• Users Online: 211
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2017  |  Volume : 22  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 15-22

Progressive pressure release versus dry needling on cervical latent trigger points


Department of Basic Science, Faculty of Physical Therapy, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt

Correspondence Address:
Mary K.N. Takla
7 Nabil el Waked Street, Marwa Buildings, Naser City, Cairo, 11341
Egypt
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/1110-6611.209874

Rights and Permissions

Background Latent myofascial trigger points (L-MTrPs) may account for the development of muscle cramps, restricted joint range of motion, muscle weakness, and accelerated fatigability. Progressive pressure release (PPR) and dynamic deep dry needling (DDDN) are two recognized techniques used in the management of myofascial trigger points. Aim The aim of this study was to compare the effect of both PPR and DDDN on pain and range of motion in upper trapezius L-MTrPs. Setting and design Single-blinded randomized trial design was used, in which 60 pain-free participants with more than two L-MTrPs in the upper trapezius were allocated randomly to two equal groups. Primary measurement outcome included pressure pain threshold (PPT) using an electronic digital algometer. Secondary outcome included active cervical lateral flexion and rotation using a baseline bubble inclinometer. Data were collected before the first treatment and at the end of the 8-week trial. Participants and materials There were fibve dropouts. The PPR group included 28 participants who received passive stretch and PPR, and the DDDN group included 27 participants who received passive stretch and DDDN. Both groups received 3 sessions/week for eight consecutive weeks. Results The PPR group showed a significant increase in PPT values (P<0.01), cervical lateral flexion (P<0.006), and rotation (P<0.027) compared with the DDDN group. Conclusion Within the scope of our study, we have concluded that both techniques have been effective in increasing PPT, cervical lateral flexion, and rotation. However, the PPR technique has been considered to be superior to DDDN in the management of cervical L-MTrPs.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed575    
    Printed41    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded98    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal