Skip to content

Ashi Acupuncture Versus Local Anesthetic Trigger Point Injections in the Treatment of Abdominal Myofascial Pain Syndrome: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Mitidieri et al. · Pain Physician · 2020

🔬Controlled RCT👥n=35 participantsModerate Evidence

Evidence Level

MODERATE
75/ 100
Quality
4/5
Sample
3/5
Replication
3/5
🎯

OBJECTIVE

Compare the efficacy of ashi acupuncture versus local anesthetic injections in the treatment of abdominal myofascial pain syndrome

👥

WHO

35 women with chronic pelvic pain secondary to abdominal myofascial pain syndrome

⏱️

DURATION

10 weeks of treatment with 6-month follow-up

📍

POINTS

Ashi points (active trigger points) in the abdominal region

🔬 Study Design

35participants
randomization

Ashi Acupuncture

n=16

10 weekly sessions of trigger point acupuncture

Local Anesthetic

n=19

4 weekly injections of 1% lidocaine

⏱️ Duration: 10 weeks of treatment

📊 Results in numbers

6.7 to 2.9

Pain reduction (VAS) - Acupuncture

6.7 to 3.9

Pain reduction (VAS) - Anesthetic

< 0.001

Clinical improvement

Not significant

Between-group difference

📊 Outcome Comparison

Visual Analog Scale (0-10)

Ashi Acupuncture
2.9
Local Anesthetic
3.9
💬 What does this mean for you?

This study showed that ashi acupuncture was as effective as local anesthetic injections for treating chronic pelvic pain caused by trigger points in the abdominal muscles. Both treatments significantly reduced patients' pain, offering a safe and effective non-pharmacological alternative.

📝

Article summary

Plain-language narrative summary

Abdominal myofascial pain syndrome (AMPS) is a condition that significantly affects women with chronic pelvic pain, characterized by hyperirritable trigger points in the abdominal muscles. This randomized controlled trial compared the efficacy of two therapeutic approaches: ashi acupuncture, a centuries-old Chinese technique that uses needles at painful points, and local anesthetic injections at trigger points. The research was conducted at a tertiary university hospital in Brazil, including 35 women with confirmed chronic pelvic pain secondary to AMPS. Participants were randomized into two groups: 16 received ashi acupuncture (10 weekly 25-minute sessions) and 19 received 1% lidocaine injections (4 weekly applications).

Pain was assessed using validated scales (Visual Analog, Numerical Categorical, and McGill Pain Questionnaire) before, during, and after treatments, with follow-up of up to 6 months. Results demonstrated that both treatments were equally effective in reducing clinical pain. The acupuncture group showed pain reduction from 6.7 to 2.9 points on the visual analog scale, while the anesthetic group reduced from 6.7 to 3.9 points. There was no statistically significant difference between groups, except on the McGill Questionnaire after one week, where acupuncture proved temporarily less effective.

In terms of safety, both treatments showed minor adverse events. In the acupuncture group, 50% of patients had ecchymoses at the application sites, in addition to isolated cases of headache and abdominal distension. In the anesthetic group, 37% developed ecchymoses, with some cases of headache, numbness, and dizziness. All events were considered mild and resolved spontaneously.

From a mechanistic standpoint, ashi acupuncture acts through stimulation of specific trigger points, promoting pain modulation by peripheral and central mechanisms, including the release of vasoactive substances and growth factors. Local anesthetic, in turn, interrupts nerve conduction by blocking sodium channels. The clinical implications are significant, as the study provides evidence that acupuncture may be a valid alternative to anesthetic injections for women with AMPS, especially considering that acupuncture does not involve medications and may have lower long-term neurotoxicity risks. This is particularly relevant for patients who prefer non-pharmacological approaches or who have contraindications to local anesthetics.

The study also contributes to the understanding of ashi acupuncture as a specific technique for treating trigger points, distinguishing it from other acupuncture modalities by directly focusing on sites of myofascial pain.

Strengths

  • 1Well-structured randomized controlled design
  • 2Use of validated instruments for pain assessment
  • 3Extended 6-month follow-up
  • 4Qualified professionals applying the techniques
⚠️

Limitations

  • 1Lack of patient and therapist blinding
  • 2No placebo group due to ethical issues
  • 3Different number of sessions between groups
  • 4Exclusion of patients with comorbidities limited applicability
Dr. Marcus Yu Bin Pai

Expert Commentary

Dr. Marcus Yu Bin Pai

MD, PhD · Pain Medicine · Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation · Medical Acupuncture

Clinical Relevance

Abdominal myofascial pain syndrome remains chronically underdiagnosed in chronic pelvic pain clinics, where a significant portion of patients accumulate years of gynecologic investigation without a clear etiologic diagnosis. This trial reinforces that ashi acupuncture — essentially direct needling of the myofascial trigger point — produces analgesic reduction comparable to 1% lidocaine infiltration, making it a concrete option for centers that already have a physician trained in acupuncture and for patients with contraindications to local anesthetics, such as documented allergy or history of systemic adverse reaction. The equivalence of outcome between the two approaches allows the attending physician to personalize the choice according to patient preference, technical availability, and individual risk profile, without sacrificing analgesic efficacy sustained throughout the six-month follow-up.

Notable Findings

The most noteworthy finding is the magnitude of the acupuncture group's response: a reduction from 6.7 to 2.9 points on the visual analog scale, crossing the clinically relevant threshold of greater than 50% reduction from baseline pain. This result, achieved without any systemic drug, challenges the perception that dry needling would be merely adjunctive. Equally relevant is the absence of statistical difference between groups on most instruments evaluated, which positions the two techniques as therapeutic equivalents rather than as a first- and second-line hierarchy. The point discrepancy on the McGill Questionnaire in the first week, favoring the anesthetic, suggests that lidocaine offers more pronounced immediate relief, while ashi acupuncture reaches a comparable analgesic plateau over a slightly longer time frame — information that guides expectations for both clinician and patient.

From My Experience

In my practice at the HC-FMUSP pain clinic, I have observed that patients with chronic pelvic pain with an abdominal myofascial component frequently arrive after a long pilgrimage among gynecologists, gastroenterologists, and coloproctologists. The diagnosis of myofascial syndrome is established when the physical examination reproduces the habitual pain on palpation of the trigger point and Carnett's sign is positive. In this profile, I usually see subjective response to ashi acupuncture between the third and fifth sessions; from the eighth onward, most have reached a functional plateau. I routinely combine postural guidance and core strengthening after the first sessions, because without addressing the underlying biomechanical overload, recurrence is early. I do not indicate acupuncture as a stand-alone technique in patients with uncontrolled coagulopathy or active abdominal wall infection. The profile that responds best, in my experience, is the woman between 30 and 50 years old, without a predominant visceral component and with a well-localized trigger point on palpation.

PhD in Health Sciences, University of São Paulo. Board-certified in Pain Medicine, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, and Medical Acupuncture.

Indexed scientific article

This study is indexed in an international scientific database. Check your institutional access to obtain the full article.

Scientific Review

Marcus Yu Bin Pai, MD, PhD

Marcus Yu Bin Pai, MD, PhD

CRM-SP: 158074 | RQE: 65523 · 65524 · 655241

PhD in Health Sciences, University of São Paulo. Board-certified in Pain Medicine, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, and Medical Acupuncture. Scientific review and curation of every entry in this library.

Learn more about the author →
⚕️

Medical disclaimer: This content is for educational purposes only and does not replace consultation, diagnosis, or treatment by a qualified professional. Some information may be assisted by artificial intelligence and is subject to inaccuracies. Always consult a physician.

Content reviewed by the medical team at CEIMEC — Integrated Centre for Chinese Medicine Studies, a reference in Medical Acupuncture for over 30 years.