Published in

Taylor and Francis Group, Journal of Musculoskeletal Pain, 1(18), p. 23-30

DOI: 10.3109/10582450903496047

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Percutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation Versus Dry Needling: Effectiveness in the Treatment of Chronic Low Back Pain

This paper is available in a repository.
This paper is available in a repository.

Full text: Download

Red circle
Preprint: archiving forbidden
Orange circle
Postprint: archiving restricted
Red circle
Published version: archiving forbidden
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

ABSTRACT Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of treating myofascial trigger points [TrPs] with dry needling [DN] compared to percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation [PENS]. Method: In this clinical trial, 122 subjects suffering from non-specific chronic low back pain [CLBP] were treated. They were randomly distributed into two treatment groups: one taking PENS and the other taking DN of TrPs on the deep lumbar paraspinal muscles [lumbar multifidi], quadratus lumborum, and gluteus medius. Four variables were measured: perceived pain and sleep quality using a visual analog scale [VAS], pressure-pain tolerance threshold on TrPs with an algometer, and quality of life assessed with the Oswestry Disability Index. Results: At least one TrP was found in all patients, most commonly situated in the quadratus lumborum muscle [97.6 percent]. The improvement achieved for both treatment groups was similar in all the measured variables, although the DN group carried out fewer sessions than the PENS group. Conclusions: It could be concluded that the effectiveness of DN is comparable to that of PENS and, therefore, it may be considered as another useful tool with limited adverse effects within the multidisciplinary approach required in the management of non-specific CLBP.