Skip to main content
Download PDF
  • Systematic review
  • Open access
  • Published:

Effect of ischemic compression on myofascial pain syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Chiropractic & Manual Therapies volume 30, Article number: 34 (2022) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Myofascial pain syndrome (MPS) is a condition with local and referred pain characterized by trigger points (taut bands within the muscle). Ischemic compression is a noninvasive manual therapy technique that has been employed for the treatment of MPS in past decades. However, little attention has been devoted to this topic.

Objectives

The present review was designed to explore the efficacy of ischemic compression for myofascial pain syndrome by performing a descriptive systematic review and a meta-analysis to estimate the effect of ischemic compression on MPS.

Methods

A systematic review and meta-analysis concerning randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with myofascial pain subjects who received ischemic compression versus placebo, sham, or usual interventions. Five databases (PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, Ovid) were searched from the earliest data available to 2022.1.2. The standardized mean difference (SMD) and the 95% confidence interval (CI) were used for statistics. Version 2 of the Cochrane risk of tool 2 (RoB 2) was used to assess the quality of the included RCTs.

Results

Seventeen studies were included in the systematic review, and 15 studies were included in the meta-analysis. For the pressure pain threshold (PPT) index, 11 studies and 427 subjects demonstrated statistically significant differences compared with the control at posttreatment (SMD = 0.67, 95% CI [0.35, 0.98], P < 0.0001, I2 = 59%). For visual analog scale (VAS) or numeric rating scale (NRS) indices, 7 studies and 251 subjects demonstrated that there was no significant difference between ischemic compression and controls posttreatment (SMD = − 0.22, 95% CI [− 0.53, 0.09], P = 0.16, I2 = 33%).

Conclusion

Ischemic compression, as a conservative and noninvasive therapy, only enhanced tolerance to pain in MPS subjects compared with inactive control. Furthermore, there was no evidence of benefit for self-reported pain. The number of currently included subjects was relatively small, so the conclusion may be changed by future studies. Big scale RCTs with more subjects will be critical in future.

Introduction

Myofascial pain syndrome (MPS) is a type of musculoskeletal pain that commonly occurs in muscle and surrounding fascia [1, 2]. MPS was first descripted by Drs Janet Travel and David Simons [3]. MPS has a high prevalence of 85% among patients complaining chronic pain in a survey [4] and 9% of total patients in another survey [5]. One or more trigger points found in the related muscle and fascia are the main characteristic of MPS [6]. The trigger point refers to a specific sensitive zone or point, tender region or a taut band in the skeletal muscle [2]. When this area or this point is under pressure, stretching or contraction, the pain can be further aggravated. Additionally, MPS can result in other pain-related symptoms, such as limited range of motion, skin blood flow response [7] and weakness [8]. Chronic or acute muscle injury, repetitive muscle overuse contributes to the cause of MPS [9]. The excess production of proinflammatory cytokines and other circulating biomarkers, even vascular biomarkers elicits pain in MPS subjects [10, 11].

Treatment of MPS includes dry needling, medication injection, stretching exercise, low laser therapy, and manual therapy [1]. Manual therapy includes a wide variety of techniques, such as chiropractic, massage, mobilization, muscle energy, and counter stain techniques [12]. Among them, ischemic compression, also known as manual pressure release [13] or trigger point release massage [14, 15], is a type of manual therapy that is commonly applied for MPS treatment [16, 17]. Ischemic compression is characterized by continuous compression or sustained pressure at several times to the trigger point or approximate regions commonly with a duration of 30–90 s (Specifically 30, 60 or 90 s) [18]. This pressure can elicit a local ischemia and further blood reperfusion, which results in the increase of muscle metabolism [19]. A systematic review published in 2015 and including relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) until 2013 demonstrated that there was moderate evidence that ischemic compression had a beneficial effect on MPS [20]. However, this review only included qualitative synthesis, and no quantitative synthesis was performed due to a lack of data at that time. Another review also pointed out that manual therapy had an effect on myofascial pain related to temporomandibular disorders compared with sham treatment, but this review did not include ischemic compression RCTs [21]. Most recently, during our work, a meta-analysis demonstrated that ischemic compression promoted the recovery of range of motion in MPS subjects [22]. However, although pain is the primary syndrome of MPS subjects, no analysis or conclusion was made regarding the effect of ischemic compression on the pain of MPS subjects in the meta-analysis [22]. In present systematic review and meta-analysis, we investigated the effect of ischemia compression on myofascial pain syndrome focusing on the pain experience of subjects.

Materials and methods

This systematic review was structured following the statement of PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) [23] and Cochrane review guidance [24] and was registered at Inplasy (INPLASY202240066).

Data sources and search strategy

The PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Excerpta Medica (Embase), Web of Science, Ovid Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (OVID) databases were searched from the earliest data up to 2022/1/2. The search strategy included the following terms: (Massage OR Chiropractic OR manual therapy OR tuina OR Shiatsu OR Acupressure OR Ischemic compression OR myofascial release) AND (Myofascial pain OR Trigger point) AND (Randomized Controlled Trials OR trial OR placebo OR groups OR control OR Random*). Furthermore, some “grey” literature was retrieved by manual checking the reference lists in relevant reviews, trials or conference literature. Trials ongoing were also manually checked from the website www.clinicaltrial.gov. The language was set as English.

Selection and exclusion criteria

The present systematic review included articles that met the following PICOS criteria: (1) patients: confirmed diagnosis of MPS according to the established criteria by Simon et al. [25, 26]; (2) intervention: Ischemic compression therapy should be administered alone or as the primary intervention combined with the usual intervention; (3) comparison or control: inactive comparison of sham or placebo, or active comparison using other usual intervention; (4) outcomes: pain is the primary outcome, and other indices that reflect the quality of life or other MPS-related symptoms are secondary outcomes; and (5) study: only RCTs.

The exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) other chronic pain conditions without trigger points or myofascial pain; (2) sufficient data cannot be obtained from RCT for example data is shown in figures and authors could not be reached; (3) comparison was set as another type of massage or manual therapy; or (4) ischemic compression is part of physical therapy, or the absence of proper control, which makes ischemic compression the only difference.

Screening and data extraction

Two authors (WL and JL) independently screened all literatures. Duplicate titles and abstracts were removed initially, and the most recent was retained. If the title or abstract met the inclusion criteria, the full text of the article was downloaded and carefully reviewed. Discrepancies were resolved by a senior investigator (XGL). The following data were extracted from the selected studies and organized into spreadsheets: general information, subjects, ischemic compression procedures and controls, durations, effect sizes, outcomes, follow-up periods, and adverse events.

Risk of bias assessment

Two independent reviewers (WL and JL) assessed the quality and bias of the included meta-analyses using the randomized trial bias risk tool 2 (RoB 2) revised by the Cochrane collaboration [27]. If a discrepancy existed, then the question was subjected to a third reviewer (TY). Using RoB 2 tools, each standard has five results: "yes", "probably yes", "probably no", "no" and "no information". The overall bias was automatically generated by the RoB 2 tool, and the authors made their own judgments based on the results.

Data analysis

A meta-analysis was used to combine evidence from included RCTs when available of pain indices such as visual analog scale (VAS) or numeric rating scale (NRS), pressure pain threshold (PPT). Revman Manager 5.3 software (Cochrane Corporation, Texas, USA) was employed for data analysis. The standard mean difference (SMD) and respective 95% confidence interval (CI)s were calculated for the effect measure of continuous outcomes. I2 greater than 50% was considered significant for heterogeneity. A P value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. A fixed or random effects model was chosen based on clinical heterogeneity based on the Cochrane Handbook [28]. Sensitivity analyses and subgroup analyses were planned following below items: inactive/active control, duration of treatment, location of compression, male/female of subjects.

Results

Study flow of literature search

In the preliminary search, 1426 studies were identified. After excluding duplicated studies, 566 studies remained. Next, 406 studies were removed by title and abstract reading. After full text review, 103 studies were excluded for reasons (not RCTs and unrelated topic). Among the remaining 57 studies, 40 studies were further excluded. The flow diagram is shown in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flow diagram of this systematic review and meta-analysis study

Full size image

Description of RCTs and quality

The description of all included RCTs is provided in Table 1. Among them, 2 RCTs were only included in the systematic review due to a lack of endpoint mean and SD [29, 30]. They were performed in UK [29, 30]. Fifteen RCTs were included in the meta-analysis to obtain a combined result. They were performed worldwide in Turkey [31], Saudi Arabia [32], New Zealand [33], India [13, 34], the USA [35, 36], Iran [37,38,39], Egypt [40], Spain [41, 42], Belgium [43] and Portugal [44]. All RCTs included meta-analysis reported a consistent baseline. The methodological quality assessment of the 12 studies included in this meta-analysis is shown in Fig. 2. Most studies lacked blinding of the practitioner and/or patients. Most included RCTs reported no dropouts. One RCT reported a < 10% drop out rate [43], two RCTs reported > 15% drop out rates [31, 44], but these three RCTs did not report missing data analysis, such as intention-to-treat analysis.

Table 1 The description of included RCTs in systematic review
Full size table
Fig. 2
figure 2

Risk of bias assessment using the ROB 2.0 tool of meta-analysis included RCTs

Full size image

Effect of ischemic compression on the PPT index

The pain evaluation in MPS was employed using PPT. The trigger point regions, whether active or latent, present a lower PPT than normal muscle [41, 45]. Therefore, PPT is commonly employed to reflect the degree of muscle tolerance to pain of the subject [46]. As shown in Fig. 3, 11 studies and 427 subjects demonstrated statistically significant differences compared with the control at posttreatment (SMD = 0.67, 95% CI [0.35, 0.98], P < 0.0001, I2 = 59%). A subgroup analysis was performed to explore the comparison effects between ischemic compression and the active control or inactive control group separately, as described previously [47, 48]. As shown in Fig. 3a, there was no statistically significant difference compared with the active control subgroup (SMD = 0.30, 95% CI [− 0.01, 0.62], P = 0.06, I2 = 20%). Additionally, there was a statistically significant difference compared with the inactive control subgroup (SMD = 0.99, 95% CI [0.61, 1.36], P < 0.00001, I2 = 41%). These results indicate that ischemic compression enhanced the tolerance to pain in MPS subjects in the inactive control group.

Fig. 3
figure 3

a Effect of ischemic compression to PPT values after ischemic treatment within 1 week compared with control on MPS patients. b Publication bias

Full size image

Effect of ischemic compression on VAS and NRS scores

The VAS or NRS is generally used for pain assessment to indicate the degree of self-perceived pain of the subject. In this study, as shown in Fig. 4, an analysis of 7 studies and 251 subjects revealed that there was no significant difference in ischemic compression between MPS subjects and controls posttreatment (SMD = − 0.22, 95% CI [− 0.53, 0.09], P = 0.16, I2 = 33%). There was no statistically significant difference compared with the active control subgroup (SMD = − 0.13, 95% CI [− 0.48, 0.21], P = 0.44, I2 = 13%). Additionally, there was no statistically significant difference compared with the inactive control subgroup (SMD = − 0.34, 95% CI [− 0.97, 0.30], P = 0.30, I2 = 58%). These results indicate that ischemic compression did not relieve self-reported pain in MPS subjects compared with both the active or the inactive control group.

Fig. 4
figure 4

Effect of ischemic compression to VAS or NPS values after ischemic treatment compared with control on MPS patients

Full size image

Adverse events

Adverse events were not reported in the included RCTs.

Publication bias

As shown in Fig. 3b, there was publication bias in the result of PPT index.

Discussion

A previous review demonstrated that compared with placebo, range of motion may be decreased in MPS patients by some types of manual therapy containing ischemic compression [22]. This study investigated the effectiveness of ischemic compression on pain in MPS patients.

Study Strengths and comparison with previous meta-analyses

There are some strengths in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The first strength is relative low heterogeneity (< 50%) in the outcomes VAS and two subgroup analysis of PPT, suggesting that the conclusion is solid. Second, compared with 2 previous systematic reviews, one review focused on neck pain, only included neck pain related to myofascial pain and made a qualitative conclusion [20]. However, MPSs are commonly related to headache, neck and shoulder pain, pelvic pain syndromes, and even neuropathic pain [49]. Our meta-analysis added more comprehensive MPS subjects, especially in other pains that clearly stated myofascial pain or the existence of a trigger point in the inclusion criteria. We further performed a meta-analysis. Another review and meta-analysis focused on the range of motion, which is an index of muscle activity [22]. Our meta-analysis focused on self-reported pain and tolerance to pain indices. This helps scientists and clinicians to improve the understanding of ischemic compression to pain reduction in MPS.

Limitations

There are some limitations in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The first concern is that no studies reported measures of daily activity. Most RCTs only reported the values before and after treatment. The second limitation of this review was the relatively inadequate reporting of subjects included in RCTs. Large-scale RCTs containing over 100 subjects are still lacking. It is suggested that more treating clinicians can be employed or a longer trial period in future research so that more subjects can be included. Thirdly, MPSs were treated using ischemic compression for a short time of less than 1 week in most included studies, as shown in Table 1. Few studies were treated for approximately 1 month, and fewer studies reported 3 months of follow-up. Future studies employing large-scale RCTs with long durations and long-term follow-ups are critical to furthering our knowledge. In addition, 2 RCTs were included in systematic review but excluded in meta-analysis due to lack of data. In their results, part of one suggested few different conclusion [29], one supported conclusions of our meta-analysis [30]. Therefore, these excluded articles do not have a great impact on the analysis results of present meta-analysis.

Possible intrinsic mechanism

The difference between PPT and VAS attracted the most interest in the present analysis. According to the pathologic hypothesis of MPS [50], the trigger point is caused by the excessive release of acetylcholine from the muscle endplate in this area under various stimuli and injuries, resulting in the shortening of local sarcomere fibers. After sarcomere fibers are shortened, when human muscles move, more blood flow and oxygen supply are needed to maintain normal function, which further aggravates ischemia and hypoxia in the above areas. Pain substances, such as inflammatory factors containing substance P, interleukin-6, bradykinin and interleukin-8, accumulate in the trigger point area [51] and then induce pain termed the “local pain” of the trigger point [52]. As a type of massage, ischemic compression increases the metabolism of the trigger point area through compression and release using mechanical force to alleviate ischemia and hypoxia, reduce the accumulation of inflammatory factors and regulate oxidative stress in the muscle area [53]. This may be the reason why ischemic compression can improve the PPT in muscle. However, VAS is the patient's assessment of pain and the response of the central nervous system to pain. The trigger point, even a latent trigger point, can sensitize nociceptive and non-nociceptive nerve fibers [54] and therefore has a close link to hyperalgesia, allodynia, and referred pain. Pain is transmitted from the local sensory nerve to the dorsal horn neurons and then into the brain [55], eliciting central sensitization, termed “refer pain” [52]. Ischemic compression may not inhibit the sensitization of the central nervous system, which may contribute to the different PPT and VAS results in the present meta-analysis.

An effect on PPT without an effect on pain intensity challenges the diagnosis of myofascial pain syndrome, trigger points maybe not the cause of the painful conditions as myofascial pain syndrome is not a well-defined diagnosis. In addition, it may also can be explained by central sensitization remaining after trigger points were resolved. Central sensitization has become prominent or independent for sustained pain in MPS, therefore pain may persist long although the local trigger point has been dissolved [55]. Referred pain should be considered as a central phenomenon and result of central sensitization [52] or central hyperexcitability [45].

Conclusion

This meta-analysis explored the pain relief effect of ischemic compression for MPS. Ischemic compression, as a conservative and noninvasive therapy, only enhanced tolerance to pain in MPS subjects compared with inactive control. Furthermore, there was no evidence of benefit for effect of ischemic compression on self-reported pain. The number of currently included subjects was relatively small, so the conclusion may be changed by future studies. Big scale RCTs with more subjects will critical in future.

Availability of data and materials

This is a review, the dataset supporting the conclusions of this article are extracted from reported literatures and showed within this article.

References

  1. Urits I, Charipova K, Gress K, Schaaf AL, Gupta S, Kiernan HC, et al. Treatment and management of myofascial pain syndrome. Pain. 2020;34(3):427–48.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Kuan TS. Current studies on myofascial pain syndrome. Curr Pain Headache Rep. 2009;13(5):365–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Wheeler AH. Myofascial pain disorders: theory to therapy. Drugs. 2004;64(1):45–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Jaeger B, Skootsky SA. Male and female chronic pain patients categorized by DSM-III psychiatric diagnostic criteria. Pain. 1987;29(2):263–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Skootsky SA, Jaeger B, Oye RK. Prevalence of myofascial pain in general internal medicine practice. West J Med. 1989;151(2):157–60.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Rivers WE, Garrigues D, Graciosa J, Harden RN. Signs and symptoms of myofascial pain: an international survey of pain management providers and proposed preliminary set of diagnostic criteria. Pain Med. 2015;16(9):1794–805.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Zhang Y, Ge HY, Yue SW, Kimura Y, Arendt-Nielsen L. Attenuated skin blood flow response to nociceptive stimulation of latent myofascial trigger points. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2009;90(2):325–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Simons DG. Symptomatology and clinical pathophysiology of myofascial pain. Schmerz. 1991;5(Supplement 1):S29-37.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Gerwin RD, Dommerholt J, Shah JP. An expansion of Simons’ integrated hypothesis of trigger point formation. Curr Pain Headache Rep. 2004;8(6):468–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Shah JP, Danoff JV, Desai MJ, Parikh S, Nakamura LY, Phillips TM, et al. Biochemicals associated with pain and inflammation are elevated in sites near to and remote from active myofascial trigger points. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;89(1):16–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Grosman-Rimon L, Parkinson W, Upadhye S, Clarke H, Katz J, Flannery J, et al. Circulating biomarkers in acute myofascial pain: a case-control study. Medicine. 2016;95(37):e4650.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Turkistani A, Shah A, Jose AM, Melo JP, Luenam K, Ananias P, et al. Effectiveness of manual therapy and acupuncture in tension-type headache: a systematic review. Cureus. 2021;13(8):e17601.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Kashyap R, Iqbal A, Alghadir AH. Controlled intervention to compare the efficacies of manual pressure release and the muscle energy technique for treating mechanical neck pain due to upper trapezius trigger points. J Pain Res. 2018;11:3151–60.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Moraska AF, Schmiege SJ, Mann JD, Butryn N, Krutsch JP. Responsiveness of myofascial trigger points to single and multiple trigger point release massages: a randomized, placebo controlled trial. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2017;96(9):639–45.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Moraska AF, Hickner RC, Kohrt WM, Brewer A. Changes in blood flow and cellular metabolism at a myofascial trigger point with trigger point release (ischemic compression): a proof-of-principle pilot study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2013;94(1):196–200.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Nikam PP, Varadharajulu G. Effect of variants of positional release technique vs. ischemic compression technique on trigger point in myofascial pain syndrome: a randomized controlled trial. Int J Life Sci Pharma Res. 2021;11(2):L54–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Birinci T, Mustafaoglu R, Kaya Mutlu E, Razak Ozdincler A. Stretching exercises combined with ischemic compression in pectoralis minor muscle with latent trigger points: a single-blind, randomized, controlled pilot trial. Complement Ther Clin Pract. 2020;38:101080.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Pecos-Martin D, Ponce-Castro MJ, Jiménez-Rejano JJ, Nunez-Nagy S, Calvo-Lobo C, Gallego-Izquierdo T. Immediate effects of variable durations of pressure release technique on latent myofascial trigger points of the levator scapulae: a double-blinded randomised clinical trial. Acupunct Med. 2019;37(3):141–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. da Silva AC, De Noronha M, Liberatori-Junior RM, Aily JB, Gonçalves GH, Arrais-Lima C, et al. The effectiveness of ischemic compression technique on pain and function in individuals with shoulder pain: a systematic review. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2020;43(3):234–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Cagnie B, Castelein B, Pollie F, Steelant L, Verhoeyen H, Cools A. Evidence for the use of ischemic compression and dry needling in the management of trigger points of the upper trapezius in patients with neck pain: a systematic review. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2015;94(7):573–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. de Melo LA, BezerradeMedeiros AK, Campos M, BastosMachadodeResende CM, Barbosa GAS, de Almeida EO. Manual therapy in the treatment of myofascial pain related to temporomandibular disorders: a systematic review. J Oral Facial Pain Headache. 2020;34(2):141–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Guzmán-Pavón MJ, Cavero-Redondo I, Martínez-Vizcaíno V, Torres-Costoso AI, Reina-Gutiérrez S, Álvarez-Bueno C. Effect of manual therapy interventions on range of motion among individuals with myofascial trigger points: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Pain Med (Malden, MA). 2022;23(1):137–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ (Clin Res Ed). 2009;339:b2700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. McLeroy KR, Northridge ME, Balcazar H, Greenberg MR, Landers SJ. Reporting guidelines and the American Journal of Public Health’s adoption of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses. Am J Public Health. 2012;102(5):780–4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Hadizadeh M, Rahimi A, Javaherian M, Velayati M, Dommerholt J. The efficacy of intramuscular electrical stimulation in the management of patients with myofascial pain syndrome: a systematic review. Chiropr Man Therapies. 2021;29(1):40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Travell J, Simons DG. Myofascial Pain and Dysfunction: the trigger point manual. London: Williams & Wilkins; 1999. p. 2.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ (Clin Res Edn). 2019;366:l4898.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Higgins JP, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, et al. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Chichester: Wiley; 2019.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  29. Blikstad A, Gemmell H. Immediate effect of activator trigger point therapy and myofascial band therapy on non-specific neck pain in patients with upper trapezius trigger points compared to sham ultrasound: a randomised controlled trial. Clin Chiropr. 2008;11(1):23–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Gemmell H, Allen A. Relative immediate effect of ischaemic compression and activator trigger point therapy on active upper trapezius trigger points: a randomised trial. Clin Chiropr. 2008;11(4):175–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Tanhan A, Ozer AY, Polat MG. Efficacy of different combinations of physiotherapy techniques compared to exercise and patient education in temporomandibular disorders: a randomized controlled study. CRANIO J Craniomandib Sleep Pract. 2021;5:1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Alghadir AH, Iqbal A, Anwer S, Iqbal ZA, Ahmed H. Efficacy of combination therapies on neck pain and muscle tenderness in male patients with upper trapezius active myofascial trigger points. BioMed Res Int. 2020, 2020.

  33. Kannan P. Management of myofascial pain of upper trapezius: a three group comparison study. Global J Health Sci. 2012;4(5):46–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Ganesh GS, Singh H, Mushtaq S, Mohanty P, Pattnaik M. Effect of cervical mobilization and ischemic compression therapy on contralateral cervical side flexion and pressure pain threshold in latent upper trapezius trigger points. J Bodyw Mov Therapies. 2016;20(3):477–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Moraska AF, Hickner RC, Rzasa-Lynn R, Shah JP, Hebert JR, Kohrt WM. Increase in lactate without change in nutritive blood flow or glucose at active trigger points following massage: a randomized clinical trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2018;99(11):2151–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Ransone JW, Schmidt J, Crawford SK, Walker J. Effect of manual compressive therapy on latent myofascial trigger point pressure pain thresholds. J Bodyw Mov Therapies. 2019;23(4):792–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Sadria G, Hosseini M, Rezasoltani A, Bagheban AA, Davari A, Seifolahi A. A comparison of the effect of the active release and muscle energy techniques on the latent trigger points of the upper trapezius. J Bodyw Mov Therapies. 2017;21(4):920–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Ziaeifar M, Arab AM, Nourbakhsh MR. Clinical effectiveness of dry needling immediately after application on myofascial trigger point in upper trapezius muscle. J Chiropr Med. 2016;15(4):252–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Ziaeifar M, Arab AM, Mosallanezhad Z, Nourbakhsh MR. Dry needling versus trigger point compression of the upper trapezius: a randomized clinical trial with two-week and three-month follow-up. J Man Manip Ther. 2018.

  40. Abu Taleb W, Youssef AR, Saleh A. The effectiveness of manual versus algometer pressure release techniques for treating active myofascial trigger points of the upper trapezius. J Bodyw Mov Therapies. 2016;20(4):863–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Benito-de-Pedro M, Becerro-de-Bengoa-Vallejo R, Losa-Iglesias ME, Rodríguez-Sanz D, López-López D, Cosín-Matamoros J. Effectiveness between dry needling and ischemic compression in the triceps Surae latent myofascial trigger points of triathletes on pressure pain threshold and thermography: a single blinded randomized clinical trial. J Clin Med. 2019;8(10):1632.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Aguilera FJM, Martin DP, Masanet RA, Botella AC, Soler LB, Morell FB. Immediate effect of ultrasound and ischemic compression techniques for the treatment of trapezius latent myofascial trigger points in healthy subjects: a randomized controlled study. J Manip Physiol Ther. 2009;32(7):515–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. De Meulemeester KE, Castelein B, Coppieters I, Barbe T, Cools A, Cagnie B. Comparing trigger point dry needling and manual pressure technique for the management of myofascial neck/shoulder pain: a randomized clinical trial. J Manip Physiol Therap. 2017;40(1):11–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Oliveira-Campelo NM, de Melo CA, Alburquerque-Sendín F, Machado JP. Short- and medium-term effects of manual therapy on cervical active range of motion and pressure pain sensitivity in latent myofascial pain of the upper trapezius muscle: a randomized controlled trial. J Manip Physiol Ther. 2013;36(5):300–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Giamberardino MA, Affaitati G, Fabrizio A, Costantini R. Myofascial pain syndromes and their evaluation. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2011;25(2):185–98.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Ylinen J, Nykänen M, Kautiainen H, Häkkinen A. Evaluation of repeatability of pressure algometry on the neck muscles for clinical use. Man Ther. 2007;12(2):192–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. van Nispen RM, Virgili G, Hoeben M, Langelaan M, Klevering J, Keunen JE, et al. Low vision rehabilitation for better quality of life in visually impaired adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020;1(1):CD006543.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Mazeas A, Duclos M, Pereira B, Chalabaev A. Evaluating the effectiveness of gamification on physical activity: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Med Internet Res. 2022;24(1):e26779.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Barbero M, Schneebeli A, Koetsier E, Maino P. Myofascial pain syndrome and trigger points: evaluation and treatment in patients with musculoskeletal pain. Curr Opin Support Palliat Care. 2019;13(3):270–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Simons DG. Review of enigmatic MTrPs as a common cause of enigmatic musculoskeletal pain and dysfunction. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2004;14(1):95–107.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Shah JP, Phillips TM, Danoff JV, Gerber LH. An in vivo microanalytical technique for measuring the local biochemical milieu of human skeletal muscle. J Appl Physiol (Bethesda, MD: 1985). 2005;99(5):1977–84.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Fernández-de-las-Peñas C, Dommerholt J. Myofascial trigger points: peripheral or central phenomenon? Curr Rheumatol Rep. 2014;16(1):395.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Jafri MS. Mechanisms of myofascial pain. Int Sch Res Notices. 2014;2014: 523924.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Li LT, Ge HY, Yue SW, Arendt-Nielsen L. Nociceptive and non-nociceptive hypersensitivity at latent myofascial trigger points. Clin J Pain. 2009;25(2):132–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Niddam DM. Brain manifestation and modulation of pain from myofascial trigger points. Curr Pain Headache Rep. 2009;13(5):370–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

None.

Funding

This work was financially supported by Project of Longhua Hospital, Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine (Y2006).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Nursing, Longhua Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shanghai, 200032, People’s Republic of China

    Wei Lu

  2. Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Longhua Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shanghai, 200032, People’s Republic of China

    Jiong Li

  3. Department of Rehabilitation, Baoshan Branch, Ren Ji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, 200436, People’s Republic of China

    Ye Tian

  4. Department of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Huadong Hospital Affiliated to Fudan University, Shanghai, 200040, People’s Republic of China

    Xingang Lu

Authors
  1. Wei Lu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jiong Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ye Tian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Xingang Lu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

XL designed this review. WL, JL, XL participated the data extraction and literatures selection, YT and XL performed the meta-analysis. WL wrote the manuscript and XL revised it. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xingang Lu.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declared that there was none competing interests associated with this study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lu, W., Li, J., Tian, Y. et al. Effect of ischemic compression on myofascial pain syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Chiropr Man Therap 30, 34 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12998-022-00441-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12998-022-00441-5

Keywords

Chiropractic & Manual Therapies

ISSN: 2045-709X