Trigger Point Dry Needling vs Trigger Point Dry Needling With Intramuscular Electrical Stimulation for the Treatment of Sub-acute and Chronic Low Back Pain in a Military Population: A Randomized Crossover Design
Trial Snapshot
- Phase
- Not Applicable
- Status
- Completed
- Enrollment
- 30
- Locations
- 1
- Primary Endpoint
- Numeric Pain Rating Scale to assess change
Study Overview
Brief Summary
trigger point dry needling with intramuscular electrical stimulation vs trigger point dry needling
Detailed Description
The purpose of this study is to evaluate if trigger point dry needling with intramuscular electrical stimulation is more effective in decreasing pain and disability in individuals with sub-acute and chronic low back pain (LBP) than with trigger point dry needling alone. The investigators are using a within subjects randomized crossover study that will recruit 30 active duty military personnel or beneficiaries from William Beaumont Army Medical Center and all associated clinics. The investigators hypothesize that individuals with LBP will exhibit larger improvements in pain and disability when receiving trigger point dry needling with intramuscular electrical stimulation than when receiving trigger point dry needling alone.
Study Design
- Study Type
- Interventional
- Allocation
- Randomized
- Intervention Model
- Crossover
- Primary Purpose
- Treatment
- Masking
- None
Eligibility Criteria
- Ages
- 18 Years to 65 Years (Adult, Older Adult)
- Sex
- All
- Accepts Healthy Volunteers
- No
Inclusion Criteria
- •Currently experience low back pain for greater than 4 weeks (Low back pain defined as pain below the T12th vertebrae with or without radiation) Military or DOD Beneficiary (any branch; 18-65 years of age)
Exclusion Criteria
- •Structural Deformity (ankylosing Spondylitis, Scoliosis)
- •Has any other Orthopedic condition that may keep subject from performing Low - Back Exercises
- •Spinal infection or local infection
- •Pregnancy-All female subjects will be given either a blood serum or urine pregnancy test.
- •Spinal cord compression or Cauda Equina Syndrome
- •Subject with the inability to keep appointments
- •Has History of prior surgery
- •Has received Dry Needling or Acupuncture in the last 6 months
- •History of bleeding disorders
- •High anti-coagulant use
- •History of immune suppression
Arms & Interventions
Treatment group 1
In this group participants will receive trigger point dry needling with electrical stimulation first and receive trigger point needling by itself second. Only MYOTECH dry needles will be used in this study. However we are not studying the equipment.
Intervention: trigger point dry needling (Device)
Treatment group 1
In this group participants will receive trigger point dry needling with electrical stimulation first and receive trigger point needling by itself second. Only MYOTECH dry needles will be used in this study. However we are not studying the equipment.
Intervention: Electrical Stimulation (Device)
Treatment Group 2
In this group the participants will receive trigger point dry needling first and receive trigger point dry needling with electrical stimulation second. Only MYOTECH dry needles and ESTIM II dual channel stimulator will be used in this study. However we are not studying the equipment.
Intervention: trigger point dry needling (Device)
Treatment Group 2
In this group the participants will receive trigger point dry needling first and receive trigger point dry needling with electrical stimulation second. Only MYOTECH dry needles and ESTIM II dual channel stimulator will be used in this study. However we are not studying the equipment.
Intervention: Electrical Stimulation (Device)
Outcomes
Primary Outcomes
Numeric Pain Rating Scale to assess change
Time Frame: Baseline and before and after each treatment session, duration per subject is approximately 3 weeks
an 11 point scale on which the participant will grade their pain
Secondary Outcomes
No secondary outcomes reported