Myofascial pain syndrome is a chronic condition. Many patients prefer to avoid drugs, and turn to alternative therapy, which often includes the services of a chiropractor, for pain relief.

Based on a system that traces disease to a lack of normal nerve function, chiropractic medicine seeks to relieve nerve pressure and restore normal use and dates back to 1895. Today, chiropractors have a surprising range of options for alternative therapy treatment, but how do you know which ones are effective?

Fortunately, someone decided to examine the literature relating to the procedures most commonly used by doctors of chiropractic medicine to treat myofascial pain syndrome and myofascial trigger points. Credible, peer-reviewed journals from the following healthcare databases were included: PubMed, Excerpta Medica Database, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and systematic reviews and clinical guidelines.

Finally, the results of nine alternative therapies were whittled down to 112 relevant articles that were then thoroughly analyzed. The results may surprise you.

BEST
Laser Therapy. Strong support was shown for low-level laser therapy (LLLT), also known as cold laser therapy or laser biostimulation, is a technique that uses low-level lasers to stimulate or inhibit cellular function. Certain wavelengths of light are delivered at specific intensities by laser or LED to inhibit inflammation and pain.

VERY GOOD
Manipulation and Ischemic Pressure. For immediate pain relief at trigger points of myofascial pain, nothing beats good old manipulation and adjustment, the hallmarks of chiropractic medicine. Pressure on nerves is lifted by moving the skeletal structure. Unfortunately, there is limited evidence that long-term pain relief will result.

GOOD
Acupuncture. Used for a wide range of conditions, the research shows that acupuncture is moderately effective in relieving myofascial pain syndrome. The tips of slim, solid, metallic needles are inserted in the skin at points and meridians to improve the flow of chi, or vital energy.

Electrical Nerve Stimulation. Two or more electrodes are connected to the skin. A battery-operated TENS (transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation) unit modulates pulse width, frequency and intensity. It is proven to be a safe, non-invasive treatment for both acute and chronic pain.

Magnet Therapy. Also known as magnetic therapy, magnetotherapy or magnotherapy, it involves the application of magnets or the magnetic field of electromagnetic devices to the body. Some practitioners claim differing effects based on the orientation of the magnet, but the most common expectation is an improvement in blood flow to underlying tissues.

FAIR
Electrical Muscle Stimulation (EMS). Known variously as neuromuscular electrical stimulation or electromyostimulation, it involves using electrical impulses to generate muscle contractions. These impulses are delivered through pads stuck to the skin. EMS is used not only for pain relief, but as an adjunct to sport training.

High-Voltage Galvanic Stimulation. Galvanic stimulators apply direct current, whereas TENS current is alternating. Direct current supposedly creates an electronic field over the affected area which changes blood flow, with the positive pad reducing circulation and the negative pad increasing it.

Interferential Current Therapy. Electrodes disperse two or three very different currents through affected tissue. Because they are all different, parts of each electrical current cancel each other out, resulting in a singular net current to the target area.

POOR
Ultrasound Therapy. Sound waves are absorbed primarily by connective tissue such as tendons, ligaments, fascia and scar tissue. Although adherents tout both thermal effects and non-thermal , the research simply doesn’t support ultrasound therapy to treat myofascial pain.

Chiropractic management of myofascial trigger points and myofascial pain syndrome: A systematic review of the literature, by Vernon H. Schneider, M. 2009 Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics. January 32(1), pp. 14-24.