Prolotherapy at Multifidus Muscle versus Mechanical Needling and Sterile Water Injection in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

0Citations
Citations of this article
6Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Objective: This observational study aimed to compare ultrasound-guided (USG) prolotherapy with 5% dextrose in water (D5W) in the multifidus muscle to USG mechanical needling and sterile water injections for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). Patients and Methods: The data was extracted from the medical records of ageing patients with LSS who received USG D5W in the multifidus muscle or USG mechanical needling and sterile water injections for the treatment of LSS by the first author. Low back pain or axial pain and leg pain or radicular pain were assessed by the visual analogue scale, and gait ability with walking distance were obtained at six different time points. Results: Among the 211 older people who were diagnosed with LSS, 104 got USG mechanical needling and sterile water injections over the course of four weeks, while the other 107 got D5W at the multifidus muscles in a single session. Chronic low back pain, radiating pain, and the ability to walk all got much better at 1 and 3 months after the intervention, compared to VAS measures taken at the start. Patients who underwent mechanical needling with injections of sterile water performed consistently and significantly better than those who received prolotherapy in the multifidus muscles on all measures at 1, 3, and 6 months. Conclusion: After receiving USG mechanical needling and sterile water, LSS patients reported significant improvements in low back pain, radicular pain, and ability to walk for at least 6 months. Prolotherapy with D5W in the multifidus muscle has a moderate effect for only three months.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Chen, C. P. C., & Suputtitada, A. (2023). Prolotherapy at Multifidus Muscle versus Mechanical Needling and Sterile Water Injection in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis. Journal of Pain Research, 16, 2477–2486. https://doi.org/10.2147/JPR.S417444

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free