Repository logo
  • Research Outputs
  • Researchers
  • Schools
    Felizberta Lo Padilla Tong School of Social SciencesIp Ying To Lee Yu Yee School of Humanities and LanguagesRita Tong Liu School of Business and Hospitality ManagementS.K. Yee School of Health SciencesYam Pak Charitable Foundation School of Computing and Information Sciences
  • Help
Repository logo
  1. Home
  2. Health Sciences
  3. HS Publication
  4. Ultrasound-guided dry needling versus traditional dry needling for patients with knee osteoarthritis: A double-blind randomized controlled trial
 
  • Details

Ultrasound-guided dry needling versus traditional dry needling for patients with knee osteoarthritis: A double-blind randomized controlled trial

Author(s)
Pang, Johnson Chun Yiu
Author(s)
Fu, A. S. N.
Lam, S. K. H.
Peng, B.
Fu, A. C. L.
Date Issued
2022
Publisher
PLOS
Journal
PLOS ONE
Volume
17
Issue
9
Abstract
Objective
To compare the effect of ultrasound (US)-guided dry needling (DN) with traditional DN in the treatment of pain and dysfunction for patients with knee osteoarthritis (KOA). Design A double-blind, randomized controlled trial. Methods Patients (25 male and 65 female), age 50–80 years diagnosed with KOA were recruited and randomly assigned to one of three groups in a 1:1:1 ratio for intervention: real US-guided DN with exercise therapy (G1), placebo US-guided DN with exercise therapy (G2), and exercise therapy solely (G3). G1 and G2 were blinded to the application of real or placebo US guidance by turning the monitor of US imaging out-of-view from participants’ vantage points. The effectiveness of blinding was evaluated by asking the participants whether they had received real-US guided DN. The responses were assessed by Chi-square test. Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Knee injury, and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) subscales (KOOS-pain, KOOS-symptoms, KOOS-quality-of-life (QoL)) were collected at baseline, 4 weeks, and 8 weeks by a blinded assessor. Data were analyzed by mixed model analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Bonferroni correction. Results Eighty-four participants (61.26±5.57 years) completed the study. G1 achieved significant improvement in VAS at 8 weeks compared to G2 and G3 (G1 vs. G2: MD = -15.61, 95% CI [-25.49, -5.51], p = 0.001; G1 vs. G3: MD = -19.90, 95% CI [-29.71, -10.08], p< 0.001). G1 achieved significant improvement in KOOS-pain at 8 weeks compared to G2 and G3 (G1 vs. G2: MD = 9.76, 95% CI [2.38, 17.14], p = 0.006; G1 vs. G3: MD = 9.48, 95% CI [2.31, 16.66], p = 0.010). KOOS-symptoms and KOOS-QoL were not statistically significant between groups. G2 had no significant difference of the perceptions as G1 with p = 0.128. G2 were successfully blinded to placebo US-guided DN. Conclusion US-guided DN with exercise therapy may be more effective than traditional DN with exercise therapy or exercise therapy alone in reduce pain of KOA.
URI
https://repository.sfu.edu.hk/handle/sfu/3597
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0274990
SFU Affiliated Publication
Yes
Availability at SFU Library

No database links found.

Responsible Use of E‑Resources | Privacy Policy | Disclaimer
© SFU Library. All Rights Reserved.
SFU Library