Effects of Miniscalpel-Needle Release on Chronic Neck Pain: A Retrospective Analysis with 12-Month Follow-Up

Objective: Chronic neck pain is a highly prevalent condition, and is often treated with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Limited clinical studies with short-term follow-up have shown promising efficacy of acupuncture as well as miniscalpel-needle (MSN) release. In this retrospective study, we examined whether MSN release could produce long-lasting relief in patients with chronic neck pain. Methods: We retrieved the medical records of all patients receiving weekly MSN release treatment for chronic neck pain at this institution during a period from May 2012 to December 2013. Only cases with the following information at prior to, and 1, 6, and 12 months after the treatment, were included in the analysis: neck disability index (NDI), numerical pain rating scale (NPRS), and active cervical range of motion (CROM). The primary analysis of interest is comparison of the 12-month measures with the baseline. Patients who took analgesic drugs or massage within 2 weeks prior to assessment were excluded from the analysis. For MSN release, tender points were identified manually by an experienced physician, and did not necessarily follow the traditional acupuncture system. MSN was inserted vertically (parallel to the spine) until breaking through resistance and patient reporting of distention, soreness or heaviness. The depth of the needling ranged from 10 to 50 mm. The release was carried out by moving the MSN up and down 3–5 times without rotation. Results: A total of 559 cases (patients receiving weekly MSN release treatment for chronic neck pain) were screened. The number of cases with complete information (NDI, NPRS, and CROM at baseline, 1, 6 and 12 months after last treatment) was 180. After excluding the cases with analgesic treatment or massage within 2 weeks of assessment (n = 53), a total of 127 cases were included in data analysis. The number of MSN release session was 7 (range: 4–11). At 12 months after the treatment, both NPRS and NDI were significantly lower [3 (0, 9) vs. 7 (5, 10) at the baseline for NPRS; [7 (0, 21) vs. 17 (9, 36) for NDI; p