Publications
Comparing Multiple Versus Sustained Insertion Dry Needling Therapy for Myofascial Neck Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Authors: Gracjan Olaniszyn 1, 2, Adrian Kuzdzal 3, Adam Kawczynski 4, Filip Matuszczyk 5, Kamil Galeziok 5, Filipe Manuel Clemente 4, Robert Trybulski 1, 5
Affiliations:
- Medical Department Wojciech Korfanty, Upper Silesian Academy, Katowice, Poland
- Physiotherapy Centre “Od Nowa” Raciborz Zamkowa, Raciborz, Poland
- Institute of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Health Sciences and Psychology, Collegium Medicum, University of Rzeszow, Rzeszow, Poland
- Department of Biomechanics and Sport Engineering, Gdansk University of Physical Education and Sport, Gdansk, Poland
- Provita Zory Medical Center, Zory, Poland
Journal: Annals of Rehabilitation Medicine - August 2025, Volume 49, Issue 4, Pages 208-225 (DOI: 10.5535/arm.250052)
-
Field & Applications:
- Medical
- Treatment evaluation
- Complementary and Alternative Medicine
- Musculoskeletal disorder
- Myofascia
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.
Keywords: muscle tonus, regional blood flow, physical therapy modalities, pain management, muscle strength
The findings of this study reveal that the GS method is more effective than the GH method in managing myofascial neck pain, particularly in reducing MT and MS, improving PPT, and enhancing local tissue perfusion. The GS approach’s superior outcomes are likely due to its sustained needle retention strategy, which facilitates more consistent mechanical and neurological responses, leading to better pain relief. Additionally, the GS method was associated with fewer adverse events, highlighting its better safety profile and tolerability. While both DN techniques showed generally greater efficacy than shamDN, the GH method’s results were less consistent and more disposed to delayed improvements. These findings support the clinical use of the GS method as a safer and more effective treatment option for individuals with myofascial pain, emphasizing the importance of individualized treatment approaches based on individual patient needs. Further research is needed to explore the long-term effects and underlying mechanisms of these interventions.