Open AccessIntramuscular stimulation vs sham needling for the treatment of chronic midportion Achilles tendinopathy: A randomized controlled clinical trial
Author(s) -
Lyndal Solomons,
Jenny J. Y. Lee,
Margaret Bruce,
Lynita D White,
Alexander Scott
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
plos one
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.99
H-Index - 332
ISSN - 1932-6203
DOI - 10.1371/journal.pone.0238579
Subject(s) - dry needling , medicine , tendinopathy , achilles tendon , randomized controlled trial , stimulation , rehabilitation , physical therapy , tendon , surgery , anesthesia , physical medicine and rehabilitation , acupuncture , alternative medicine , pathology
Background The insertion of filiform needles intramuscularly (a.k.a. intramuscular stimulation/dry needling) has been suggested as a possible treatment for various painful musculoskeletal conditions. Our aim was to answer the question, is intramuscular stimulation more effective than sham intramuscular stimulation/dry needling for the treatment of Achilles tendinopathy? Methods 52 participants with persistent midportion Achilles tendinopathy began and 46 completed one of three treatment protocols which were randomly assigned: (G3) a 12-week rehabilitation program of progressive tendon loading plus intramuscular stimulation (n = 25), (G2) the same rehabilitation program but with sham intramuscular stimulation (n = 19), or (G1) a reference group of rehabilitation program alone (as an additional control) (n = 8). The a priori primary outcome measure was change in VISA-A score at 12 weeks–VISA-A was also measured at 6 weeks, and at 6 and 12 months. Secondary outcome measures include the proportion of patients who rated themselves as much or very much improved (%), dorsiflexion range of motion (degrees), and tendon thickness (mm). Results The study retention was 94% at 12 weeks and 88% at 1 year. VISA-A score improved in all three groups over time (p<0.0001), with no significant difference among the three groups in VISA-A score at the start of the study (mean ± SD: G3 59 ± 13, G2 57 ± 17, G1 56 ± 22), at 12 weeks (G3 76 ± 14, G2 76 ± 15, G1 82 ± 11) or at any other timepoint. The percentage of patients who rated themselves as much or very much improved (i.e. treatment success) was not different after 12 weeks (G3 70%, G2 89%, G1 86% p = 0.94), or at 26 (p = 0.62) or 52 weeks (p = 0.71). No clinically significant effects of intervention group were observed in any of the secondary outcome measures. Conclusion The addition of intramuscular stimulation to standard rehabilitation for Achilles tendinopathy did not result in any improvement over the expected clinical benefit achieved with exercise-based rehabilitation alone.