Is early diagnosis of myofascial pain syndrome possible with the detection of latent trigger points by shear wave elastography?

Abstract

IntroductionThe aim of the study was to investigate the contribution of shear wave elastography to the diagnosis of myo­fascial pain syndrome (MPS) of the upper part of the trapezius.Material and methodsEthical committee approval was obtained for the study. Thirty volunteer women with trigger points in the upper part of the trapezius muscle and 30 healthy women with a similar age distribution were included in the study. The patient group performed a self-stretching exercise program for 4 weeks. No intervention was applied to the control group. Muscle stiffness values of both groups were evaluated with shear wave elastography (SWE), and pain levels of all volunteers were evaluated by the Visual Analogue Scale at the beginning and the end of the study. The statistical analyses were performed using SPSS version 18.0.ResultsThere was a significant decrease after the treatment in terms of upper trapezius muscle stiffness and the pain levels in the patient group (p < 0.001 and p < 0.001). In the patient group, there was a moderate correlation between the decrease in the pain level and the reductions in muscle stiffness (r = 0.595). In control group, there was no significant difference in terms of both muscle stiffness and pain levels before and after treatment (p > 0.05).ConclusionsSWE is a reliable method for detecting latent trigger points in MPS, and it can be used for evaluating the response to treatment.

Is musculoskeletal pain associated with increased muscle stiffness? Evidence map and critical appraisal of muscle measurements using shear wave elastography

“…No difference or higher stiffness in symptomatic individuals was identified in eleven studies (36.6%) that investigated chronic neck pain (Taş et al, 2018), migraine (Hvedstrup et al, 2020), cervicogenic headache (Sedlackova et al, 2021), myofascial pain syndrome in the neck region (Valera‐Calero et al, 2021), rotator cuff tendinopathy (Leong et al, 2016), posterior shoulder pain (Itoigawa et al, 2022), low back pain (Masaki et al, 2017; Masaki et al, 2019; Murillo et al, 2019), patellofemoral pain syndrome (Botanlıoğlu et al, 2019) and medial tibial stress syndrome (Zhang et al, 2022). Higher stiffness in the symptomatic group was reported by nine studies (30.0%) that investigated whiplash injury (Aljinović et al, 2020), cervicogenic headache (Lin et al, 2022), temporomandibular disorder (Takashima et al, 2017), myofascial pain syndrome in the neck region (Ertekin et al, 2021), low back pain (Gao et al, 2020; Koppenhaver et al, 2020; Wang, Liu, et al, 2022), piriformis syndrome (Hashimoto et al, 2022) and knee osteoarthritis (Li et al, 2021).…”

“…Perhaps the values were reported in the wrong unit or the decimal point was incorrect. References: [1] (Alfuraih et al, 2020), [2] (Aljinović et al, 2020), [3] (Botanlioglu et al, 2013), [4] (Botanlıoğlu et al, 2019), [5] (Dieterich et al, 2020), [6] (Ertekin et al, 2021), [7] (Gao et al, 2020), [8] (Gökşen et al, 2021), [9] (Hashimoto et al, 2022), [10] (Hvedstrup et al, 2020), [11] (Klauser et al, 2022), [12] (Kolding et al, 2018), [13] (Koppenhaver et al, 2020), [14] (Leong et al, 2016), [15] (Li et al, 2021), [16] (Lin et al, 2022), [17] (Masaki et al, 2017), [18] (Masaki et al, 2019), [19] (Murillo et al, 2019), [20] (Pinto et al, 2022), [21] (Sedlackova et al, 2021), [22] (Takashima et al, 2017), [23] (Taş et al, 2018), [24] (Valera‐Calero et al, 2021), [25] (Wang, Cui, et al, 2022), [26] (Wang, Liu, et al, 2022) and [27] (Zhang et al, 2022).…”

“…Thirteen studies (43.3%) included a reliability analysis (Alfuraih et al, 2020; Aljinović et al, 2020; Dieterich et al, 2020; Ertekin et al, 2021; Gao et al, 2020; Klauser et al, 2022; Koppenhaver et al, 2020; Leong et al, 2016; Li et al, 2021; Masaki et al, 2017; Valera‐Calero et al, 2021; Wang, Cui, et al, 2022; Zhang et al, 2022). Two studies (6.6%) conducted a fully computed and therefore reliable image analysis (Dieterich et al, 2020; Wolff et al, 2022).…”

“…Regarding data analysis, two studies (6.6%) conducted a fully computed image analysis (Dieterich et al, 2020; Wolff et al, 2022), which does not distinguish group allocation; eight articles (26.6%) reported that the examiner conducting data processing was blinded to group allocation (Aljinović et al, 2020; Ertekin et al, 2021; Hvedstrup et al, 2020; Itoigawa et al, 2022; Kolding et al, 2018; Masaki et al, 2017; Masaki et al, 2019; Valera‐Calero et al, 2021). In only seven studies (23.3%), a standardized location of the measurement box(es) was stated (Dieterich et al, 2020; Gao et al, 2020; Masaki et al, 2017; Masaki et al, 2019; Valera‐Calero et al, 2021; Wang, Cui, et al, 2022; Zhang et al, 2022), while this remained unclear in seven articles (23.3%) (Friede et al, 2020; Hashimoto et al, 2022; Klauser et al, 2022; Leong et al, 2016; Pinto et al, 2022; Takashima et al, 2017; Wang, Liu, et al, 2022).…”

“…Thirteen studies (43.3%) included a reliability analysis (Alfuraih et al, 2020;Aljinović et al, 2020;Dieterich et al, 2020;Ertekin et (Wang, Cui, et al, 2022), [26] (Wang, Liu, et al, 2022) and [27] (Zhang et al, 2022). Leong et al, 2016;Li et al, 2021;Masaki et al, 2017;Valera-Calero et al, 2021;Wang, Cui, et al, 2022;Zhang et al, 2022).…”