Instrument-Assisted Soft Tissue Mobilization Versus High Power Pain Threshold Ultrasound For Trapezius Myofascial Trigger Points

Overview

the purpose of this trial is to compare the effectiveness of instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilization and high power pain threshold ultrasound on pain intensity, pressure pain threshold (PPT), neck range of motion, and neck function in participants with upper trapezius myofascial trigger points.

Myofascial trigger points (MTPs) are hyperirritable, palpable nodules that form along with taut bands of muscle fibers. The trapezius is the muscle that is most commonly affected. MTPs can have a considerable impact on a person's daily activities and ability to work. Stretching exercises, ultrasound, massage, kinesiology taping, trigger point release, dry needling, laser, ischemic compression treatment, and high-power pain threshold ultrasound can all be used in a physical therapy program for myofascial pain and trigger points. There were previous studies on the effect of instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilization (IASTM) on upper trapezius myofascial trigger points that have shown positive effects such as reduction in pain level, improved neck function, and range of motion, increased activity level, and increased pressure pain threshold. There have been previous studies on the effect of high-power pain threshold ultrasound on upper trapezius trigger points that have shown a reduction in pain level, increased activity level, and increased pressure pain threshold. However till now, there is no study comparing the therapeutic potential of HPPT US and IASTM on upper trapezius trigger points, This study is conducted to compare the effect of instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilization (IASTM) and high-power pain threshold ultrasound ( HPPT US ) on upper trapezius trigger points. : Sixty participants ranging in age from 25 to 40 years old, from both genders, were diagnosed with active MTPs in the upper fibers of the trapezius muscle bilaterally. Participants were randomly allocated to the following three groups using sealed envelopes. Group (A) 20 participants received conventional physical therapy. Group (B) 20 participants received IASTM and conventional physical therapy. Group (C) 20 participants received HPPT US and conventional physical therapy for two weeks, twice per week.

Conditions

Interventions

Eligibility

Locations (1)

Outcomes