Lumbar facet injection for the treatment of chronic piriformis myofascial pain syndrome: 52 case studies

A randomized clinical trial comparing non-thrust manipulation with segmental and distal dry needling on pain, disability, and rate of recovery for patients with non-specific low back pain

Objective: The purpose of this study was to examine the within and between-group effects of segmental and distal dry needling (DN) without needle manipulation to a semi-standardized non-thrust manipulation (NTM) targeting the symptomatic spinal level for patients with non-specific low back pain (NSLBP). Methods: Sixty-five patients with NSLBP were randomized to receive either DN (n = 30) or NTM (n = 35) for six sessions over 3 weeks. Outcomes collected included the oswestry disability index (ODI), patient specific functional scale (PSFS), numeric pain rating scale (NPRS), and pain pressure thresholds (PPT). At discharge, patients perceived recovery was assessed. Results: A two-way mixed model ANOVA demonstrated that there was no group*time interaction for PSFS (p = 0.26), ODI (p = 0.57), NPRS (p = 0.69), and PPT (p = 0.51). There was significant within group effects for PSFS (3.1 [2.4, 3.8], p = 0.018), ODI (14.5% [10.0%, 19.0%], p = 0.015), NPRS (2.2 [1.5, 2.8], p = 0.009), but not for PPT (3.3 [0.5, 6.0], p = 0.20). Discussion: The between-group effects were neither clinically nor statistically significant. The within group effects were both significant and exceeded the reported minimum clinically important differences for the outcomes tools except the PPT. DN and NTM produced comparable outcomes in this sample of patients with NSLBP. Level of evidence: 1b.

Core strength training for patients with chronic low back pain

[Purpose] Through core strength training, patients with chronic low back pain can strengthen their deep trunk muscles. However, independent training remains challenging, despite the existence of numerous core strength training strategies. Currently, no standardized system has been established analyzing and comparing the results of core strength training and typical resistance training. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review of the results of previous studies to explore the effectiveness of various core strength training strategies for patients with chronic low back pain. [Methods] We searched for relevant studies using electronic databases. Subsequently, we evaluated their quality by analyzing the reported data. [Results] We compared four methods of evaluating core strength training: trunk balance, stabilization, segmental stabilization, and motor control exercises. According to the results of various scales and evaluation instruments, core strength training is more effective than typical resistance training for alleviating chronic low back pain. [Conclusion] All of the core strength training strategies examined in this study assist in the alleviation of chronic low back pain; however, we recommend focusing on training the deep trunk muscles to alleviate chronic low back pain.