Abstract
Objectives
Myofascial pain syndrome (MPS) and myofascial trigger points (MTrPs) are important aspects of musculoskeletal medicine, including chiropractic. The purpose of this study was to review the most commonly used treatment procedures in chiropractic for MPS and MTrPs.
Methods
The Scientific Commission of the Council on Chiropractic Guidelines and Practice Parameters (CCGPP) was charged with developing literature syntheses, organized by anatomical region, to evaluate and report on the evidence base for chiropractic care. This article is the outcome of this charge. As part of the CCGPP process, preliminary drafts of these articles were posted on the CCGPP Web site www.ccgpp.org (2006-8) to allow for an open process and the broadest possible mechanism for stakeholder input. PubMed, Excerpta Medica Database, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and databases for systematic reviews and clinical guidelines were searched. Separate searches were conducted for (1) manual palpation and algometry, (2) chiropractic and other manual therapies, and (3) other conservative and complementary/alternative therapies. Studies were screened for relevance and rated using the Oxford Scale and Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network rating system.
Results
A total of 112 articles were identified. Review of these articles resulted in the following recommendations regarding treatment: Moderately strong evidence supports manipulation and ischemic pressure for immediate pain relief at MTrPs, but only limited evidence exists for long-term pain relief at MTrPs. Evidence supports laser therapy (strong), transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, acupuncture, and magnet therapy (all moderate) for MTrPs and MPS, although the duration of relief varies among therapies. Limited evidence supports electrical muscle stimulation, high-voltage galvanic stimulation, interferential current, and frequency modulated neural stimulation in the treatment of MTrPs and MPS. Evidence is weak for ultrasound therapy.
Conclusions
Manual-type therapies and some physiologic therapeutic modalities have acceptable evidentiary support in the treatment of MPS and TrPs.
Key Indexing Terms
Ever since the seminal work of Travell and Rinzler
1
in 1952, the role of myofascial trigger points (TrPs) in myofascial pain syndrome (MPS) has become an accepted part of musculoskeletal clinical practice. Along with Simons,2
Travell first identified the importance of myofascial pain and its localization in what they termed trigger points, providing the first classification of diagnostic criteria for TrPs. They also provided detailed maps of the pain referral patterns from TrPs in all the muscles of the body. Myofascial pain syndrome is currently thought to be the leading diagnosis among pain management specialists3
and the leading diagnosis in pain patients reporting to general practitioners.4
Interest in myofascial tenderness extends throughout the history of chiropractic. It might be said that local paraspinal tenderness, as part of the manifestations of the “subluxation,” was a central feature of chiropractic thinking from its inception. Arguably, the work of Ray Nimmo
5
, , 7
represents the earliest and perhaps still most established thinking on this topic among chiropractors. Cohen and Gibbons8
describe his work as “a conceptual leap from moving bones to working with muscles that move bones.” Schneider, 10
has provided a collection and review of all of Nimmo's works. Nimmo's explanations in the 1950s of the pathophysiology of TrPs are still regarded as accurate and highly sophisticated.Other chiropractic authors who have written on this topic include Schneider,,
10
, 11
, 12
Perle,13
, Hains,15
, 16
and Hammer,17
whose seminal textbook is now in its third printing. There are also numerous case reports and technical reports relating to various soft tissue techniques in chiropractic. In the field of MPS, chiropractic is generally regarded as one of the complementary and alternative medical (CAM) therapies. The CAM therapies are quite commonly used in the treatment of myofascial pain and TrPs,18
and there is considerable overlap between chiropractic approaches and CAM therapies in this field.Methods
The search strategy for this review was constrained by the need to identify only those studies of chiropractic treatments (manual therapy and other conservative therapies) that were not directed at clinical complaints associated with any of the specific body regions that have been designated as other reviews in the Council on Chiropractic Guidelines and Practice Parameters (CCGPP) process. In other words, no study was selected of the effect of a chiropractic treatment specifically indicated for back pain, neck pain, upper limb pain (shoulder, elbow, wrist), and lower limb pain (hip, knee, ankle, and foot) of any kind (ie, for any category of diagnosis). Only studies of chiropractic treatments for MPS and TrPs were considered. Therefore, the inclusion criteria for this search were as follows: manual therapies, trigger points, myofascial pain syndrome (MeSH headings: musculoskeletal manipulations, myofascial pain syndrome [not exploded to temporomandibular joint]), conservative therapies, laser, acupuncture, ultrasound (US), electrotherapy, naturopathy; 1965 to 2007; English, German; human studies.
After the primary search was conducted, a number of secondary searches were conducted based upon “related links,” especially emphasizing systematic or clinical reviews, randomized clinical trials, and conservative treatments (vs musculoskeletal manipulations only), as well as searches of additional works by the authors identified in the primary search. Finally, citation reviews were conducted manually to identify any additional suitable studies.
This search was conducted in the PubMed; Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature; Index to Chiropractic Literature (ICL); Manual, Alternative, and Natural Therapy System (MANTIS); Excerpta Medica Database; National Guidelines Clearinghouse; Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects; and Turning Research Into Practice databases. Selected publications were rated on the Oxford Rating Scale
19
, 20
as well as the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) Checklist (Fig 1).Fig 1Rating scales for included studies.
| A. The Oxford Rating Scale. 19 , 20 |
|---|
| 1a: Systematic review, with homogeneity of RCT’s. |
| 1b: Individual RCT with narrow confidence interval. |
| 1c: All or none. |
| 2a: Systematic review, with homogeneity of cohort studies. |
| 2b: Individual cohort study (including low quality RCT; eg <80% follow-up). |
| 2c: “Outcomes Research”; Ecological studies. |
| 3a: Systematic review with homogeneity of case-control studies. |
| 3b: Individual case-control study. |
| 4: Case-series (and poor quality cohort and case-control studies). |
| 5: Expert opinion without explicit critical appraisal, or based on physiology, bench research or “first principles”. |
| B. The SIGN Checklist. |
| 1. ++ = All or most methodological criteria have been fulfilled/bias has been maximally reduced. |
| 2. + = Some of the criteria have been fulfilled/bias has been somewhat reduced. |
| 3. − = Few or no criteria fulfilled/bias is clearly present. |
This review accepted all levels of published evidence for narrative description: clinical guidelines, systematic reviews, clinical trials, cohort or case series, case studies, and clinical reviews. For evidence rating, recommendations were constructed and rated according to the Oxford Rating Scale
19
, 20
as follows:- Consistent level 1 studies
- Consistent level 2 or 3 studies or extrapolations from level 1 studies
- Level 4 studies or extrapolations from level 2 or 3 studies
- Level 5 studies or troublingly inconsistent or inconclusive studies at any level
Results
Manual Therapies
Systematic Reviews of Manual Therapies
Two completed systematic reviews were identified.
21
, 22
These reviews were rated (Oxford Scale) as 1a evidence with a 2+ quality rating on the SIGN Checklist.Fernandez de las Penas et al
21
used the following selection criteria for acceptable studies:“clinical or randomized controlled trials in which some form of manual therapy (strain/counterstrain, ischemic compression, transverse friction massage, spray and stretch, muscle energy technique) was used to treat (myofascial trigger points) MTrPs” (p29).
Mobilization and manipulation were apparently not explicitly included. It should be noted that the criterion applied to the “clinical category” in this search was “MTrPs,” although MPS was referenced later in their review. No additional, more specific criteria related to clinical complaints in any of the body regions (ie, back pain, neck pain, limb pain, etc) were used. It would appear that this search strategy is consistent with the one devised for this review, as other CCGPP reviews dealt with the chiropractic management of pain complaints specific to these body regions.
Fernandez de las Penas et al
21
identified 7 acceptable trials (SIGN = 2+/Oxford Scale ratings = 1b), 4 of which obtained a sufficiently high quality score (>5/10 on the Physiotherapy Evidence Database Scale).The interventions used in these studies were as follows (number of studies in parentheses): spray and stretch (2), soft tissue massage (2), ischemic compression (2), occipital release exercises (1), strain/counterstrain (SCS) (1), and myofascial release (1). An important finding was:
“Only 2 studies … test(ed) the specific efficacy (efficacy beyond placebo) of various manual therapies in the treatment of MPS (Gam et al23[massage] and Hanten et al25[occipital release]). These studies found no difference between interventions” (p30).21
Another important issue from this group of studies is the duration of treatment. Most of these studies (4) investigated only the immediate effects on pain and tenderness.
24
, 26
, 27
, 28
One study investigated the short-term treatment effects of ischemic compression vs exercises over 5 treatments,25
whereas 2 investigated longer-term effects (6 months) of a course of, in one case, massage added to US therapy23
and, in the other case, SCS in addition to exercises.29
In both of the latter studies of a course of therapy, the manual therapy used (massage or SCS) was included among other therapies, making it impossible to identify the distinct contribution of the manual therapy to the reported outcomes.Fernandez de las Penas et al
21
conclude that there are very few randomized controlled studies (RCTs) of any type of manual therapy in the treatment of MTrP (MPS) and, as a result, “the hypothesis that manual therapies have specific efficacy beyond placebo in the management of MPS caused by MTrPs is neither supported or refuted by the research to date” (p33). They do acknowledge that there is some evidence for improvement in some groups within these trials and that this warrants further research.In Rickards'
22
review, the inclusion criteria included RCTs of a conservative (in this section: manual only) therapy for active TrPs, not latent TrPs, in which a patient-related pain outcome was used and in which an explicit diagnosis of TrP was made including at least local tenderness and a taut muscle band. Studies were rated on a 20-point scale; however, no cutoff score was used for inclusion. Rickards included the following studies: Chatchawan et al,30
Fernandes de las Penas et al,31
Hanten et al,28
Hou et al,27
and Edwards and Knowles.32
For the purposes of the present review, the following comments apply to this group of studies: (1) The study of Chatchawan et al
30
of massage therapies clearly identified the target group as chronic low back pain and would be included in the CCGPP review on low back pain. (2) The study of Fernandez de las Penas31
is included below. (3) The studies of Hanten et al and Hou et al are included in the review by Fernandez de las Penas et al above. (4) Edwards and Knowles' trial32
did not include a manual therapy (only active stretching and dry needling were investigated). Therefore, for manual therapies, Rickards' review does not add anything substantial to the present review.A Cochrane Collaboration Protocol entitled “Non-invasive physical treatments of myofascial pain” (Kilkenny et al
33
) was identified. This protocol currently contains no results. However, it was used as a source of additional references, particularly on published clinical trials and systematic reviews.Practice Guidelines on Manual Therapy
The following practice guidelines were identified:
- Institute for Clinical Systems Improvement (ICSI). Assessment and management of chronic pain. Bloomington (MN): Institute for Clinical Systems Improvement (ICSI); 2005 Nov. 77 p. No recommendation for physical (manual) therapies in the treatment of MPS or TrPs.
- Work Loss Data Institute. Pain (chronic). Corpus Christi (TX): Work Loss Data Institute; 2006. 261 p. Myofascial pain syndrome, physical therapy: 14-21 days.
RCTs of Manual Therapy
In addition to Fernandez de las Penas et al,
23
our search identified 3 RCTs (Oxford Scale rating = 1b or 2b) of the effect of spinal manipulation on local paraspinal muscular tenderness in the dorsal spine (Terret and Vernon34
[2+/2b]), cervical spine (Vernon et al35
[2+/2b]), and lumbopelvic area (Cote et al36
[2+/2b]). All 3 studies investigated only the immediate effect of the interventions on local muscular pain thresholds (electrical stimulus in Terret and Vernon34
and pressure stimulus in Vernon et al35
and Cote et al36
). Immediate and statistically significant increases in pain thresholds were found for spinal manipulation as compared with mobilization in the cervical and dorsal paraspinal muscles, but not in the lumbopelvic soft tissues.Vicenzino et al
37
(2+/1b) reported on the immediate effect of a cervical mobilization on pressure pain threshold (PPT) of tender points on the lateral epicondyle in patients with “tennis elbow.” Only the mobilization (described as “manipulation” in this study) resulted in statistically significant increases in lateral epicondyle PPTs vs placebo and control conditions.Greene et al
38
(2+/1b) investigated the effect of 4 different treatments given 3 times over 3 days on skin resistance levels. Subjects with thoracic TrPs were randomized to receive osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT), laser treatment, OMT plus laser, and sham laser. No significant differences in effects were noted between these groups.Atienza Meseguer et al
39
(2+/1b) studied 54 subjects with trapezius TrP treated with classic SCS, modified SCS, and control. Both treatment groups showed immediate improvement in PPT vs controls, but not vs each other.Fryer and Hodgson
40
(2+/1b) compared manual pressure release to sham myofascial release in 37 subjects with upper trapezius myofascial TrPs. A statistically significant increase in PPT was obtained immediately after the intervention in the manual pressure group vs controls that was found to be due to a change in tissue sensitivity.Fernandez-de-las-Penas et al
31
(2+/1b) compared ischemic compression to transverse friction massage in 40 subjects with myofascial TrPs in the upper trapezius muscle. Both groups obtained significant improvement in PPT within 2 minutes. No difference was found between the groups.Conclusion: RCTs
A total of 14 RCTs were retrieved. Quality scores ranged widely for the 7 trials reviewed by Fernandes de las Penas et al.
21
Ten of 14 trials we identified involved only immediate changes in TrP or tender point ratings. Two other trials reported outcomes for short courses of treatments over 3 to 5 days,25
, 38
whereas 2 others reported outcomes at 6 months.23
, 29
The outcomes of the “immediate” trials can be summarized as demonstrating effectiveness in reducing tenderness for spinal manipulation (2 of 3 trials), spray and stretch (2 trials), ischemic compression (3 trials), transverse friction massage (1 trial), and SCS (1 trial). One trial of mobilization failed to show any significant changes in tenderness scores vs controls. It would appear that there is moderately strong evidence to support the use of some manual therapies in the immediate relief of TrP tenderness.The 2 trials of short-term effects (3-5 days) demonstrated the effectiveness of osteopathic manipulation and ischemic compression, respectively, in reducing TrP tenderness. One long-term trial reported that SCS demonstrates clinically important changes in TrP tenderness and general pain over 6 months, whereas the other showed that massage produced limited effect. It would appear that there is only limited evidence to support the use of manual therapies over longer courses of treatments in the management of TrPs and MPS.
Case Reports of Manual Therapy
Twenty-six case reports in the chiropractic literature were identified from ICL or MANTIS (Appendix A). These reports covered TrP treatments in patients with hand pain, low back pain due to a TrP in the quadratus lumborum muscle, wrist pain, fibromyalgia, upper quarter syndrome, MPS, and general TrPs.
Clinical Reviews of Manual Therapy
Up-to-date clinical reviews
41
, 42
, 43
, 44
, 45
, 46
by noted experts in the field of myofascial pain have endorsed the use of a variety of manual therapies in the treatment of TrPs and MPS. These are classed as level 5 (Oxford Rating) evidence.Harden
45
notes that the principle aims of therapy for MPS are relief of pain and inflammation, prevention of further injury, reducing spasm, correcting abnormal postures, and improving circulation. He endorses the following therapeutic modalities for accomplishing these aims:- •In the acute stage:
- ○Ice
- ○Iontophoresis
- ○US
- ○splinting
- ○
- •Postural and ergonomic education
- •Massage
- •Myofascial release
- •Exercises and postural correction
- •Laser therapy: efficacy undetermined
- •Acupuncture: efficacy undetermined
Hong
41
recommends that the first principle of treatment of MPS is the identification and treatment of the presumed primary lesion (section 1). Only after this has been done, and if there is persistence of pain from the active TrPs, should direct treatment to the TrPs be performed. Hong suggests that, at this point in the therapeutic process, release of muscle tightness is the first objective. He identifies 7 steps in the treatment process for the active TrPs themselves:- i.Pain recognition: treating the active TrPs and not the latent ones.
- ii.Identify the key TrP: Among active TrPs, one will be the most painful and most provocative of referred pain.
- iii.Conservative vs aggressive treatment: This principle applies to the treatment of the primary lesion as well as the key TrP. Treatment should begin with what he describes as “non-invasive treatment including physiotherapy” and progress toward more invasive forms of therapy.
- iv.Acute vs chronic TrPs: Distinguishing these helps guide therapy in the acute vs chronic stages of pain.
- v.Superficial vs deep TrPs: Different therapeutic modalities are needed the more deeply located is the TrP.
- a.Superficial: deep pressure massage.
- b.Deep: stretch, US, laser, acupuncture, acupressure, or local injection.
- a.
- vi.Individual preference: Each patient may have levels of comfort and familiarity with various forms of treatment that should then be tailored to this need.
- vii.Other considerations: cost, time, etc.
Hong places considerable importance on manual therapies for TrPs. He indicates the following as important aspects of manual therapy (p40):
- -Stretching of shortened muscles (or taut band)
- -Improving local circulation
- -Counterirritation
- -Other reflex effects
Gerwin
42
also endorses the treatment protocol that separately addresses therapies for the local TrP vs therapies for the perpetuating factors. In the former category, he specifically endorses manual TrP compression for focal TrP release, followed by myofascial release techniques for local stretching and then “therapeutic stretch” for the longer-range elongation of the body segments. In the case of perpetuating factors, he includes correction of postural faults as well as joint dysfunction. This should be followed by an active program of physical conditioning, stretching, and endurance, including preventative strategies. Unfortunately, no studies were provided as evidence for this approach.Simons
44
reviews the mechanisms of TrP formation and perpetuation to guide the appropriate treatment approach. The therapies endorsed in his review are as follows:- •Postisometric relaxation and release
- •Trigger point (manual) pressure release
- •Combinations of the above 2 therapies
- •Trigger point massage
Only the work of Lewit
47
is cited as support for this approach. Other noninvasive therapies that Simons merely mentions as additional to the approach described above include facilitatory techniques, acupuncture, SCS, microcurrent, US, and laser.Alvarez and Rockwell's
43
review only provides a list of noninvasive treatment modalities that include acupuncture, osteopathic manual medicine techniques [sic], massage, acupressure, US, heat, ice, diathermy, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), and “spray and stretch” techniques. For these modalities, no clinical trial evidence was provided. The only support was a reference to the authoritative work described in Travel and Simons'2
manual.Lavelle et al
46
endorse the following treatments as efficacious: spray and stretch, TENS, physical therapy, and massage.Critique of Clinical Reviews
Manual Therapies
All 6 reviews from within the last 5 years endorsed manual therapies for TrP treatment in MPS. None of these reviews provided a single reference to a clinical trial to support this position. None of the 11 trials reviewed above was cited in any of these reviews. As such, there is discordance, even at the level of renowned experts' reviews, between the apparent consensus on the use and types of manual therapies in treating TrPs vs the evidence from the published literature.
Other therapies
Only Harden
45
cites the clinical trial of Esenyel et al48
(US + stretching vs dry needling + stretching vs stretching alone) and the case series of Simunovic et al49
(laser therapy) as clinical studies of these sorts of therapies as well as the review of laser therapy by Gam et al.23
The other reviews provide no support in the form of any clinical study for their recommendation on noninvasive therapies for TrPs.Evidence Synthesis of Manual Therapies
Table 1, Table 2 summarize the literature retrieved in this review.
Table 1Literature review: all studies
| Study type | Oxford level | Number |
|---|---|---|
| Systematic reviews | 1a | 2 |
| Systematic review protocols | 1 | |
| Practice guidelines | 1a | 2 |
| RCTs | 1b | 11 |
| RCTs | 2b | 3 |
| Case series | 4 | 3 (Grobli; Anderson; Crawford) |
| Case reports | 5 | 17 |
| Clinical reviews (selected: 2000-2005) | 5 | 6 |
Table 2Literature review: randomized clinical trials of manual therapy for MPS or TrPs (all rated as Oxford 1b, unless otherwise noted as 2b)
| RCT | Time | Manual therapy | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terret and Vernon, 1986 (2b) | Immediate | Spinal manipulation | Spinal manipulation > mobilization |
| Jaeger and Reeves, 1986 | Immediate | Spray and stretch | Significant intragroup effects |
| Greene et al, 1990 | 3 d | Osteopathic manipulative therapy | No difference between OMT with or without laser and vs control |
| Vernon et al, 1992 (2b) | Immediate | Spinal manipulation | SMT > control |
| Hong et al, 1993 | Immediate | Spray and stretch, deep manual pressure | Deep pressure massage was more effective than comparison modalities. |
| Cote et al, 1994 (2b) | Immediate | Spinal manipulation | Spinal manipulation = control |
| Hanten et al, 1997 | Immediate | Manual mobilization | No significant differences between mobilization, exercise, and control |
| Gam et al, 1998 | 6 mo | Massage | No significant differences between massage with real or sham US or control |
| Hanten et al, 2000 | 5 d | Ischemic compression | Ischemic compression > exercise for pain and tenderness |
| Dardzinski et al, 2000 | 6 mo | SCS | Clinically important intragroup changes |
| Hou et al, 2002 | Immediate | Ischemic compression | Ischemic compression > control |
| Fryer and Hodgson, 2005 | Immediate | Manual pressure release vs sham control | Manual pressure release > control |
| Fernandez-de-las Penas et al, 2006 | Immediate | Ischemic compression and transverse friction massage | Ischemic compression = transverse friction massage |
| Atienza Meseguer et al, 2006 | Immediate | SCS | SCS > control |
SMT, Spinal manipulation therapy.
Clinical Practice Recommendations of Manual Therapies
- 1.There is moderately strong evidence to support the use of some manual therapies in providing immediate pain relief at TrPs. The evidence level is B.
- 2.There is only limited evidence to support the use of manual therapies over longer courses of treatment in the management of TrPs and MPS. The evidence level is C.
Other Conservative Therapies
Systematic Reviews of Other Conservative Therapies
Two published reviews were identified for treatment methods other than manual therapies.
22
, 50
In Rickards'22
review, the inclusion criteria included RCTs of a conservative therapy for active TrPs, not latent TrPs, in which a patient-related pain outcome was used and in which an explicit diagnosis of TrP was made including at least local tenderness and a taut muscle band. Studies were rated on a 20-point scale; however, no cutoff score was used for inclusion. It should be noted that no trials for acupuncture were included in this review (below). A total of 18 trials were included in this review (Table 3, Table 4, Table 5, Table 6). Rickards'22
conclusions were based on the following schema:- •Significant evidence: consistent findings in multiple high-quality RCTs
- •Moderate evidence: consistent findings in multiple lower-quality evidence and/or a single high-quality RCT
- •Limited evidence: a single low-quality RCT
- •Unclear evidence: inconsistent or conflicting results from multiple RCTs
- •No evidence: no evidence identified
- •Evidence of adverse effect: RCTs with lasting negative changes
Table 3Studies of laser therapy from Rickards
22
(n = 6 studies)| Study | Treatments | Outcomes |
|---|---|---|
| Gur et al 51 | Laser vs placebo | Laser > placebo |
| Snyder-Mackler et al 52 | Laser vs placebo | Laser > placebo |
| Ceccherelli et al 53 | Laser vs placebo | Laser > placebo |
| Hakguder et al 54 | Laser and stretching vs placebo and stretching | Laser > placebo |
| Ilbuldu et al 55 | Laser vs dry needling vs placebo | Laser > dry needling |
| Laser > placebo | ||
| Altan et al 56 | Laser + exercise + stretching vs placebo + exercise + stretching | Laser = placebo (other treatments thought to contribute to improvement) |
Table 4Studies of electrotherapy from Rickards
22
(n = 5 studies)| Study | Treatments | Outcomes |
|---|---|---|
| Graff-Radford et al 57 | A: TENS mode A | B > C, D > A, E (B = 100 Hz) |
| B: TENS mode B | ||
| C: TENS mode C | ||
| D: TENS mode D | ||
| E: Placebo TENS | ||
| Farina et al 58 | FREMS vs TENS | FREMS = TENS |
| Hsueh et al 59 | A : Placebo electrotherapy | TENS > EMS, placebo |
| B : TENS | ||
| C : EMS | ||
| Ardic et al 60 | A: TENS + stretching | A = B > C |
| B: EMS + stretching | ||
| C: Stretching | ||
| Tanrikut et al 61 | A: HVGS + exercise | A > B, C |
| B: Placebo HVGS + exercise | ||
| C: Exercise | ||
Table 5Studies of magnet therapy form Rickards
22
(n = 3 studies)| Study | Treatments | Outcomes |
|---|---|---|
| Brown et al 62 | Magnets vs placebo | Magnets > placebo |
| Smania et al 63 | A: RMS | A > B > C |
| B: TENS | ||
| C: Placebo US | ||
| Smania et al 64 | A: RMS | A > B |
| B: Placebo RMS | ||
RMS, Repetitive magnetic stimulation.
Table 6Studies of US therapy from Rickards
22
(n = 4 studies)| Study | Treatments | Outcomes |
|---|---|---|
| Gam et al 23 | A: US + massage + exercise | A = B = C |
| B: Placebo US + massage + exercise | ||
| C: Control | ||
| Maljesi et al 65 | A: High-power US | A > B |
| B: Conventional US | ||
| Lee et al 66 | A: Placebo US | C > A |
| B: US | ||
| C: Electrotherapy | ||
| D: US + electrotherapy | ||
| Esenyel et al 48 | A: US + stretching | A, B > C |
| B: TrP injection + stretching | ||
| C: Stretching | ||
Rickards' conclusions for each therapy were as follows:
- Laser: Significant evidence that laser may be effective in the short term. Type, dose, and frequency of treatments require additional research.
- TENS: Evidence (unqualified?) that TENS may be effective in providing immediate relief at TrPs.
- Other electrotherapies: Limited evidence for the effectiveness of frequency modulated neural stimulation (FREMS), high-voltage galvanic stimulation (HVGS), electrical muscle stimulation (EMS), and interferential current (IFC).
- US: Moderate evidence that US is no more effective than placebo.
- Magnets: Preliminary evidence that magnets may be effective.
It was noted that most trials involved either immediate or short-term effects and that much more research, especially on the longer-term effects, was needed.
Cummings and White
50
reviewed all trials up to 2000 of “Needling Therapies” for myofascial pain. Three of these trials involved what could be described as “standard” acupuncture typical of the type used by some chiropractors. This is distinguished from deep dry needling and any injection-type therapies that would not be standard chiropractic treatment approaches. For the present review, any trials that specifically identified one of the regional complaint areas in the CCGPP (ie, low back pain, neck pain) without specifying the treatment of TrPs were excluded (Table 7). Cummings and White50
concluded that marked improvements were demonstrated in most treatment groups. However, dry needling techniques alone did not appear to be superior to other treatments in the treatment of myofascial TrPs. As well, they could not find evidence for a specific efficacy of these techniques beyond placebo. They called for more placebo-controlled trials.Table 7Studies of acupuncture therapy from Cummings and White
50
(n = 3)| Study | Treatments | Outcomes |
|---|---|---|
| Birch and Jamison 67 (neck pain) | A: Superficial acupuncture + heat | At 3 mo: A > B, C |
| B: Wrong point superficial acupuncture | ||
| C: NSAID | ||
| Johansson et al 68 (facial pain or headache) | A: Acupuncture | At 3 mo: A = B > C |
| B: Occlusal splint | ||
| C: No treatment control | ||
| Kisiel and Lindh 69 (neck pain) | A: Manual acupuncture | At 6 mo: A = B |
| B: Physiotherapy | ||
IP, ;NSAID, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug.
A Cochrane Collaboration Protocol entitled “Non-invasive physical treatments of myofascial pain” (Kilkenny et al
33
) was identified. This protocol currently contains no results. However, it was used as a source of additional references, particularly on published clinical trials and systematic reviews.RCTs of Other Conservative Therapies
Both Rickards
22
and Cummings and White50
used specific inclusion and exclusion criteria that resulted in the exclusion of numerous studies, either because they were not RCTs or for various methodologic reasons. These excluded trials will not be listed or reviewed here, as that would both duplicate and undermine the methods and conclusions of these reviews. Several trials have been identified in the present search that either have been published since these reviews or were not identified at all in these reviews (probably because of the inclusion of MANTIS and ICL databases in the present search) in the following areas:Acupuncture
There is some additional evidence that a course of deep acupuncture to TrPs is effective in the treatment of myofascial pain for up to 3 months (Table 8).
Table 8Additional acupuncture trials
| Study | Treatments | Outcomes |
|---|---|---|
| Ceccherelli et al 70 (neck pain) | A: Somatic acupuncture | At 1 and 3 mo: A = B (both = positive effect on pain) |
| B: Somatic acupuncture + auricular acupuncture | ||
| Itoh et al 71 (low back pain) | A: Acupuncture at traditional points | At 3 mo: A > B, C (not statistically significant) |
| B: Superficial acupuncture at TrPs | ||
| C: Deep acupuncture at TrPs | ||
| Ceccherelli et al 72 (low back pain) | A: Superficial acupuncture to TrP | At 3 mo: B > A |
| B: Deep acupuncture to TrP | ||
| Goddard et al 73 (jaw pain) | A: Acupuncture | Immediately: A = B |
| B: Sham acupuncture | ||
| Ceccherelli et al 74 (shoulder) | A: Superficial acupuncture to TrP | At 1 and 3 mo: B > D |
| B: Deep acupuncture to TrP | ||
Laser
The study of Greene et al
38
of laser vs osteopathic manipulation (OMT) alone vs OMT + laser vs sham laser to thoracic paraspinal muscle TrPs over 3 days involved measuring only local skin resistance. No measures of pain or tenderness response were made. This study would not have qualified for Rickards' review and does not, as well, for the present review.Olavi et al
75
compared infrared laser to placebo laser over various active TrPs located throughout the body. Pressure pain thresholds were measured immediately after and then 15 minutes after treatment. A statistically significant difference favoring the laser group was found, especially at 15 minutes.Electrotherapy
No additional studies were retrieved.
Exercise
No additional studies not already included in Rickards
22
under “physical therapies” were retrieved.Spray and stretch
The study of Hou et al
27
was included in section 3 and was included in the reviews of both Fernandes de las Penas et al21
and Rickards33
under the category of manual therapy. This is because most treatment groups received ischemic compression with or without a variety of other physiologic therapies. One of these therapies was spray and stretch, making Hou et al27
the only published clinical trial to investigate this therapy. Hou et al found that the addition of spray and stretch to ischemic compression provided immediate benefit in reducing TrP sensitivity. There are no other published clinical trials of spray and stretch therapy for management of pain from TrPs. Notwithstanding this, it is often cited by clinical experts as a valuable treatment of TrPs.Ultrasound
Srbely and Dickey
76
, 77
applied therapeutic-intensity vs low-intensity US to trapezius TrPs in 44 subjects. Pressure pain thresholds over trapezius TrPs increased 44% (14.2%) in the first group, whereas no increase was obtained in the second group.Evidence Synthesis of Other Conservative Therapies
Table 9 summarizes the evidence retrieved in this review.
Table 9Literature review: all studies of other conservative therapies
| Study type | Oxford level | Number |
|---|---|---|
| Systematic reviews | 1a | 2 |
| Systematic review protocols | 1 | |
| Practice guidelines | 1a | 2 |
| RCTs | 1b | 29 |
Clinical Practice Recommendations
- 1.Laser: There is substantial evidence that laser therapy is effective in the treatment of TrPs and MPS. The evidence level is A.
- 2.TENS: There is moderately strong evidence that TENS may be effective in providing immediate relief at TrPs. The evidence level is B.
- 3.There is limited evidence for the effectiveness of other forms of electrotherapy: FREMS, HVGS, EMS, and IFC. The evidence level is C.
- 4.US: There is conflicting evidence as to whether US is no more effective than placebo or is somewhat more effective than other therapies in the treatment of TrPs and MPS. The evidence level is C.
- 5.Magnets: There is some evidence that magnets may be effective in the treatment of TrPs and MPS. The evidence level is B.
- 6.Acupuncture: There is some evidence that a course of deep acupuncture to TrPs is effective in the treatment of myofascial pain for up to 3 months. The evidence level is B.
Conclusion
The published evidence for the treatment of MPS and TrPs by common chiropractic treatments has been reviewed. Although publications ranging from systematic reviews and clinical trials to clinical reviews were included in the review, the evidence ratings were developed only on the basis of the clinical trial evidence. Manual-type therapies and some physiologic therapeutic modalities have acceptable evidentiary support in the treatment of MPS and TrPs (Table 10).
Table 10Summary of recommendations
| Topic | Conclusion and strength of evidence rating |
|---|---|
| Manipulation/mobilization | Rating B: short-term relief |
| There is moderately strong evidence to support the use of some manual therapies (manipulation, ischemic pressure) in providing immediate relief of pain at MTrPs. | |
| Rating C: long-term relief | |
| There is limited evidence to support the use of some manual therapies in providing long-term relief of pain at MTrPs. | |
| Conservative nonmanipulation | Rating A: laser therapies |
| There is strong evidence that laser therapy (various types of lasers) is effective in the treatment of MTrPs and MPS. | |
| Rating B: TENS, magnets, and acupuncture | |
| There is moderately strong evidence that TENS is effective in the short-term relief of pain at MTrPs. | |
| There is moderately strong evidence that magnet herapy is effective in the relief of pain at MTrP and in MPS. | |
| There is moderately strong evidence that a course of deep acupuncture to MTrPs is effective in the treatment of MTrPs and MPS for up to 3 mo. | |
| Rating C: electrotherapies, US | |
| There is limited evidence for the effectiveness of EMS, HVGS, IFC, and FREMS in the treatment of MTrPs and MPS. | |
| There is conflicting evidence that US is no more effective than placebo or is somewhat more effective than other therapies in the treatment of MTrPs and MPS. | |
Appendix A. Reference list of case studies of conservative treatments of MPS/TrPs
Anderson RU, Wise D, Sawyer T, Chan C. Integration of myofascial trigger point release and paradoxical relaxation training treatment of chronic pelvic pain in men. J Urol 2005 Jul;174(1):155-60.
Brewer G, Kampschroeder F, Moore L. Trigger point and transverse frictional massage: a case report. Chiropr 1990;6:40-42.
Crawford JS, Simpson J, Crawford P. Myofascial release provides symptomatic relief from chest wall tenderness occasionally seen following lumpectomy and radiation in breast cancer patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1996 Mar 15;34(5):1188-9.
Daniells E, Wood T. Chiropractic care protocol versus stretching in the treatment of active trigger point in the extensor muscles of the hand and fingers. Toronto, ON: Proceedings of the World Federation of Chiropractic, 7th Biennial Congress 2003:311-312.
Davies C. Trigger point therapy for carpal tunnel syndrome: self-applied massage of the forearms and scalenes. J Am Chiropr Assoc 2002;39:18-23.
De Franca G, Levine L. Quadratus lumborum and low back pain. J Manipulative Physiol Therap 1991;14:142-149.
Grobli C, Dejung B. Non-medical therapy of myofascial pain. Schmerz 2003;17:475-480.
Han SC, Harrison P. Myofascial pain syndrome and trigger point management. Reg Anaesth 1997;22:89-101.
Hong C. Specific sequential myofascial trigger point therapy in the treatment of a patient with myofascial pain syndrome associated with reflex sympathetic dystrophy. Australas Chiropr Osteopath 2000;9:7-11.
Howitt SD, Wong J, Zabukovec S. The conservative treatment of trigger thumb using Graston Technique and Active Release Techniques®. J Can Chiropr Assoc 2006;50:249-254.
Hsieh H, Hong C. Effect of chiropractic manipulation on the pain threshold of myofascial trigger point: a pilot study. Proceedings of: International Conference on Spinal Manipulation 1990:359-363.
Hunter G. Specific soft tissue mobilization in the management of soft tissue dysfunction. Man Ther 1998;3:2-11.
Hyde, T. (2003). Graston technique: a soft tissue treatment for athletic injuries. DC Tracts Fall 2003.
Kasunich NJ. Changes in low back pain in a long distance runner after stretching the iliotibial band. J Chiropr Med 2003;2:37-40.
Kaye MJ. Evaluation and treatment of a patient with upper quarter myofascial pain syndrome. J Sports Chiropr Rehabil 2001;15:26-33.
Leahy P. Improved treatments for carpal tunnel and related syndromes. Chiropr Sports Med 1995;9(1):6-9.
Leahy, PM. Active release techniques: soft tissue management system for the upper extremity. Colorado Springs, CO: Self-published, 1996.
Leahy, PM, Mock LE. Myofascial release technique and mechanical compromise of peripheral nerves of the upper extremity. Chiropr Sports Med 1992;6:139-150.
Melham TJ, Sevier TL et al. Chronic ankle pain and fibrosis successfully treated with a new noninvasive augmented soft tissue mobilization technique (ASTM): a case report. Med Sci in Sports Exer 1998;30(6):801-4.
Mock LE. (1997) Myofascial release treatment of specific muscles of the upper extremity. Part 1. Clin Bull Myofasc Ther 2(1):5-23.1997
Mock LE. (1997) Myofascial release treatment of specific muscles of the upper extremity. Part 2. Clin Bull Myofasc Ther 2(2/3):5-22.1997
Mock LE. (1997) Myofascial release treatment of specific muscles of the upper extremity. Part 3. Clin Bull Myofasc Ther 2(4):51-69.1997
Mock LE. (1998) Myofascial release treatment of specific muscles of the upper extremity. Part 4. Clin Bull Myofasc Ther 3(1):71-93.
Mulcahy R, Johnson J, Witt R. Treatment of myofascial pain utilizing an activator instrument on trigger points. Chiropractic 1994;9:45-46.
Such GW. Manual care of the hyoid complex. Top Clin Chirop 2002;9:54-62. c/r
Walsh MJ, Wise P. Chiropractic treatment of fibromyalgia: two case studies. Chiropr J Aust 2001;31:42-46.
References
- The myofascial genesis of pain.Postgrad Med. 1952; 11: 425-434
- Myofascial pain and dysfunction: the trigger point manual.Williams and Wilkens, Baltimore (Md)1983
- Signs and symptoms of the myofascial pain syndrome: a national survey of pain management providers.Clin J Pain. 2000; 16: 64-72
- Prevalence of myofascial pain in general internal medicine.West J Med. 1989; 151: 157-160
- The development of chiropractic through the perspective of Dr. Raymond Nimmo [videorecording].Texas Chiropractic College, Pasadena (Tex)1984
- The receptor-tonus method.Texas Chiropractic College, Pasedena (Tex)1992
Nimmo RL. The receptor-tonus method: directory 1962. Self-published.
- Nimmo and the evolution of trigger point therapy, 1929-1986.J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1998; 21: 167-172
- Receptor-tonus technique assessment.Chiropr Tech. 1994; 6: 156-159
- The collected writings of Nimmo and Vannerson: pioneers of chiropractic trigger point therapy.Michael Schneider, Pittsburgh (Pa)2001
- Snapping hip syndrome in a marathon runner: treatment by manual trigger point therapy—a case study.Chiropr Sports Med. 1990; 4: 54-58
- Tender points/fibromyalgia vs trigger points/myofascial pain syndrome: a need for clarity in terminology and differential diagnosis.J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1995; 18: 398-406
- Understanding trigger points: key to relieving myotogenous pain.Chiropr J. 1989; 3: 17
- Myofascial trigger points.Chiropr Sports Med. 1995; 9: 106-108
- Locating and treating low back pain of myofascial origin by ischemic compression.J Can Chiropr Assoc. 2002; 46: 257-264
- Chiropractic management of shoulder pain and dysfunction of myofascial origin using ischemic compression techniques.J Can Chiropr Assoc. 2002; 46: 192-200
- Functional soft tissue examination & treatment by manual methods.3rd ed. Jones & Bartlett, Sudbury (Mass)2007
- The use of complementary medical therapies in the management of myofascial pain disorders.Curr Pain Headache Rep. 2002; 6: 370-374
- Levels of evidence.Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine, Oxford, UK2001
- Evidence-based medicine: how to practice and teach EBM.Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh, Scotland2000
- Manual therapies in myofascial trigger point treatment: a systematic review.J Bodywork Mov Ther. 2005; 9: 27-34
- The effectiveness of non-invasive treatments for active myofascial trigger point pain: a systematic review of the literature.Int J Osteopath Med. 2006; 9: 120-136
- Treatment of myofascial trigger points with ultrasound combined with massage and exercise: a randomized controlled trial.Pain. 1998; 77: 73-79
- Quantification of changes in myofascial trigger point sensitivity with the pressure algometer following passive stretch.Pain. 1986; 27: 203-210
- Effectiveness of a home program of ischemic pressure followed by sustained stretch for treatment of myofascial trigger points.Phys Ther. 2000; 80: 997-1003
- Immediate effects of various physical medicine modalities on pain threshold of an active myofascial trigger point.J Musculoskelet Pain. 1993; 1: 37-53
- Immediate effects of various physical therapy modalities on cervical myofascial pain and trigger point sensitivity.Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002; 83: 1406-1414
- Effects of active head retraction with retraction/extension and occipital release on the pressure pain threshold of cervical and scapular trigger points.Physiother Theory Pract. 1997; 13: 285-291
- Myofascial pain unresponsive to standard treatment. Successful use of strain and counterstrain technique in physical therapy.J Clin Rheum. 2000; 6: 169-174
- Effectiveness of traditional Thai massage versus Swedish massage among patients with back pain associated with myofascial trigger points.J Bodywork Mov Ther. 2005; 9: 298-309
- The immediate effect of ischemic compression technique and transverse friction massage on tenderness of active and latent myofascial trigger points: a pilot study.J Bodywork Mov Ther. 2006; 10: 3-9
- Superficial dry needling and active stretching in the treatment of myofascial pain—a randomised controlled trial.Acupunct Med. 2003; 21: 80-86
- Non-invasive physical treatments of myofascial pain (protocol).Cochrane Library. 2007;
- Manipulation and pain tolerance. A controlled study of the effect of spinal manipulation on paraspinal cutaneous pain tolerance levels.Am J Phys Med. 1984; 63: 217-225
- Pressure pain threshold evaluation of the effect of spinal manipulation in the treatment of chronic neck pain: a pilot study.J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1990; 13: 13-16
- The short-term effect of a spinal manipulation on pain/pressure threshold in patients with chronic mechanical low back pain.J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1994; 17: 364-368
- The initial effects of a cervical spine manipulative physiotherapy treatment on the pain and dysfunction of lateral epicondylalgia.Pain. 1996; 68: 69-74
- The effect of helium-neon laser and osteopathic manipulation on soft-tissue trigger points.J Am Osteopath Assoc. 1990; 90: 638-639
- Immediate effects of the strain/counterstrain technique in local pain evoked by tender points in the upper trapezius muscle.Clin Chiropr. 2006; 9: 112-118
- The effect of manual pressure release on myofascial trigger points in the upper trapezius muscle.J Bodywork Mov Ther. 2005; 9: 248-255
- Myofascial pain therapy.J Musculoskelet Pain. 2004; 12: 37-43
- A review of myofascial pain and fibromyalgia—factors that promote their persistence.Acupunct Med. 2005; 23: 121-134
- Trigger points: diagnosis and management.Am Fam Physician. 2002; 65: 653-660
- Understanding effective treatments of myofascial trigger points.J Bodywork Mov Ther. 2002; 6: 81-88
- Muscle pain syndromes.Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2007; 86: S47-S58
- Myofascial trigger points.Med Clin North Am. 2007; 91: 229-239
- Post-isometric relaxation in combination with other methods of muscular facilitation and inhibition.Man Med. 1986; 2: 101-104
- Treatment of myofascial pain.Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2000; 79: 48-52
- Treatment of media land lateral epicondylitis—tennis and golfer's elbow—with low level laser therapy: a multicentre double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical study on 324 patients.J Clin Laser Med Surg. 1998; 16: 145-151
- Needling therapies in the management of myofascial trigger point pain: a systematic review.Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2001; 82: 986-992
- Efficacy of 904 nm gallium arsenide low level laser therapy in the management of chronic myofascial pain in the neck: a double-blind and randomized controlled trial.Lasers Surg Med. 2004; 35: 229-235
- The effects of helium-neon laser irradiation on skin resistance and pain in patients with trigger points in the neck or back.Phys Ther. 1989; 69: 336-341
- Diode laser in cervical myofascial pain: a double-blind study versus placebo.Clin J Pain. 1989; 5: 301-304
- Efficacy of low level laser therapy in myofascial pain syndrome: an algometric and thermographic evaluation.Lasers Surg Med. 2003; 33: 339-343
- Comparison of laser, dry needling and placebo laser treatments in myofascial pain syndrome.Rheumatol Int. 2003; 25: 23-27
- Investigation of the effect of GA AS laser therapy on cervical myofascial pain syndrome.Rheumatol Int. 2003; 25: 23-27
- Management of head and neck pain: the effectiveness of altering perpetuating factors in myofascial pain.Headache. 1986; 27: 186-190
- A randomised controlled study on the effect of two different treatments (FREMS and TENS) in myofascial pain syndrome.Eura Medicophys. 2004; 40: 293-301
- The immediate effectiveness of electrical nerve stimulation and electrical muscle stimulation on myofascial trigger points.Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 1997; 76: 471-476
- Comparison of two different techniques of electrotherapy on myofascial pain.J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil. 2002; 16: 11-16
- High voltage galvanic stimulation in myofascial pain syndrome.J Musculoskelet Pain. 2003; 11: 11-15
- Efficacy of static magnetic field therapy in chronic pelvic pain: a double-blind pilot study.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002; 187: 1581-1587
- Repetitive magnetic stimulation: a novel approach for myofascial pain syndrome.J Neurol. 2005; 252: 307-314
- Therapeutic effects of peripheral repetitive magnetic stimulation on myofascial pain syndrome.Clin Neurophysiol. 2003; 114: 350-358
- High power pain threshold ultrasound technique in the treatment of active myofascial trigger points: a randomized, double-blind case-control study.Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2004; 85: 833-836
- The effectiveness of simultaneous thermotherapy with ultrasound and electrotherapy with combined AC and DC current on the immediate pain relief of myofascial trigger points.J Musculoskelet Pain. 1997; 5: 81-90
- Controlled trial of Japanese acupuncture for chronic myofascial neck pain: assessment of specific and nonspecific effects of treatment.Clin J Pain. 1998; 14: 248-255
- Acupuncture in treatment of facial muscular pain.Acta Odontol Scand. 1991; 49: 153-158
- Smartlindring med fysikalsk terapi och manuell akupnktur vid myofasciella nackoch skuldersmartor.Sjukgymnasten. 1996; 12: 24-31
- The therapeutic efficacy of somatic acupuncture is not increased by auriculotherapy: a randomised, blind control study in cervical myofascial pain.Complement Ther Med. 2006; 14: 47-52
- Trigger point acupuncture treatment of chronic low back pain in elderly patients—a blinded RCT.Acupunct Med. 2004; 22: 170-177
- Comparison of superficial and deep acupuncture in the treatment of lumbar myofascial pain: a double-blind randomized controlled study.Clin J Pain. 2002; 18: 149-153
- Acupuncture and sham acupuncture reduce muscle pain in myofascial pain patients.J Orofac Pain. 2002; 16: 71-76
- Comparison between superficial and deep acupuncture in the treatment of shoulder myofascial pain: a randomized and controlled study.Acupunct Electrother Res. 2001; 26: 229-238
- Effects of infrared laser therapy at treated and non-treated trigger points.Acupunct Electrother Res. 1989; 14: 9-14
- Stimulation of myofascial trigger points causes systemic physiologic effects [abstract].J Can Chiropr Assoc. 2005; 49: 75
- Randomized controlled study of the antinociceptive effect of ultrasound on trigger point sensitivity: novel applications in myofascial therapy.Clin Rehabil. 2007; 21: 411-417
Article info
Publication history
Accepted:
June 1,
2008
Received in revised form:
May 14,
2008
Received:
April 29,
2008
Identification
Copyright
© 2009 National University of Health Sciences. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
