Integrated neuromuscular inhibition technique versus spray and stretch technique in neck pain patients with upper trapezius trigger points: a randomized clinical trial.

IF 1.6 Q2 REHABILITATION Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy Pub Date : 2024-04-01 Epub Date: 2023-03-23 DOI:10.1080/10669817.2023.2192899
Ali Mohamed Ali Ismail, Alshaymaa Shaaban Abd El-Azeim, El-Sayed Essam El-Sayed Felaya
{"title":"Integrated neuromuscular inhibition technique versus spray and stretch technique in neck pain patients with upper trapezius trigger points: a randomized clinical trial.","authors":"Ali Mohamed Ali Ismail, Alshaymaa Shaaban Abd El-Azeim, El-Sayed Essam El-Sayed Felaya","doi":"10.1080/10669817.2023.2192899","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to investigate the difference between the integrated neuromuscular inhibition technique (INIT) and spray and stretch technique in patients with neck pain and upper trapezius active trigger points. Methods: A convenience sample of 60 patients with neck pain and active trigger points were recruited from physiotherapy students and allocated randomly to three groups INIT plus stretching exercise spray and stretch technique plus stretching exercise, and stretching exercise only. Treatment was three times per week for four weeks. Pain intensity by visual analogue scale (VAS), pain pressure threshold (PPT), neck disability by Arabic neck disability index (ANDI), and muscle amplitude in the form of root mean square (RMS) by electromyography (EMG) were measured at baseline and after four weeks. Results: Between groups analysis; the results revealed statistical significant difference between three groups after four weeks of intervention as <i>p</i> =0.0001. Within the group analysis, post hoc tests reported improvement at all variables in both INIT and spray and stretch technique groups with mean differences 64.5 and 65.1 in VAS, 20 and 18.15 in ANDI, -1.45 and -0.81 in PPT, and 2.47 and 1.88 in muscle amplitude, respectively. But there was no statistically significant difference in stretching only group in all variables except VAS.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both INIT and spray and stretch techniques had a clinical and statistical effects on pain, function, PPT, and RMS. According to results, there were statistical significant differences between INIT and spray and stretch groups at post-treatment in all variables except VAS with more favor to INIT group, but there were no clinical differences between INIT and spray and stretch groups.</p>","PeriodicalId":47319,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy","volume":" ","pages":"141-149"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10956923/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10669817.2023.2192899","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/3/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to investigate the difference between the integrated neuromuscular inhibition technique (INIT) and spray and stretch technique in patients with neck pain and upper trapezius active trigger points. Methods: A convenience sample of 60 patients with neck pain and active trigger points were recruited from physiotherapy students and allocated randomly to three groups INIT plus stretching exercise spray and stretch technique plus stretching exercise, and stretching exercise only. Treatment was three times per week for four weeks. Pain intensity by visual analogue scale (VAS), pain pressure threshold (PPT), neck disability by Arabic neck disability index (ANDI), and muscle amplitude in the form of root mean square (RMS) by electromyography (EMG) were measured at baseline and after four weeks. Results: Between groups analysis; the results revealed statistical significant difference between three groups after four weeks of intervention as p =0.0001. Within the group analysis, post hoc tests reported improvement at all variables in both INIT and spray and stretch technique groups with mean differences 64.5 and 65.1 in VAS, 20 and 18.15 in ANDI, -1.45 and -0.81 in PPT, and 2.47 and 1.88 in muscle amplitude, respectively. But there was no statistically significant difference in stretching only group in all variables except VAS.

Conclusion: Both INIT and spray and stretch techniques had a clinical and statistical effects on pain, function, PPT, and RMS. According to results, there were statistical significant differences between INIT and spray and stretch groups at post-treatment in all variables except VAS with more favor to INIT group, but there were no clinical differences between INIT and spray and stretch groups.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
综合神经肌肉抑制技术与喷雾和拉伸技术治疗有斜方肌上扳机点的颈痛患者:随机临床试验。
研究目的本研究旨在探讨综合神经肌肉抑制技术(INIT)与喷射拉伸技术在颈部疼痛和斜方肌上部活动触发点患者中的区别。研究方法从物理治疗专业的学生中招募了60名颈部疼痛和活动性触发点患者,并将他们随机分配到三组,即INIT加拉伸运动组、喷射拉伸技术加拉伸运动组和仅拉伸运动组。治疗每周三次,为期四周。在基线和四周后,通过视觉模拟量表(VAS)测量疼痛强度、疼痛压力阈值(PPT)、阿拉伯语颈部残疾指数(ANDI)测量颈部残疾程度、肌电图(EMG)测量均方根形式的肌肉振幅。结果显示组间分析;结果显示,干预四周后,三组之间的差异有统计学意义(P =0.0001)。在组内分析中,事后分析表明,INIT 组和喷雾拉伸技术组在所有变量上都有所改善,VAS 平均值分别为 64.5 和 65.1,ANDI 平均值分别为 20 和 18.15,PPT 平均值分别为 -1.45 和 -0.81,肌肉振幅平均值分别为 2.47 和 1.88。除 VAS 外,仅拉伸组在所有变量上的差异均无统计学意义:结论:INIT 和喷雾拉伸技术对疼痛、功能、PPT 和 RMS 均有临床和统计学影响。结果显示,在治疗后,INIT 组和喷射拉伸组在除 VAS 以外的所有变量上都有显著的统计学差异,INIT 组更受青睐,但 INIT 组和喷射拉伸组之间没有临床差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
20.00%
发文量
55
期刊介绍: The Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy is an international peer-reviewed journal dedicated to the publication of original research, case reports, and reviews of the literature that contribute to the advancement of knowledge in the field of manual therapy, clinical research, therapeutic practice, and academic training. In addition, each issue features an editorial written by the editor or a guest editor, media reviews, thesis reviews, and abstracts of current literature. Areas of interest include: •Thrust and non-thrust manipulation •Neurodynamic assessment and treatment •Diagnostic accuracy and classification •Manual therapy-related interventions •Clinical decision-making processes •Understanding clinimetrics for the clinician
期刊最新文献
Exploring the personal and professional outcomes of pursuing fellowship training in orthopedic manual physical therapy: a mixed-methods analysis. There is no madness in spinal manual techniques in the pediatric setting. The prevalence of subclassification-based diagnoses when considering cervical contribution in shoulder pain patients: a secondary analysis from a previous research. An overview of systematic reviews investigating clinical features for diagnosing neck pain and its associated disorders. What do patients with lumbar spinal stenosis think is physical therapy's best card? A survey of perceived message strength.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1