Efficacy of dry needling versus traditional manual therapy in the treatment of myofascial pain syndrome in the neck and upper back

Introduction To treat myofascial pain syndrome in the neck and upper back, it is important to compare the effectiveness of dry needling with that of standard manual therapy, with an emphasis on pain management, functional improvement, and patient satisfaction. Methods One hundred patients, aged 18 to 65 years, who were diagnosed with myofascial pain syndrome (MPS) in the neck and upper back and had been in pain for three months or more, were included in this randomised controlled experiment. Individuals who are contraindicated for any therapy, have recent trauma, or have systemic disorders will not be accepted. Random assignments will be made to place participants in one of two groups: the intervention group, which will receive dry needling treatment, or the control group, which will receive standard manual therapy. Each group will consist of fifty patients. The course of therapy will last eight weeks, with two sessions each week. The Neck Impairment Index (NDI), which assesses functional impairment, the visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain severity, and the Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire will be used as assessment instruments. The change in pain intensity as determined by the VAS will be the main outcome measure; improvements in functional impairment as determined by the NDI and patient satisfaction levels will be the secondary outcomes. Results The VAS score of the manual treatment group decreased by 35%, whereas that of the dry needling group decreased by 50%. NDI scores increased by 25% in the manual treatment group and 40% in the dry needling group. Compared with 70% of patients in the manual treatment group, 85% of patients in the dry needling group expressed excellent satisfaction. Conclusion According to previous studies, dry needling is superior to conventional manual therapy for treating myofascial pain syndrome in the neck and upper back because it reduces pain and enhances functional results. To validate these results, other studies with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up times are advised.