Post-needling soreness after myofascial trigger point dry needling: Current status and future research

Martín-Pintado-Zugasti et al. · Journal of Bodywork & Movement Therapies · 2018

📚Narrative Review🔍Literature Analysis⚠️Adverse Events

Evidence Level

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

OBJECTIVE

To examine current knowledge about post-needling soreness in the treatment of myofascial trigger points

👥

WHO

Patients with myofascial trigger points across various painful conditions

⏱️

DURATION

Literature review through 2017

📍

POINTS

Multiple muscles including upper trapezius, infraspinatus, and quadratus lumborum

🔬 Study Design

0participants
randomization

Literature Review

n=0

Analysis of studies on post-needling soreness

⏱️ Duration: Historical analysis

📊 Results in numbers

50-100%

Frequency of post-needling soreness

<72h

Typical duration

3.5-5.6/10

Maximum intensity

0%

Treatment dropout

Percentage highlights

50-100%
Frequency of post-needling soreness
51%
Treatment dropout

📊 Outcome Comparison

Post-needling pain intensity

Filiform needles
4
Beveled needles
8.3
💬 What does this mean for you?

This review shows that it is normal to feel some muscle soreness after dry needling, usually lasting less than 72 hours. Most patients tolerate this temporary discomfort well, especially when treatment relieves the original pain.

📝

Article summary

Plain-language narrative summary

This review examines post-needling soreness, a common complication of treating myofascial trigger points with dry needling. The authors analyzed the current state of knowledge about this condition and proposed directions for future research in the field. Myofascial trigger points are hypersensitive nodules in taut bands of skeletal muscle, present in various painful conditions such as tension-type headache, migraine, temporomandibular disorders, shoulder pain, and lateral epicondylalgia. Dry needling has been recommended as effective treatment for relieving trigger point–related pain.

Post-needling soreness is considered a consequence of neuromuscular damage and the hemorrhagic and inflammatory reaction generated by the needle. This pain is described as a constant pressure or dull ache, easily distinguishable from the sharp, restrictive pain experienced before treatment. Analysis of the literature showed that post-needling soreness is very common after deep dry needling, ranging from 50% to 100% of cases, and usually lasting less than 72 hours. Mean maximum intensity was reported between 3.5 and 5.6 points on a 0–10 scale.

Factors such as the number of needle insertions, perceived pain during the procedure, psychosocial factors, and sex influence the perception of post-needling soreness. Precise trigger point localization and adequate hemostasis can minimize this complication. The authors emphasize that the clinical relevance of post-needling soreness remains uncertain. Although most patients do not consider this pain particularly distressing compared with the original myofascial pain, patients with elevated levels of post-needling soreness, who do not perceive treatment efficacy at the first session, or who do not have high myofascial pain intensity before treatment may be more likely to consider post-needling soreness distressing and functionally limiting and may drop out of treatment.

Research shows that 51% of patients who received lidocaine injections at trigger points were reluctant to undergo subsequent procedures because of post-injection pain. Several adjuvant therapies have been investigated to reduce post-needling soreness, including percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, low-load exercise, ultrasound, spray and stretch, and ischemic compression, showing promising results. The authors emphasize that post-needling soreness should be considered when evaluating the efficacy of dry needling, since it can mask the original myofascial pain and influence patients' pain assessments, especially in evaluations of immediate or short-term effects. They recommend that post-needling soreness be assessed separately from the original trigger point pain in future studies.

Limitations include the small number of published studies and important differences in study design, making definitive conclusions about frequency, intensity, or mean duration of post-needling soreness impossible. This work provides an important foundation for the development of safer and more effective clinical protocols.

Strengths

  • 1Comprehensive review of the available literature
  • 2Critical analysis of factors associated with post-needling soreness
  • 3Clear proposals for future research
  • 4Practical clinical relevance
⚠️

Limitations

  • 1Few studies available for analysis
  • 2Heterogeneity in the methods of the reviewed studies
  • 3Lack of definitive data on prevalence
  • 4Need for more research on clinical relevance
Dr. Marcus Yu Bin Pai

Expert Commentary

Dr. Marcus Yu Bin Pai

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

Clinical Relevance

Post-needling soreness is a phenomenon that every physician performing dry needling of trigger points needs to understand thoroughly, not only for adequate informed consent, but also to optimize treatment adherence. This review organizes what is known about the frequency, duration, and modulating factors of this response, translating directly into clinical planning. With incidence reaching up to 100% of cases and mean intensity between 3.5 and 5.6 out of 10, we are dealing with a clinically relevant adverse effect, especially in patients with low- to moderate-intensity baseline neck or low back pain—precisely those who may perceive post-needling soreness as disproportionate to the perceived benefit at the first session. The finding that 51% of patients who received trigger point injections were reluctant to return for subsequent treatment places this issue at the center of clinical reasoning: the efficacy of the technique only materializes if the patient completes the therapeutic cycle.

Notable Findings

Two findings in this review deserve special attention. First, the characterization of the risk profile for clinically distressing post-needling soreness: patients with low myofascial pain intensity before treatment, no perception of immediate efficacy at the first session, and high post-needling scores form a subgroup more likely to discontinue—this risk map has direct practical value in screening. Second, evidence that adjuvant therapies such as percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, low-load exercise, and ischemic compression show promising results in reducing this pain. Mechanistically, the review anchors post-needling soreness to local neuromuscular damage and the inflammatory and hemorrhagic cascade generated by the needle, which rationally justifies the mechanical and electrotherapeutic modulation interventions applied immediately after the procedure.

From My Experience

In my practice in the musculoskeletal pain clinic, the conversation about post-needling soreness happens before the first session, not after. I have observed that patients with chronic high-intensity baseline pain tolerate post-needling discomfort very well—they often report that post-needling soreness is qualitatively different and less limiting than the original myofascial pain. The group that has greater difficulty are patients with low-intensity pain or in the subacute phase, in whom the functional impact of post-needling soreness may seem unjustified. In these cases, I typically use immediate ischemic compression combined with guidance on active low-load movement on the same day, which empirically reduces the intensity and duration of discomfort. I typically assess the clinical response to needling only from the second or third session, precisely so as not to confuse post-needling soreness with lack of efficacy—an error that, as this work documents, leads to early discontinuation and compromises outcomes.

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

Full original article

Read the full scientific study

Journal of Bodywork & Movement Therapies · 2018

DOI: 10.1016/j.jbmt.2018.01.003

Access original 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.