Escobar N.1, Ronzio O.A.2,3,4,5, Rodriguez F.1, Medellin M.1, Lopez A.1, Witte G.1, Ruiz A.1, Rosales J.1, Gutierrez I.1
1Universidad Cuauhtémoc, Aguascalientes, Mexico, 2Universidad Nacional Arturo Jauretche, Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, Mexico, 3Universidad Maimónides, Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, Mexico, 4Universidad Favaloro, Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, Mexico, 5Instituto Universitario Fundación H.A. Barceló, Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, Mexico
Background: Low back pain is currently established as the most common pain syndrome. It has been reported that 60% to 80% of people have suffered at least one episode of low back pain in their lives, and in over 85% of low back pain cases, the primary causes are not identified and are therefore classified as non-specific or not systematized. Clinical practice guides recommend approaching low back pain from a multidisciplinary perspective; as such, the effective treatments for this pathology are still undergoing studies. Currently, there are innovative techniques such as dry needling (DN) and ozone infiltrations (O3). Both of these have scientific backing; however, they generate a great deal of controversy in the literature and are a topic for discussion.
Purpose: The objective of this study is a comparison between ozone infiltrations and dry needling, the effects on the pain and the functionality on the non-specific low back pain.
Methods: A clinically controlled trial with random assignment of 2 groups of 22 patients each. All those who met the criteria of non-specified lower back pain were included. Group 1 (G1)=PS and Group 2 (G2)=O3. The treatment was applied in the quadratus lumborum muscle on one occasion without any further therapies. The pressure pain threshold (PPT) was evaluated with algometry; the perception of pain to treatment was measured using the visual analogue scale (VAS), and the functionality was measured using the Oswestry scale (OSW). The measurements were taken before treatment (pre tx), immediately post-treatment (post tx) and seven days later. The variables were analyzed through paired T tests and T student tests with the program SPSS 21.0, taking into consideration a P value of 0.05 to consider significant differences.
Results: When comparing groups of the UDP, statistically significant differences appear immediately and 7 days after treatment, procuring the PS a significant gain in the UDP. In terms of the OSW scale, both treatments showed a statistically significant improvement (p=0.0001) in the functional increase, without statistic difference between them. According to VAS, O3 was found to be more painful than DN (p=0.004).
Conclusion(s): It appears that one application of DN or O3 improves the functionality of patients with non-specific low back pain. The application of O3 is interpreted to be more painful. The UDP shows improvement in both, although DN was superior.
Implications: As this is one of the most recurrent pathologies, it is important to base clinical practice on evidence on top of contributing with serious scientific research, as systematic revisions suggest more methodologically rigorous studies.
Funding acknowledgements: The authors funded the costs of research.
Topic: Musculoskeletal: spine
Ethics approval: This study was approved by the Bio-ethics committee of Universidad Cuauhtemoc, Campus Aguascalientes-Mexico.
All authors, affiliations and abstracts have been published as submitted.
