Trigger Points and Classical Acupuncture Points Part 2: Clinical Correspondences in Treating Pain and Somatovisceral Disorders

Pain is one of the most common complaints that lead people to seek medical treatment, and both Western medicine and Eastern traditions have developed distinct approaches to dealing with this problem. In recent years, researchers have investigated possible connections between two of these approaches: trigger point therapy from Western medicine and acupuncture points from traditional Chinese medicine. Although these two traditions developed independently and with different theoretical foundations, recent studies suggest that they may be describing the same physiological phenomena of the human body.

This study, conducted by researchers at the Mayo Clinic in the United States, represents the second part of a comprehensive investigation into the similarities between trigger points and acupuncture points. While the first part demonstrated that there is a notable anatomical correspondence between the location of these points, this second stage aimed to verify whether this similarity also extends to clinical indications, that is, whether both systems would recommend similar treatments for the same types of health problems.

The researchers meticulously analyzed the clinical indications of 238 classical acupuncture points that had been identified as anatomically corresponding to common trigger points described in the Trigger Point Manual, one of the world's leading references on trigger point therapy. To do so, they consulted three important acupuncture manuals, comparing the therapeutic indications described in each tradition. The study focused specifically on two categories of indications: the treatment of painful conditions and somatovisceral effects, which are influences that muscle points can exert on internal organs.

The methodology involved a systematic analysis of the clinical indications described for each point, verifying whether the acupuncture points that anatomically correspond to trigger points also share similar therapeutic indications. The researchers did not require pain to be the main indication of an acupuncture point, as long as there was at least one indication for treatment of painful conditions described in the references consulted.

The results obtained were surprisingly consistent and revealed remarkable clinical correspondences between the two traditions. Of the total of 238 trigger points that had anatomical correspondence with acupuncture points, 221 (93%) had indications for pain treatment described in the Trigger Point Manual. Of these corresponding points, 208 (94%) of the acupuncture points also had similar indications for pain in the same region. Additionally, another 6 acupuncture points (3%) had indications for painful conditions in the referred pain areas of the corresponding trigger points.

This means that up to 97% of the point pairs demonstrated correspondence in pain treatment indications.

As for somatovisceral effects, the study identified that 60 trigger points (24% of the total) have described effects on internal organs. Of these, 49 (82%) of the corresponding acupuncture points presented definitively comparable indications, while another 7 (11%) showed probable correspondences. Therefore, more than 93% of the pairs demonstrated similarity in the effects on internal organs.

For patients and healthcare professionals, these findings have significant implications. First, they suggest that patients can benefit from both acupuncture and trigger point therapy for similar conditions, since both approaches appear to act on the same anatomical and physiological points. This offers more therapeutic options and can guide treatment choice based on the professional's experience, patient preferences, or resource availability. For professionals already working with one of these modalities, the results suggest that knowledge acquired in one approach can complement and enrich the practice of the other.

The study also indicates that the two traditions may have independently discovered the same physiological phenomena of the human body related to pain control and influence on internal organs. This strengthens the scientific credibility of both approaches and suggests that future research may benefit from the integration of knowledge from both traditions.

Although the results are impressive, the study presents some important limitations. The analysis was based on textual descriptions from manuals and references, which can introduce subjectivity in the interpretation of clinical correspondences. In addition, the study did not include direct clinical evaluation of therapeutic effects, focusing only on traditionally described indications. The research was also limited to trigger points considered "common" and to classical acupuncture points, not covering variations or extra points used in contemporary clinical practice.

The researchers conclude that the striking correspondence in both pain indications and somatovisceral effects provides a second line of clinical evidence, complementing the anatomical evidence from the first part of the study, that trigger points and acupuncture points likely describe the same physiological phenomena. This convergence of anatomical and clinical evidence suggests that both traditions may be accessing and influencing the same neurological and physiological systems of the human body, offering promising paths for future research and the development of more effective integrative treatments for pain management.