Ultrasound-Guided Myofascial Hydrodissection for Myofascial Pain Syndrome: A Retrospective Study on Pain Relief and Functional Improvement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of treating myofascial pain syndrome (MPS) with the ultrasound-guided myofascial hydrodissection technique (UMHT) to assess the efficacy of UMHT in alleviating pain and improving functional capacity among patients with MPS, contributing to the ongoing discourse regarding optimal treatment options for this condition. Methods This retrospective cohort study was conducted at a clinical research institution affiliated with a university. This study enrolled 28 individuals diagnosed with MPS, who received one session of UMHT weekly. Pain severity and functional parameters were assessed at baseline, 24 h, 2 weeks, 1 month, and 3 months post-treatment using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), McGill Pain Questionnaire, and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), respectively. Results We observed a significant reduction in pain, as evidenced by improvements in VAS (χ² = 60.63, p < 0.01) and McGill scores (χ² = 57.31, p < 0.01). Additionally, we observed functional improvement, with a significant reduction in ODI scores (χ² = 55.66, p < 0.0001). No adverse events were reported throughout the study. Conclusion UMHT significantly reduced pain and improved functional capacity in patients with MPS. These findings suggest that UMHT is a promising and safe treatment for MPS, although further research is needed to confirm its long-term efficacy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".