Comparing complementary alternative treatment for chronic shoulder pain of myofascial origin

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare the short-term outcomes between 2 different treatments for unilateral chronic shoulder pain of myofascial origin, that is, local tender area related meridians (LTARMs) treatment and collateral meridian therapy (CMT), which were performed 6 times over a period of 4 weeks.Seventy patients with unilateral shoulder pain of chronic myofascial origin were enrolled. The patients were randomly assigned to 2 different treatment groups: 1 group received CMT (n = 35) and the other received LTARM (n = 35). Before and after the 2 treatment processes, all patients rated their overall pain intensity on a visual analogue scale (VAS) and a validated 13-question shoulder pain and disability index (SPADI) questionnaire was used to measure shoulder pain and functional impairment after therapy for 4 weeks.After CMT, the pain intensity was reduced after CMT. VAS score is reduced from 5.90 ± 2.07 (a mean of 5.90 and standard deviation of 2.07) to 3.39 ± 1.2. This was verified by the SPADI pain subscale scores (from 0.58 ± 0.193 to 0.33 ± 0.14). The pain-relief effect of CMT was significantly better than that of LTARM (VAS score from 5.78 ± 1.64 to 4.58 ± 1.40; P < 0.005; SPADI pain subscale score from 0.58 ± 0.16 to 0.45 ± 0.14, P < 0.001). In addition, the VAS scores of patients changed considerably in the CMT group after 4 weeks of treatment, where 63% of patients felt no or mild pain, whereas the VAS scores for moderate pain were even higher in the LTARM group in 75% of patients (P < 0.001). Moreover, the SPADI disability subscale scores improved significantly in the CMT group because of their greater mobility associated with shoulder impairment (disability score: from 0.58 ± 0.20 to 0.35 ± 0.14) than those in the LTARM group (disability score: from 0.55 ± 0.17 to 0.44 ± 0.14, P < 0.001).CMT may be more effective in reducing chronic shoulder pain of myofascial origin than the LTARM treatment, where treatment with the former resulted in better functional recovery after 4 weeks than the latter.

Meridian Cuffing Exercises Improved Functional Fitness and Cardiopulmonary Functioning of Community Older Adults

“…Reports from the literature indicate that numerous interventions such as meridian treatments, meridian stimulation, and acupoint massages can significantly promote smooth meridian flows, increase joint functioning and mobility, and reduce joint discomfort (M. Y. Chen, Pu, Liu, & Jiang, 2013; Pan et al, 2016). In addition, the HBA activities employed the natural swinging motion of the limbs that effectively and naturally extends the limbs, stretches the muscles, and reduces the risk of exercise-related injuries.…”

“…Traditional Chinese exercise regimens emphasize gentle and orderly movements and may be more suitable for older adults (Yeh & Chen, 2004). In recent years, international medical researchers have examined the theories and regimens of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), especially the meridian regulations and yin-yang balance, and reported positive health outcomes (Kezhen, 2016; Pan et al, 2016; Sok, 2016).…”

Effect of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation therapy for the treatment of primary dysmenorrheal

“…Alternative medicine has been proposed for relief from a variety of pains, [8–13] such as knee pain, neck pain, back pain, PD, and many other types. [14–21] PD is one of the most common conditions treated by alternative medicine, including relaxation therapy, acupuncture, acupressure, heat intervention, and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) therapy.…”

Noninvasive management of soft tissue disorders of the shoulder: A clinical practice guideline from the Ontario Protocol for Traffic Injury Management (OPTIMa) collaboration

“…The second updated searches of seven systematic reviews (extending from April 15, 2013 to April 26, 2019) for this guideline yielded 842 articles (after duplicates removed), of which 32 were relevant and 19 RCTs (reported in 21 articles) had a low risk of bias (Apeldoorn et al, 2017;Bjornsson Hallgren et al, 2017;Calvo-Lobo et al, 2018;Chary-Valckenaere et al, 2018;Devereaux et al, 2016;Goksu et al, 2016;Haik et al, 2017;Heron et al, 2017;Holmgren et al, 2012;Kibar et al, 2017;Kolk et al, 2013;Kromer et al, 2014;Kvalvaag et al, 2017Kvalvaag et al, , 2018Li et al, 2017;Littlewood et al, 2016;Mintken et al, 2016;Nazligul et al, 2018;Perez-Merino et al, 2016;Perez-Palomares et al, 2017;van der Dolder et al, 2015) and 11 studies had a high risk of bias (Beaudreuil et al, 2015;Del Castillo-Gonzalez et al, 2016;Ketola et al, 2017;Lugo et al, 2016;Moezy et al, 2014;Osteras & Torstensen, 2010;Pan et al, 2016;Rueda et al, 2016;Seven et al, 2017;Subasi et al, 2016;Zhang et al, 2016;Appendices VIB and VIII). Four of those 21 articles reported outcomes of different follow-ups based on two RCTs conducted by Kvalvaag et al (2017Kvalvaag et al ( , 2018 Kromer et al, 2014;…”