RIGINAL ARTICLE

Year : 2013 | Volume : 2 | Issue : 1 | Page : 17-22

Difference in effect between ischemic compression and muscle

energy technique on upper trepezius myofascial trigger points:
Comparative
study
Gopal

Nambi1, Ronak

Sharma1, Dipika

Inbasekaran2, Apeksha

Vaghesiya1, Urmi

Bhatt1

Department of Physiotherapy, C.U. Shah Physiotherapy College, Surendranagar, Gujarat, India

Department of Physiotherapy, C.U. Shah Medical College, Surendranagar, Gujarat, India

Date of Web Publication

17-Apr-2013

Correspondence

Address:

Gopal
C.U.

S
Shah

Physiotherapy

College,

Surendranagar

Nambi
-

363

001,

Gujarat

India

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/2278-344X.110570

Abstract
Background: Myofascial trigger point (MTrP) is a hyperirritable point or spot, usually within a taut band
of skeletal muscle or in the muscle fascia which is painful on compression and can give rise to
characteristic-referred pain and motor dysfunction. Studies suggest that various types of massage
forms are available for treating MTrPs. Aims: To find the difference in effect of two forms of massage
techniques: Ischemic compression and muscle energy technique (MET) on upper trepezius
MTrPs. Settings and Design: Quasi experimental design was conducted with convenient sampling
method. Materials and Methods: Patients ( n = 30) who fulfil the screening criteria were randomly
assigned to Group A ( n = 15) treated with ischemic compression and ultrasound and Group B ( n = 15)
treated with MET and ultrasound for 4 weeks and they were assessed at baseline and after 4 weeks.
Outcome measures included pain intensity by visual analog scale (VAS) and range of motion by
universal goniometer. Statistical Analysis Used: Intergroup analysis was done with Mann-Whitney

test and intragroup analysis was done with Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Results: Statistically, no
significant ( P > 0.05) changes in the scores were found in the Groups A and B for VAS, and statistically
significant ( P < 0.05) changes in the scores were found in the Groups A and B for Range of Motion
(ROM) with greater change scores in the Group B compared with Group A. Conclusion: Treatment
program consisting of MET with ultrasound may be more effective in reducing pain and improve ROM
in patients in upper trepezius MTrPs.
Keywords: Ischemic compression, muscle energy technique, myofascial trigger point, range of
motion, ultrasound, upper trepezius, visual analog scale

How to cite this article:

Nambi GS, Sharma R, Inbasekaran D, Vaghesiya A, Bhatt U. Difference in effect between ischemic
compression and muscle energy technique on upper trepezius myofascial trigger points: Comparative
study. Int J Health Allied Sci 2013;2:17-22
How to cite this URL:
Nambi GS, Sharma R, Inbasekaran D, Vaghesiya A, Bhatt U. Difference in effect between ischemic
compression and muscle energy technique on upper trepezius myofascial trigger points: Comparative
study. Int J Health Allied Sci [serial online] 2013 [cited 2016 Jul 16];2:17-22. Available
from: http://www.ijhas.in/text.asp?2013/2/1/17/110570

Introduction

Myofascial pain syndrome is a complex pain disorder characterized by a steady dull ache referring to a
specific reference zone from a myofascial trigger point (MTrP) within a palpable band of muscle. A
MTrP is a hyperirritable spot, located within a taut band of a skeletal muscle that is painful on
compression or stretch and that can give rise to a typical-referred pain pattern as well as an autonomic
phenomena. [1] Abnormal stresses on the muscles from sudden stress on shortened muscle, leg-length
discrepancies, or skeletal asymmetry are thought to be common causes of myofascial pain. Poor
posture, assumption of a static position for a long period also has been implicated in myofascial pain.
Many studies have referred to the prevalence of MTrPs. Sola et al., [2] assessed 200 asymptomatic
young adults and found focal tenderness representing latent trigger points in the shoulder girdle
muscles of 54% of female and 45% of male participants; 25% of these participants demonstrated
referred pain. A similar study conducted in villages from rural Thailand, where 2463 subjects were
examined, of which 36.2% had musculoskeletal pain with myofascial pain syndrome being the most
common diagnosis. [3] In a similar manner, another study reported that of 283 consecutive admissions
to a pain center program, MTrPs were the primary cause of pain in 85% of cases. [4]
Several features are commonly associated with the diagnosis of MTrPs. These include a confusing
mixture of sensory and motor phenomena: History of spontaneous localized pain associated with acute
overload or chronic overuse of the muscle. The mildest symptoms are caused by latent TrPs that cause
no pain but cause some degree of functional disability. More severe involvement results in pain related
to the position of the muscle or muscular activity. The most severe level involves intermittent or
continuous pain at rest. [5]
An active trigger point is one that actively refers pain either locally or to another location (most trigger
points refer pain elsewhere in the body along nerve pathways). A latent trigger point is one that exists,
but does not yet refer pain actively, but may do so when pressure or strain is applied to the myoskeletal
structure containing the trigger point. Latent trigger points can influence muscle activation patterns,
which can result in poorer muscle coordination and balance. Active and latent trigger points are also
known as "Yipe" points, for obvious reasons. A key trigger point is one that has a pain referral pattern
along a nerve pathway that activates a latent trigger point on the pathway, or creates it. A satellite
trigger point is one which is activated by a key trigger point. In contrast, a primary trigger point in many

cases will biomechanically activate a secondary trigger point in another structure.

Trigger points form in the muscle's fibres, close to the motor end plate (neuromuscular junction).
Excess acetylcholine (ACh) is released at the synapse, usually associated with overuse or strain,
leading to release of calcium. Resulting ischemia creates an O2 deficit and energy crisis. Without
available ATP, calcium ions, which are keeping the gates open for ACh to keep flowing, cannot be
removed. A chemically sustained contracture (without motor potentials) is different from a contraction
(voluntary with motor potentials) and a spasm (involuntary with motor potentials). Actin-myosin
filaments shorten in the area of the motor endplate. A contracture "knot" forms the characteristic trigger
point nodule. The remainder of the sarcomeres of that fibre are stretched, creating the palpable taut
band.
Simons et al., [5] defined ischemic compression (IC) as "trigger point pressure release" and described
as follows, "Application of slowly increasing, nonpainful pressure over a trigger point until a barrier of
tissue resistance is encountered. Contact is then maintained until the tissue barrier releases, and
pressure is increased to reach a new barrier to eliminate the trigger point tension and tenderness."
Muscle energy technique (MET) is commonly utilized method for achieving tonus release (inhibition) in
a muscle before stretching. The approach involves the introduction of an isometric contraction to the
affected muscle producing postisometric relaxation through the influence of the Golgi tendon organs
(autogenic inhibition). It may also be applied to the antagonistic muscle group producing reciprocal
inhibition in the offending agonistic muscle(s). Fryer and Fossum have hypothesized that the sequence
of muscle and joint mechanoreceptor activation evokes firing of local somatic efferents. This in turn
leads to sympathoexcitation and activation of the periaqueductal gray matter, which plays a role in the
descending modulation of pain. Owing to stimulation of mechanoreceptors, simultaneous gating of the
nociceptive impulses takes place in the dorsal horn of the spinal cord . [6] Thus, the purpose of this
study is to examine the effectiveness of IC versus MET in the treatment of upper trepezius MTrPs.

Materials and Methods

A quasi experimental design [Comparative study] was conducted with convenient sampling method.
Study was done on upper trepezius MTrP patients. Thirty (n = 30) subjects who fulfilled the inclusion
and exclusion criteria were included and they were divided into two groups, Group A (IC with
ultrasound, n = 15) and Group B (MET with ultrasound, n = 15) and treated for three sessions/week for
[7 ]
4 weeks.
Study is done in outpatient Department of Physiotherapy.
Subjects for the study were selected based on the following inclusion criteria: Age 18-55 years, both
genders, with a palpable tender spot in the upper trapezius muscle. [8] Reproduction of the subject's
pain upon palpation, [8] jump sign characterized by patient vocalization or withdrawal. [9] Limitation of
neck movements due to pain. [8] Pain of at least three on a visual analogue scale (VAS). [10] Decreased
cervical lateral flexion to the opposite side of the active upper trepezius TrP. [8] Unilateral side
pain. [8] Subjects were not included with history of recent surgery or open wounds in the neck
region. [10] History of a whiplash injury. [10] History of cervical spine surgery. [10]History of trauma or
fractures in the neck or back. [10] Skin diseases and lesions in the area of trapezius. [10] Any sensory
disturbances in the trapezius region. Duration of pain less than 1 month. [8] Any vascular syndromes
such as basilar insufficiency. [10] Neck and back deformities like torticollis, scoliosis, and so
on. [10] Therapeutic intervention, either invasive or noninvasive or medication for myofascial pain within
the past 1 month before the study. [8] Diagnosis of cervical radiculopathy or myelopathy determined by
their primary care physician. [8] Diagnosis of fibromyalgia syndrome. [10] Inform consent form was signed
by the subject, who fulfilled inclusion criteria before the treatment started.
VAS (qualitative outcome) and cervical lateral flexion range of motion (quantitative outcome) as
outcome measurements were taken before and after the program schedule. The VAS was used to
measure the subject's current level of pain intensity. VAS involves a 10 cm horizontal line with "No
pain" anchored at the left end and "Pain as bad as it could be" anchored at the right end. The patient
was asked to place a mark on the line that represented the severity of his or her pain at the moment.
Pain intensity scores will be evaluated before and after 4 weeks of treatment with 10 cm VAS. The
range of motion of the cervical lateral flexion was assessed actively with a universal double-armed
goniometer by placing the subjects in sit upright position and laterally flexes their head toward one

side. The measurements were taken for cervical lateral flexion. ROM will be evaluated before and after
treatment.
Ischemic compression
Positioning
Patients were placed supine on the couch with his head fully on the surface of the couch, to reduce
tension in the upper trepezius muscle.[10] Arm was positioned in slight shoulder abduction with the
elbow bent and their hand resting on their stomach. To perform this IC to the upper trapezius, therapist
stands at the head of the couch.
Technique
First, using a pincer grasp moved throughout the fibers of the upper trepezius and made note of the
any active trigger points. To locate a trigger point, palpate the muscle to feel for a taut band or a twitch
response in the muscle belly. A common location of upper trapezius trigger points is in the middle of the
muscle belly, approximately 1 to 2 inches medial to the acromion process of the scapula. Once located
on the trigger point, apply an IC by gradually applying pressure to the trigger point with your thumb.
The patient will likely feel referred pain in a question mark pattern (along the back of the neck, around
the side of the head, and then a focused pain right behind the eye). Keep in communication with the
patient, checking to ensure that in staying within the limits of his pain tolerance. Hold this technique for
approximately 20 seconds to 1 minute, patient tells you that pain has diminished, or until feels the
muscle fibers begin to relax under your pressure. Once feel this release, gradually release pressure. All
identified trigger points were treated. Then apply a few effleurage strokes to flush out the area and
follow-up with a passive stretch to the muscle. This was repeated for three to five times for three
sessions per week for 4 weeks.
Muscle energy technique
The subjects were placed supine and the therapist stabilized the shoulder on the affected side with one
hand, while the ear/mastoid area of the affected side was held by the opposite hand. [11] The head and
neck were then side bent toward the contralateral side, flexed, and rotated ipsilaterally, placing the
subject just short of their upper trapezius restriction barrier. The subjects then shrugged the
involved/stabilized shoulder toward the ear at a submaximal, pain-free, effort (20% of their available
strength). The isometric effort was held for 7-10 seconds while a normal breathing rhythm was
maintained. During the relaxation phase, the head and neck were eased into increasing degrees of
side bending, flexion, and rotation to advance the stretch placed on the muscle. Each stretch was held
for 30 seconds. This was repeated for three to five times for three sessions per week for 4 weeks.
Ultrasound therapy
2

Frequency: 3 MHz , Intensity: 1.4 W/cm , Time: 5 minutes, Mode: Continues , and No. of sessions:
Three sessions were given for both groups. [12]
Statistical analysis used
Intergroup analysis was done with Mann-Whitney test and intragroup analysis was done with Wilcoxon
signed-rank test.
Ethical approval
The study has been reviewed and approved by the scientific and Ethical Committee of the Institution
and University of Saurashtra.

Results

Gender distribution

Group A have nine males (60%) and six females (40%). Group B have seven males (46.66%) and eight
females (53.33%).
Age distribution
Group A mean age is 46.20 and an SD 5.88 and Group B mean age is 45.46 and SD 5.44.
Intergroup comparison of pre-VAS of Groups A and B
After analyzing the data with Mann-Whitney test, the calculated U value is 102, table U value is 64
and P value is 0.643 (P > 0.05) for VAS. The result shows that calculated U value is 102 and P value is
0.643, showing that there no significant difference between prevalues of VAS of Groups A and B. The
null hypothesis is accepted and alternative hypothesis is rejected. Results show the sample
homogeneity.
Intergroup comparison of post-VAS of Groups A and B
After analyzing the data, the calculated 'U' value is 81, table U value is 64, and P value is 0.105 (P0 >
0.05), showing that there is no significant difference between postvalues of VAS score of Groups A and
B scores, so the null hypothesis is accepted. The result shows that there is no change in the VAS
scores of Groups A and B after 4 weeks of treatment.
Pre- and postvalues of VAS of Group A
The mean and standard deviation of VAS of Group A measured before the treatment (pre) and at the
end of the treatment (after 4 weeks). The mean of baseline of VAS is 7.07 and after 4 weeks is 3.13.
The standard deviation of baseline of VAS is 0.799 and after 4 weeks is 0.640. In Group A,
calculated Z value is 3.457 and P value is 0.001, showing that there is significant difference between
pre-and postvalues of VAS of Group A. The null hypothesises rejected and alternative hypothesis is
accepted.
Pre- and postvalues of VAS of Group B
The mean and standard deviation of VAS Group A measured before the treatment (pre) and at the end
of the treatment (after 4 weeks). The mean of baseline of NPRS is 6.93 and after 4 weeks is 2.80. The
SD of baseline of VAS is 0.799 and after 1 week is 0.414. In Group A, calculated Z value is 3.49
and P value is 0.001, showing that there is significant difference between pre-and postvalues of VAS of
Group A. The null hypothesis is rejected and alternative hypothesis is accepted [Table 1].
Table 1: Pre- and postmean of visual analog scale score of groups A and
B
Click here to view

Intergroup comparison of pre-ROM of Groups A and B

After analyzing the data the calculate 't' value for Cervical side flexion is 0.269 and P value is 0.790 so
the results shows that (P > 0.05), showing that there is no significant difference between pre values of
ROM of Groups A and B scores, so it shows that baseline data are homogenous, and the null
hypothesis is accepted.
Intergroup comparison of post-ROM of Groups A and B
After analyzing the data, the calculated 't' value for cervical side flexion is 2.87, showing that there is
significant difference between postvalues of ROM of Groups A and B scores, so the null hypothesis is
rejected.
Pre- and postvalues of range of Group A
The mean and standard deviation of ROM of Group A measured before the treatment (pre-Rx) and at
the end of the treatment (after 4 weeks). The mean of baseline of flexion is 14.667 and after 4 weeks

the mean is 25,000. It shows that there is improvement in range of motion at the end of 4 weeks of
treatment when compared to the first day in ranges. After analyzing the data, the calculated 't' value for
flexion is 11.37 (P0 < 0.05), showing that there is a significant difference between the scores in pre-and
posttest scores of Group A. Statistical analysis shows 41.36% improvement in cervical side flexion.
Pre- and postvalues of ROM of Group B
The mean and standard deviation of ROM of Group B measured before the treatment (pre-Rx) and at
the end of the treatment (after 4 weeks). The mean of baseline of cervical side flexion is 15.00 and
after 4 weeks the mean is 28.33. It shows that there is improvement in range of motion at the end of 4
weeks of treatment when compared to the first day in all the ranges. After analyzing the data, the
calculated ' t' value for cervical side flexion is 16.73. ( P < 0.05), showing that there is a significant
difference between the scores in pre-and posttest scores of Group B. Statistical analysis shows
47.06% improvement in cervical side flexion.
Statistical analysis shows in Group A 41.36% improvement in cervical side flexion, whereas in Group B
47.06% improvement in cervical side flexion. When comparing the percentage in improvement in ROM
between Groups A and B, shows there is more increase in ROM in Group B at the end of the treatment
(after 4 weeks) compared to Group A [Table 2].
Table 2: Pre- and postmean cervical side flexion range of groups A and
B
Click here to view

Discussion

The incidence of myofascial pain syndrome is reported as high as 85% at certain American pain clinics.
Many studies suggest various treatments available for MTrPs. Noninvasive methods include spray
(freeze) and stretch, physical therapy (posture correction and body mechanics), IC, massage, MET,
strain counter strain (SCS), electrical modalities such as laser, ultrasound therapy, TENS, electrical
muscle stimulation, and invasive methods like acupuncture, trigger point injections (dry or wet
needling). There is no general acceptance of one standard treatment.
The study was conducted on 30 patients with two groups of 15 each. Group A was intervened with IC
and ultrasound, whereas Group B was intervened with MET and ultrasound. Outcome measures
included pain intensity by VAS and range of motion by goniometer which was measured prior to
treatment (pre-Rx) and at the end of 4 weeks of treatment.
First objective of this study was to find the effectiveness of IC combined with ultrasound on upper
trepezius MTrP to reduce pain and improve the range of motion. In Group A, its overall effectiveness on
VAS score was found using Mann-Whitney U test after 4 weeks of treatment which shows P value is
equal to 0.001, which is significant. ROM was found using paired t-test which shows P = 0.000, which
is very highly significant for cervical side flexion range after 4 weeks of treatment. This means that IC
technique combined with ultrasound is effective in to reduce pain and improve the range of motion.
The second objective of this study was to find the effectiveness of MET with ultrasound (Group B) on
upper trepezius MTrP. In Group B subjects who received MET with ultrasound its overall effectiveness
on VAS score was found using Mann-Whitney U Test after 4 weeks of treatment, which shows P =
0.001, which is significant. ROM was found using paired t-test which shows P = 0.000, which is
significant for cervical lateral flexion range after 4 weeks of treatment.
The third objective of the study was to compare the effectiveness of I C with ultrasound (Group A)
versus MET with ultrasound (Group B) in the management of upper trepezius MTrP. The intergroup
comparison of VAS score was done using Mann-Whitney test which showed 'P' significant after 4
weeks of treatment, comparison of ROM of both Groups A and B was done using independent t-test
which showed 'P' value significant for all the ranges. Statistical analysis shows when comparing VAS
score between Groups A and B, shows same reduction. There is no significant change in pain

reduction. Statistical analysis shows in Group A 41.36% improvement in cervical side flexion, whereas
in Group B 47.06% improvement in cervical side flexion. When comparing the percentage in
improvement in ROM between Groups A and B, shows there is more increase in ROM in Group B at
the end of the treatment (after 4 weeks) compared to Group A.
Our results support the study of Sabby et al., who have conducted a study on upper trepezius MTrP
with help of MET and SCS and concluded that following a improved range of motion, reduced pain in
patients with upper trepezius MTrP. Nagrale et al. has conducted a study on upper trepezius MTrP:
With help of MET concluded that this technique may have a significant role in improved range of
motion, reduced pain the management of upper trepezius MTrP. MET following, ischemic pressure may
be applied to the trigger points in this area; pressure on the trigger point stops blood from flowing into
the affected area making it ischemic (deprived of oxygen). The person should feel comfortable pain as
if pressure is being released. After 8 to 20 seconds, the pressure is released and the circulation of
blood, oxygen, and nutrients to the area increases. In addition, it is important to apply general massage
to the surrounding muscles of the upper trepezius, this helps keep the cervical functioning correctly and
speeds up the rehabilitation process. From this study, it can be said that MET and IC can be used as
additional method of choice for the treatment of patient with upper trepezius trigger point.
Limitations of the study are sample size was limited, Male participants are more comparing to female
participant, no long-term follow-up of the patients, no control group present. So, the further
recommendations for future studies need to be done with large group and longer follow-up. The same
study can be done on female participants and with control group.

Conclusion

The treatment program consists of IC and MET may be effective in reducing pain, but for range of
motion MET may be more effective than IC in upper trepezius MTrP to reduce pain and improve the
range of motion.

Acknowledgments

Dr. Gopal created the concept, design, and definition of intellectual content. Dr. Ronak did the literature
search, clinical studies, and data acquisition. Dr. Gopal did the data analysis, statistical analysis,
experimental studies, and manuscript preparation. Dr. Dipika edited and reviewed the manuscript, and
is also the guarantor of the manuscript. The authors thank the management and the patients, who
participated in the study.

References
1.

Simons DG, Travel J, Simons LS. Myofascial Pain and Dysfunction: The Trigger Point Manual.
2 nd ed, vol. 1. Upper Half of Body. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins; 1999.

2.

Sola AE, Rodenberger ML, Gettys BB. Incidence of hypersensitive areas in posterior shoulder
muscles: A survey of two hundred young adults. Am J Phys Med 1955;34:585-90.

3.

Chaiamnuay P, Darmawan J, Muirden KD, Assawatanabodee P. Epidemiology of rheumatic

disease in rural Thailand: A WHO-ILAR COPCORD study. Community Oriented Programme for
the
Control
of
Rheumatic
Disease.
J
Rheumatol
1998;25:1382-7.

4.

Fishbain DA, Goldberg M, Meagher BR, Steele R, Rosomoff H. Male and female chronic pain
patients categorized by DSM III psychiatric diagnostic criteria. Pain 1986;26:181-97.

5.

Simons DG, Travell JG. Chronic myofascial pain syndromes. Mysteries of the history, Chapter 6.
In: Fricton JR, Awad EA, editors. Myofascial Pain and Fibromyalgia, Advances in Pain Research
and
Therapy.
vol.
17.
New
York:
Raven
Press;
1990.
p.
129-37.

6.

D'Ambrogio KJ, Roth GB. Assessment and treatment of musculoskeletal dysfunction. Positional
Release
Therapy.
4 th ed.
Mosby
Publishers;
1997.
p.
164-6.

7.

Mance D, McConnell B, Ryan PA, Silverman M, Master G. Myofascial pain syndrome. J Am

Podiatr
Med
Assoc
1986;76:328-31.

8.

Gemmell H, Miller P, Nordstrom H. Immediate effect of ischaemic compression and trigger point
pressure release on neck pain and upper trepezius trigger points: A randomised controlled trial.
Clin
Chiropr
2008;11:30-6.

9.

Hanten WP, Olson SL, Butts NL, Nowicki AL. Effectiveness of home program of ischemic
pressure followed by sustained stretch for treatment of myofascial trigger points. Phys Ther
2000;80:997-1003.

10.

Nagrale AV, Glynn P, Joshi A, Ramteke G. The efficacy of an integrated neuromuscular inhibition
technique on upper trapezius trigger points in subjects with non-specific neck pain: A randomized
controlled
trial.
J
Man
Manip
Ther
2010;18:37-43.

11.

Travell J, Simons D. Myofascial Pain and Dysfunction-The Trigger Point Manual. 2 nd ed.
Baltimore,
MD:
Lippincott
Williams
and
Wilkins;
1992.
p.
255-60.

12.

Draper DO, Mahaffey C, Kaiser D, Eggett D, Jarmin J. Thermal ultrasound decreases tissue
stiffness of trigger points in upper trapezius muscle. Physiother Theory Pract 2010;26:167-72.