A comparative study of Thai massage and muscle energy technique for chronic neck pain: A single-blinded randomized clinical trial.
Study Goal
The researchers aimed to compare the effects of Traditional Thai massage (TM) and the muscle energy (ME) technique on pain intensity, pressure pain threshold, neck disability, and neck flexion range of motion in patients with chronic neck pain associated with myofascial trigger points.
Results Summary
Both TM and ME techniques significantly improved all measured parameters compared to the control group, with no significant differences observed between the two interventions. The study concluded that both methods are practical alternatives for treating chronic neck pain associated with myofascial trigger points.
Population
Forty-five patients with chronic neck pain associated with myofascial trigger points.
Effective Dosage
Eight treatment sessions over two weeks.
Duration
Two weeks.
Interactions
None mentioned.
| Intervention | Direction | Endpoint | Population | Dosage | Impact | Claim # |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Traditional Thai massage (TM) | decrease | pain intensity (PI) | patients with chronic neck pain associated with myofascial trigger points (MTrPs) | - | resulted in a significant improvement | #1 |
Traditional Thai massage (TM) | increase | pressure pain threshold (PPT) | patients with chronic neck pain associated with myofascial trigger points (MTrPs) | - | resulted in a significant improvement | #2 |
Traditional Thai massage (TM) | decrease | neck disability (ND) | patients with chronic neck pain associated with myofascial trigger points (MTrPs) | - | resulted in a significant improvement | #3 |
Traditional Thai massage (TM) | increase | neck flexion range of motion (NFROM) | patients with chronic neck pain associated with myofascial trigger points (MTrPs) | - | resulted in a significant improvement | #4 |
muscle energy (ME) technique | decrease | pain intensity (PI) | patients with chronic neck pain associated with myofascial trigger points (MTrPs) | - | resulted in a significant improvement | #5 |
muscle energy (ME) technique | increase | pressure pain threshold (PPT) | patients with chronic neck pain associated with myofascial trigger points (MTrPs) | - | resulted in a significant improvement | #6 |
muscle energy (ME) technique | decrease | neck disability (ND) | patients with chronic neck pain associated with myofascial trigger points (MTrPs) | - | resulted in a significant improvement | #7 |
muscle energy (ME) technique | increase | neck flexion range of motion (NFROM) | patients with chronic neck pain associated with myofascial trigger points (MTrPs) | - | resulted in a significant improvement | #8 |
Traditional Thai massage (TM) | no change | all parameters | patients with chronic neck pain associated with myofascial trigger points (MTrPs) | - | no significant difference was observed | #9 |
muscle energy (ME) technique | no change | all parameters | patients with chronic neck pain associated with myofascial trigger points (MTrPs) | - | no significant difference was observed | #10 |
BACKGROUND: Myofascial pain syndrome (MPS) is the most common form of muscle disorders. Traditional Thai massage (TM) and muscle energy (ME) technique have been used to treat patients with MPS for long time but head-to-head comparisons of these interventions have not been established. AIM: The aim of the current study was to compare the effects of TM and the ME technique on pain intensity (PI), pressure pain threshold (PPT), neck disability (ND), and neck flexion range of motion (NFROM) in patients with chronic neck pain associated with myofascial trigger points (MTrPs). DESIGN: A randomized, single-blinded clinical trial. SETTING: Department of Physical Therapy, School of Integrative Medicine, Mae Fah Luang University. POPULATION: Forty-five patients with chronic neck pain associated with MTrPs were recruited. METHODS: The patients were randomly allocated to the TM, ME, or control groups, with each having eight treatment sessions over a period of two weeks. PI, PPT, ND, and NFROM were assessed before, immediately after the first treatment session, and one day after the last treatment session. RESULTS: Based on the results, both TM and the ME technique resulted in a significant improvement in all parameters (p < 0.05) compared to the control group. Additionally, no significant difference was observed between TM and the ME technique in all parameters. CONCLUSIONS: The application of TM or the ME technique can be a practical alternative approach for the treatment of chronic neck pain associated with MTrPs.