Randomized trial demonstrates adjunctive dry needling reduces spasticity and improves mobility in children with cerebral palsy, highlighting its potential in pediatric neurorehabilitation.
Background Spastic cerebral palsy is the most prevalent motor disability in childhood, and the alleviation of spasticity has been a primary rehabilitation objective with the view of improving the outcomes of functional recovery. Dry needling (DN) has demonstrated some efficacy in adult neurology, but controlled evidence is limited in children. This study tested the hypothesis that incorporating DN into traditional physical therapy is effective in improving spasticity, gross motor functions, and functional mobility in ambulant children with spastic cerebral palsy. Methods Forty-eight children with spastic diplegia cerebral palsy, ages 6–12 years, were randomly allocated to either a DN group (DN plus traditional therapy) or a traditional rehabilitation (TR) group (traditional therapy alone). Interventions lasted 12 weeks. Outcome measures included the Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS), Gross Motor Function Measure (GMFM-88; dimensions D and E), and Timed Up and Go (TUG) test. Results MANOVA analyses showed that both groups significantly improved across all outcomes ( p < 0.05). The DN group showed greater improvements in MAS (mean change: −0.5 vs. −0.2), GMFM-88 (mean change: +10.2 s vs. +5.9 s), and TUG (mean change: −4.2 s vs. −1.4 s). Spasticity, gross motor, and functional mobility outcomes favored the DN group ( p = 0.02, p = 0.02, and p = 0.002). One small adverse event was observed with no treatment discontinuations. Conclusion Dry needling in combination with traditional physical therapy was associated with greater improvements in spasticity, motor function, and mobility than traditional therapy alone. DN was tolerable and could be a safe and effective additional intervention for ambulatory children with mild-to-moderate spastic cerebral palsy. Clinical Trial Registration : ClinicalTrials.gov , identifier NCT06856473.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Alkhamees et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: