The effectiveness of dry needling in patients with chronic low back pain: a prospective, randomized, single-blinded study.

Dry needling (DN) is a standard procedure for treating musculoskeletal disorders. However, there are no clear recommendations for using DN in low back pain (LBP). Therefore, this study aimed to assess the effectiveness of the novel DN program for reducing pain intensity and improving functional efficiency in patients with chronic LBP. A group of 40 patients with chronic LBP due to the L5-S1 discopathy were eligible and randomized into experimental (n = 20) and control (n = 20) groups. The DN program was performed for the experimental group according to the Five Regulatory Systems (FRS) concept. The control group received sham therapy using placebo needles. DN sessions were performed twice a week for 4 weeks. A single needling application lasted 60 min. Both groups received standard treatment and physical exercise of LBP for 1 month. Subjective pain was measured by a visual analog scale (VAS), functional efficiency was assessed with the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and the lower spine range of motion was measured with the Schober test. There were significant differences in pain reduction (VAS) in both groups (p < 0.001). The strongest analgesic effect in the DN group yielded 6.45 points immediately after the therapy, 6.2 points after 1 month, and 6 points after 3 months. The DN group scored higher VAS reduction than the control group (p < 0.001). There were significant differences in the functional state (ODI) in the experimental group (p < 0.001). There was a significant ODI decrease by 18.1 points, after 1 month by 18.9 points, and after 3 months by 17.6 points. No significant differences were found in the control group (p > 0.05). Intergroup differences were observed in the functional efficiency in ODI in all measurement time-points (p < 0.001). There were significant differences in the range of motion (Schober test) in the DN group (main effect: p < 0.001). For all measurements, differences (p < 0.001) were observed in favor of DN compared to the control. In conclusion, DN program according to the FRS concept stands for the novel treatment method supplemented by an exercise program, effectively reducing pain and improving functional efficiency in LBP patients.

A Randomised-Controlled Clinical Study Examining the Effect of High-Intensity Laser Therapy (HILT) on the Management of Painful Calcaneal Spur with Plantar Fasciitis.

Calcaneal spur and plantar fasciitis are the most common causes of plantar heel pain. There are many effective physical modalities for treating this musculoskeletal disorder. So far, the are no clear recommendations confirming the clinical utility of high-intensity laser therapy (HILT) in the management of painful calcaneal spur with plantar fasciitis. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of HILT in pain management in patients with calcaneal spur and plantar fasciitis. A group of 65 patients was assessed for eligibility based on the CONSORT guidelines. This study was prospectively registered in the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry platform (registration number ACTRN12618000744257, 3 May 2018). The main eligibility criteria were: cancer, pregnancy, electronic and metal implants, acute infections, impaired blood coagulation, cardiac arrhythmias, taking analgesic or anti-inflammatory medications, non-experience of heel pain, or presence of other painful foot conditions. Finally, 60 patients were randomly assigned into two groups: study group (n = 30, mean age 59.9 ± 10.1), treated with HILT (7 W, 149.9 J/cm2, 1064 nm, 4496 J, 12 min), and placebo-controlled group (n = 30, mean age 60.4 ± 11.9), treated with sham HILT therapy. Both groups received ultrasound treatments (0.8 W/cm2, 1 MHz frequency, 100% load factor, 5 min). Treatment procedures were performed once a day, five times per week for three weeks (total of 15 treatment sessions). Study outcomes focused on pain intensity and were assessed before (M1) and after (M2) the treatment as well as after 4 (M3) and 12 (M4) weeks using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and the Laitinen Pain Scale (LPS). According to VAS, a statistically significant decrease in the study group was observed between M1 and M2 by 3.5 pts, M1 and M3 by 3.7 pts, and M1 and M4 by 3.2 pts (p < 0.001). On the other hand, the control group showed a statistically significant decrease (p < 0.001) between M1 and M2 by 3.0 pts, M1 and M3 by 3.4 pts, and M1 and M4 by 3.2 pts. According to LPS, a statistically significant decrease in the study group was observed between M1 and M2 by 3.9 pts, M1 and M3 by 4.2 pts, and M1 and M4 by 4.0 pts (p < 0.001). On the other hand, the control group showed a statistically significant decrease between M1 and M2 by 3.2 pts (p = 0.002), M1 and M3 by 4.0 pts (p < 0.001), and M1 and M4 by 3.9 pts (p < 0.001). However, there were no statistically significant differences between the groups in VAS and LPS (p > 0.05). In conclusion, the HILT does not appear to be more effective in pain management of patients with calcaneal spurs and plantar fasciitis than the conservative standard physiotherapeutic procedures.