Randomized controlled trial evaluates dry needling methods for myofascial neck pain, showing GH and GS effects on muscle tension and pain relief.
Objective: To compare the Hong (GH) and sustained insertion (GS) dry needling methods in patients with myofascial neck pain, this experimental study was conducted. Methods: A randomized controlled trial included 30 participants, assigned to either the GH (n=15) or GS (n=15) group. Each group received treatment on either the right or left side, with one side receiving experimental DN and the other receiving control (sham) DN. The GS method involved a single needle insertion per myofascial trigger point for one minute, while the GH method used multiple rapid needle insertions over two minutes without needle retention. Measurements were taken before therapy, 5 minutes post-DN session (post-5min), 24 hours post-session (post-24h), and 7 days post-session (post-7d). Muscle tension (MT) and muscle stiffness (MS) were measured with a myotonometer, pressure pain threshold (PPT) with an algometer, maximum isometric strength (Fmax) with a handheld dynamometer, and transcutaneous perfusion (PU) with laser Doppler flowmetry. Power Doppler Score (PDS) and minor adverse events were also recorded.Results: Results showed that GH led to significantly higher MT and MS values at post-24h and post-7d (p<0.001). In contrast, GS showed greater PPT and Fmax at post-5min, post-24h, and post-7d (p<0.001). Additionally, GH exhibited higher PU values at post-5min and post-7d (p<0.001), while GS showed higher PDS values at post-5min and post-24h (p<0.001). Conclusion: The GH method resulted in less favorable outcomes in terms of MT and MS, while the GS method showed superior improvements in pain relief and functional recovery.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Olaniszyn et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: