Myofascial pain syndrome(MPS)is characterized by myofascial trigger points and fascial constrictions.At present,domestic and foreign scholars have not reached a consensus on the etiology and pathogenesis of MPS.Due to...Myofascial pain syndrome(MPS)is characterized by myofascial trigger points and fascial constrictions.At present,domestic and foreign scholars have not reached a consensus on the etiology and pathogenesis of MPS.Due to the lack of specific laboratory indicators and imaging evidence,there is no unified diagnostic criteria for MPS,making it easy to confuse with other diseases.The Chinese Association for the Study of Pain organized domestic experts to formulate this Chinese Pain Specialist Consensus on the diagnosis and treatment of MPS.This article reviews relevant domestic and foreign literature on the definition,epidemiology,pathogenesis,clinical manifestation,diagnostic criteria and treatments of MPS.The consensus is intended to normalize the diagnosis and treatment of MPS and be used by first-line doctors,including pain physicians to manage patients with MPS.展开更多
BACKGROUND Active myofascial trigger points(TrPs)often occur in the upper region of the upper trapezius(UT)muscle.These TrPs can be a significant source of neck,shoulder,and upper back pain and headaches.These TrPs an...BACKGROUND Active myofascial trigger points(TrPs)often occur in the upper region of the upper trapezius(UT)muscle.These TrPs can be a significant source of neck,shoulder,and upper back pain and headaches.These TrPs and their related pain and disability can adversely affect an individual’s everyday routine functioning,work-related productivity,and general quality of life.AIM To investigate the effects of instrument assisted soft tissue mobilization(IASTM)vs extracorporeal shock wave therapy(ESWT)on the TrPs of the UT muscle.METHODS A randomized,single-blind,comparative clinical study was conducted at the Medical Center of the Egyptian Railway Station in Cairo.Forty patients(28 females and 12 males),aged between 20-years-old and 40-years-old,with active myofascial TrPs in the UT muscle were randomly assigned to two equal groups(A and B).Group A received IASTM,while group B received ESWT.Each group was treated twice weekly for 2 weeks.Both groups received muscle energy technique for the UT muscle.Patients were evaluated twice(pre-and posttreatment)for pain intensity using the visual analogue scale and for pain pressure threshold(PPT)using a pressure algometer.RESULTS Comparing the pre-and post-treatment mean values for all variables for group A,there were significant differences in pain intensity for TrP1 and TrP2(P=0.0001)and PPT for TrP1(P=0.0002)and TrP2(P=0.0001).Also,for group B,there were significant differences between the pre-and post-treatment pain intensity for TrP1 and TrP2 and PPT for TrP1 and TrP2(P=0.0001).There were no significant differences between the two groups in the post-treatment mean values of pain intensity for TrP1(P=0.9)and TrP2(P=0.76)and PPT for TrP1(P=0.09)and for TrP2(P=0.91).CONCLUSION IASTM and ESWT are effective methods for improving pain and PPT in patients with UT muscle TrPs.There is no significant difference between either treatment method.展开更多
BACKGROUND Pulsed electromagnetic field(PEMF)therapy is widely used to treat myofascial pain syndrome(MPS).Damp-clearing and pain-reducing paste(DPP)comprises medical herbs and has been a traditional method of reducin...BACKGROUND Pulsed electromagnetic field(PEMF)therapy is widely used to treat myofascial pain syndrome(MPS).Damp-clearing and pain-reducing paste(DPP)comprises medical herbs and has been a traditional method of reducing myofascial pain in China for a long time,and it is usually administered with heating.However,the synergistic effect of PEMF therapy on heating-DPP in patients with MPS is unclear.AIM To investigate the synergistic effect of PEMF therapy plus heating-DPP in lumbar MPS.METHODS This double-blind,randomized,placebo-controlled trial was conducted on 120 patients with lumbar MPS who were randomly divided into an experimental group(EG,n=60)and a control group(CG,n=60).Patients in both groups were treated with heating-DPP combined with PEMF therapy;however,the electromagnetic function of the therapeutic apparatus used in the CG was disabled.Each treatment lasted for 20 min and was applied five times a week for two weeks.The short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire was applied at five time points:pretest,end of the first and second weeks of treatment,and end of the first and fourth week after completing treatment.Visual analog scale(VAS),present pain intensity index(PPI),and pain rating index(PRI;total,affective pain,and sensory pain scores)scores were then analyzed.RESULTS Compared with the CG,the VAS,PPI and PRI scores(total,affective pain and sensory pain scores)in the EG were significantly lower after treatment and during follow-up.CONCLUSION PEMF therapy combined with heating-DPP showed better efficacy than heating-DPP alone in reducing the overall intensity of pain and sensory and affective pain.展开更多
BACKGROUND Unilateral patellofemoral pain syndrome(PFPS)is the most frequently diagnosed knee condition in populations aged<50 years old.Although the treatment of myofascial trigger points(MTrPs)is a common and eff...BACKGROUND Unilateral patellofemoral pain syndrome(PFPS)is the most frequently diagnosed knee condition in populations aged<50 years old.Although the treatment of myofascial trigger points(MTrPs)is a common and effective tool for reducing pain,previous studies showed no additional benefits compared with placebo in populations with PFPS.Percutaneous electrolysis is a minimally invasive approach frequently used in musculotendinous pathologies which consists of the application of a galvanic current through dry needling(DN).AIM To evaluate changes in sensitivity,knee pain perception and perceived pain during the application of these three invasive techniques.METHODS A triple-blinded,pilot randomized controlled trial was conducted on fifteen patients with unilateral PFPS who were randomized to the high-intensity percutaneous electrolysis(HIPE)experimental group,low-intensity percutaneous electrolysis(LIPE)experimental group or DN active control group.All interventions were conducted in the most active MTrP,in the rectus femoris muscle.The HIPE group received a 660 mA galvanic current for 10 s,the LIPE group 220 mA×30 s and the DN group received no galvanic current.The MTrP and patellar tendon pain pressure thresholds(PPTs)and subjective anterior knee pain perception(SAKPP)were assessed before,after and 7 d after the single intervention.In addition,perceived pain during the intervention was also assessed.RESULTS Both groups were comparable at baseline as no significant differences were found for age,height,weight,body mass index,PPTs or SAKPP.No adverse events were reported during or after the interventions.A significant decrease in SAKPP(both HIPE and LIPE,P<0.01)and increased patellar tendon PPT(all,P<0.001)were found,with no differences between the groups(VAS:F=0.30;η2=0.05;P>0.05;tendon PPT immediate effects:F=0.15;η2=0.02;P>0.05 and tendon PPT 7-d effects:F=0.67;η2=0.10;P>0.05).A significant PPT increase in rectus femoris MTrP was found at follow-up in both the HIPE and LIPE groups(both,P<0.001)with no differences between the groups(immediate effects:F=1.55;η2=0.20;P>0.05 and 7-d effects:F=0.71;η2=0.10;P>0.05).Both HIPE and LIPE interventions were considered less painful compared with DN(F=8.52;η2=0.587;P<0.01).CONCLUSION HIPE and LIPE induce PPT changes in MTrPs and patellar tendon and improvements in SAKPP,and seem to produce less pain during the intervention compared with DN.展开更多
Prostatitis comprises of a group of syndromes that affect almost 50% of men at least once in their lifetime and makeup the majority of visits to the Urology Clinics.After much debate, it has been divided into four dis...Prostatitis comprises of a group of syndromes that affect almost 50% of men at least once in their lifetime and makeup the majority of visits to the Urology Clinics.After much debate, it has been divided into four distinct categories by National Institutes of Health namely(1) acute bacterial prostatitis;(2) chronic bacterial prostatitis;(3) chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome(CP/CPPS) which is further divided into inflammatory and non-inflammatory CP/CPPS; and(4)asymptomatic inflammatory prostatitis. CP/CPPS has been a cause of great concern for both patients and physicians because of the lack of presence of thoroughinformation about the etiological factors along with the difficult-to-treat nature of the syndrome. For the presented manuscript an extensive search on PubM ed was conducted for CP/CPPS aimed to present an updated review on the evaluation and treatment options available for patients with CP/CPPS. Several diagnostic criteria's have been established to diagnose CP/CPPS, with prostatic/pelvic pain for at least 3 mo being the major classifying symptom along with the presence of lower urinary tract symptoms and/or ejaculatory pain. Diagnostic tests can help differentiate CP/CPPS from other syndromes that come under the heading of prostatitis by ruling out active urinary tract infection and/or prostatic infection with uropathogen by performing urine cultures, Meares-Stamey Four Glass Test, Preand Post-Massage Two Glass Test. Asymptomatic inflammatory prostatitis is confirmed through prostate biopsy done for elevated serum prostate-specific antigen levels or abnormal digital rectal examination. Researchers have been unable to link a single etiological factor to the pathogenesis of CP/CPPS, instead a cluster of potential etiologies including atypical bacterial or nanobacterial infection, autoimmunity, neurological dysfunction and pelvic floor muscle dysfunction are most commonly implicated. Initially monotherapy with anti-biotics and alpha adrenergic-blockers can be tried, but its success has only been observed in treatment nave population. Other pharmacotherapies including phytotherapy, neuromodulatory drugs and anti-inflammatories achieved limited success in trials. Complementary and interventional therapies including acupuncture, myofascial trigger point release and pelvic floor biofeedback have been employed. This review points towards the fact that treatment should be tailored individually for patients based on their symptoms. Patients can be stratified phenotypically based on the UPOINT system constituting of Urinary, Psychosocial, Organ-specific, Infectious, Neurologic/Systemic and symptoms of muscular Tenderness and the treatment algorithm should be proposed accordingly. Treatment of CP/CPPS should be aimed towards treating local aswell as central factors causing the symptoms. Surgical intervention can cause significant morbidity and should only be reserved for treatment-refractory patients that have previously failed to respond to multiple drug therapies.展开更多
文摘Myofascial pain syndrome(MPS)is characterized by myofascial trigger points and fascial constrictions.At present,domestic and foreign scholars have not reached a consensus on the etiology and pathogenesis of MPS.Due to the lack of specific laboratory indicators and imaging evidence,there is no unified diagnostic criteria for MPS,making it easy to confuse with other diseases.The Chinese Association for the Study of Pain organized domestic experts to formulate this Chinese Pain Specialist Consensus on the diagnosis and treatment of MPS.This article reviews relevant domestic and foreign literature on the definition,epidemiology,pathogenesis,clinical manifestation,diagnostic criteria and treatments of MPS.The consensus is intended to normalize the diagnosis and treatment of MPS and be used by first-line doctors,including pain physicians to manage patients with MPS.
文摘BACKGROUND Active myofascial trigger points(TrPs)often occur in the upper region of the upper trapezius(UT)muscle.These TrPs can be a significant source of neck,shoulder,and upper back pain and headaches.These TrPs and their related pain and disability can adversely affect an individual’s everyday routine functioning,work-related productivity,and general quality of life.AIM To investigate the effects of instrument assisted soft tissue mobilization(IASTM)vs extracorporeal shock wave therapy(ESWT)on the TrPs of the UT muscle.METHODS A randomized,single-blind,comparative clinical study was conducted at the Medical Center of the Egyptian Railway Station in Cairo.Forty patients(28 females and 12 males),aged between 20-years-old and 40-years-old,with active myofascial TrPs in the UT muscle were randomly assigned to two equal groups(A and B).Group A received IASTM,while group B received ESWT.Each group was treated twice weekly for 2 weeks.Both groups received muscle energy technique for the UT muscle.Patients were evaluated twice(pre-and posttreatment)for pain intensity using the visual analogue scale and for pain pressure threshold(PPT)using a pressure algometer.RESULTS Comparing the pre-and post-treatment mean values for all variables for group A,there were significant differences in pain intensity for TrP1 and TrP2(P=0.0001)and PPT for TrP1(P=0.0002)and TrP2(P=0.0001).Also,for group B,there were significant differences between the pre-and post-treatment pain intensity for TrP1 and TrP2 and PPT for TrP1 and TrP2(P=0.0001).There were no significant differences between the two groups in the post-treatment mean values of pain intensity for TrP1(P=0.9)and TrP2(P=0.76)and PPT for TrP1(P=0.09)and for TrP2(P=0.91).CONCLUSION IASTM and ESWT are effective methods for improving pain and PPT in patients with UT muscle TrPs.There is no significant difference between either treatment method.
基金Supported by the Project of Capacity Building for Sustainable Utilization of Precious Traditional Chinese Medicine Resources,No.2060302.
文摘BACKGROUND Pulsed electromagnetic field(PEMF)therapy is widely used to treat myofascial pain syndrome(MPS).Damp-clearing and pain-reducing paste(DPP)comprises medical herbs and has been a traditional method of reducing myofascial pain in China for a long time,and it is usually administered with heating.However,the synergistic effect of PEMF therapy on heating-DPP in patients with MPS is unclear.AIM To investigate the synergistic effect of PEMF therapy plus heating-DPP in lumbar MPS.METHODS This double-blind,randomized,placebo-controlled trial was conducted on 120 patients with lumbar MPS who were randomly divided into an experimental group(EG,n=60)and a control group(CG,n=60).Patients in both groups were treated with heating-DPP combined with PEMF therapy;however,the electromagnetic function of the therapeutic apparatus used in the CG was disabled.Each treatment lasted for 20 min and was applied five times a week for two weeks.The short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire was applied at five time points:pretest,end of the first and second weeks of treatment,and end of the first and fourth week after completing treatment.Visual analog scale(VAS),present pain intensity index(PPI),and pain rating index(PRI;total,affective pain,and sensory pain scores)scores were then analyzed.RESULTS Compared with the CG,the VAS,PPI and PRI scores(total,affective pain and sensory pain scores)in the EG were significantly lower after treatment and during follow-up.CONCLUSION PEMF therapy combined with heating-DPP showed better efficacy than heating-DPP alone in reducing the overall intensity of pain and sensory and affective pain.
文摘BACKGROUND Unilateral patellofemoral pain syndrome(PFPS)is the most frequently diagnosed knee condition in populations aged<50 years old.Although the treatment of myofascial trigger points(MTrPs)is a common and effective tool for reducing pain,previous studies showed no additional benefits compared with placebo in populations with PFPS.Percutaneous electrolysis is a minimally invasive approach frequently used in musculotendinous pathologies which consists of the application of a galvanic current through dry needling(DN).AIM To evaluate changes in sensitivity,knee pain perception and perceived pain during the application of these three invasive techniques.METHODS A triple-blinded,pilot randomized controlled trial was conducted on fifteen patients with unilateral PFPS who were randomized to the high-intensity percutaneous electrolysis(HIPE)experimental group,low-intensity percutaneous electrolysis(LIPE)experimental group or DN active control group.All interventions were conducted in the most active MTrP,in the rectus femoris muscle.The HIPE group received a 660 mA galvanic current for 10 s,the LIPE group 220 mA×30 s and the DN group received no galvanic current.The MTrP and patellar tendon pain pressure thresholds(PPTs)and subjective anterior knee pain perception(SAKPP)were assessed before,after and 7 d after the single intervention.In addition,perceived pain during the intervention was also assessed.RESULTS Both groups were comparable at baseline as no significant differences were found for age,height,weight,body mass index,PPTs or SAKPP.No adverse events were reported during or after the interventions.A significant decrease in SAKPP(both HIPE and LIPE,P<0.01)and increased patellar tendon PPT(all,P<0.001)were found,with no differences between the groups(VAS:F=0.30;η2=0.05;P>0.05;tendon PPT immediate effects:F=0.15;η2=0.02;P>0.05 and tendon PPT 7-d effects:F=0.67;η2=0.10;P>0.05).A significant PPT increase in rectus femoris MTrP was found at follow-up in both the HIPE and LIPE groups(both,P<0.001)with no differences between the groups(immediate effects:F=1.55;η2=0.20;P>0.05 and 7-d effects:F=0.71;η2=0.10;P>0.05).Both HIPE and LIPE interventions were considered less painful compared with DN(F=8.52;η2=0.587;P<0.01).CONCLUSION HIPE and LIPE induce PPT changes in MTrPs and patellar tendon and improvements in SAKPP,and seem to produce less pain during the intervention compared with DN.
文摘Prostatitis comprises of a group of syndromes that affect almost 50% of men at least once in their lifetime and makeup the majority of visits to the Urology Clinics.After much debate, it has been divided into four distinct categories by National Institutes of Health namely(1) acute bacterial prostatitis;(2) chronic bacterial prostatitis;(3) chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome(CP/CPPS) which is further divided into inflammatory and non-inflammatory CP/CPPS; and(4)asymptomatic inflammatory prostatitis. CP/CPPS has been a cause of great concern for both patients and physicians because of the lack of presence of thoroughinformation about the etiological factors along with the difficult-to-treat nature of the syndrome. For the presented manuscript an extensive search on PubM ed was conducted for CP/CPPS aimed to present an updated review on the evaluation and treatment options available for patients with CP/CPPS. Several diagnostic criteria's have been established to diagnose CP/CPPS, with prostatic/pelvic pain for at least 3 mo being the major classifying symptom along with the presence of lower urinary tract symptoms and/or ejaculatory pain. Diagnostic tests can help differentiate CP/CPPS from other syndromes that come under the heading of prostatitis by ruling out active urinary tract infection and/or prostatic infection with uropathogen by performing urine cultures, Meares-Stamey Four Glass Test, Preand Post-Massage Two Glass Test. Asymptomatic inflammatory prostatitis is confirmed through prostate biopsy done for elevated serum prostate-specific antigen levels or abnormal digital rectal examination. Researchers have been unable to link a single etiological factor to the pathogenesis of CP/CPPS, instead a cluster of potential etiologies including atypical bacterial or nanobacterial infection, autoimmunity, neurological dysfunction and pelvic floor muscle dysfunction are most commonly implicated. Initially monotherapy with anti-biotics and alpha adrenergic-blockers can be tried, but its success has only been observed in treatment nave population. Other pharmacotherapies including phytotherapy, neuromodulatory drugs and anti-inflammatories achieved limited success in trials. Complementary and interventional therapies including acupuncture, myofascial trigger point release and pelvic floor biofeedback have been employed. This review points towards the fact that treatment should be tailored individually for patients based on their symptoms. Patients can be stratified phenotypically based on the UPOINT system constituting of Urinary, Psychosocial, Organ-specific, Infectious, Neurologic/Systemic and symptoms of muscular Tenderness and the treatment algorithm should be proposed accordingly. Treatment of CP/CPPS should be aimed towards treating local aswell as central factors causing the symptoms. Surgical intervention can cause significant morbidity and should only be reserved for treatment-refractory patients that have previously failed to respond to multiple drug therapies.
