ríos Diaz J.

Abstract Introduction Myofascial pain syndrome is an important and prevalent public health problem. The lack of consensus on the diagnostic criteria, together with the scarce reliability of the manual detection of the manual detection of myofascial trigger points (MTrPs) point to the need to develop objective methods to enable confirmation of the presence of MTrPs. Ultrasound is an accessible method which enables the assessment of tissue properties in real time, helping to characterize the MTrP, understand its physiopathology and define its diagnosis. Aims To identify observational studies researching the use of ultrasound in the assessment of MTrPs. Also, to learn about and compile the advances in the study of the characteristics of MTrPs and their sonographic diagnosis. Material and Methods A systematic review was performed by two independent reviewers, searching biomedical databases using terms related with “ultrasound” and “trigger points”. Observational studies were selected evaluating the characteristics of MTrPs. Subsequently, an analysis of the diagnostic quality of studies was performed using the QAREL scale and a study of the methodological quality took place based on the Downs and Black scale. Furthermore, an assessment of the reproducibility of the acquirement of images was performed, via the analysis of the description of the ultrasound method. The risk of bias was evaluated according to the Cochrane guidelines. Results 18 studies based on B Mode methods, elastography and Doppler, were included in the review. The anatomic regions which were most explored were the cervical area and the upper limb, evaluated in 14 of the 18 papers. The most common muscle was the upper trapezius (61%). Two articles were located corresponding to the lumbar region and one article concerned the lower limb. The analysis of the sonographic method showed a low level, 5 of the 9 items did not overcome 17% of fulfillment, in 3 papers the frequency was below 6%. The QAREL scale also displayed low levels, only 3 items out of 11. Inter-evaluator blinding, correct testing and statistical methods were fulfilled in over 50%. The mean score obtained by the studies in the Downs and Black scale was 5.4 points out of 10, ranging between 2 and 7 points. The risk of bias according to the Cochrane guidelines was mid- to high. Conclusion Important steps have been taken in the study of the sonograhic characteristics of the MTrP, however, we are still far from standardizing the use of the same as a diagnostic method. The poor results in the quality analysis of the present study suggest caution in the interpretation of the present findings. Future research is necessary, including different anatomic regions, analytic methods, better defined exploration protocols and more robust reliability studies for the different methods available.


2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 87-93
Author(s):  
Haytham M. El-hafez ◽  
Hend A. Hamdy ◽  
Mary K. Takla ◽  
Salah Eldin B. Ahmed ◽  
Ahmed F. Genedy ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (3) ◽  
pp. 171-177 ◽  
Author(s):  
E Segura-Ortí ◽  
S Prades-Vergara ◽  
L Manzaneda-Piña ◽  
R Valero-Martínez ◽  
JA Polo-Traverso

Background Treatment of active myofascial trigger points includes both invasive and non-invasive techniques. Objectives To compare the effects of upper trapezius trigger point dry needling (DN) and strain–counterstrain (SCS) techniques versus sham SCS. Study Design Randomised controlled trial. Method 34 study subjects with active trigger points were randomly assigned to one of three treatment groups, and received either three sessions of DN (n=12), six sessions of SCS (n=10), or sham SCS (n=12) over a 3-week period. Subjective pain response and subjects’ own ratings of perceived disability were measured. Results The analysis of variance mixed model showed a significant time effect for pain (p<0.001), elicited pain (p<0.001), pain pressure threshold (p<0.01), and neck disability index (p=0.016). Pain at rest decreased in all groups, as follows: DN 18.5 mm (95% CI 4.3 to 32.7 mm); SCS 28.3 mm (95% CI 12.4 to 44.1 mm); sham SCS 21.9 mm (95% CI 3.5 to 40.1 mm). Reductions in disability score (points) were significant in the SCS group (5.5, 95% CI 1.6 to 9.4) but not in the DN (1.4, 95% CI −4.9 to 2.1) or sham SCS (1.8, 95% CI −6.4 to 2.7) groups. There was no significant group×time interaction effect for any variables studied. Conclusions There were no differences between the sham SCS, SCS, and DN groups in any of the outcome measures. DN relieved pain after fewer sessions than SCS and sham SCS, and thus may be a more efficient technique. Future studies should include a larger sample size. Trial Registration Number NCT01290653.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document