Connective Tissue Dry Needling for Low Back Pain Related to Local Posterior Superior Iliac Spine Pain
Investigating the Effectiveness of Connective Tissue Dry Needling Technique on Patients With Low Back Pain Caused by Local Pain at Superior Posterior Iliac Spine: a Single-blind, Randomized Controlled Trial
1 other identifier
interventional
42
0 countries
N/A
Brief Summary
This single-blind randomized controlled trial will aim to determine the effectiveness of a connective tissue dry needling (CTDN) technique, in reducing pain and improving function in individuals with chronic mechanical low back pain associated with pain and tenderness at the posterior superior iliac spine (PSIS). Forty participants with local PSIS-related low back pain will be recruited and randomly assigned into two groups using the block balanced randomization method. The treatment group will receive CTDN targeting connective tissue trigger points around the PSIS in addition to a sacroiliac joint stabilization exercise program, while the control group will perform the same exercise program alone under the supervision of a physiotherapist. The intervention protocol will span two weeks, during which participants will attend three treatment sessions per week, for a total of six sessions. The primary outcome measurement will use the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) to assess pain intensity. The study will measure secondary outcomes through lumbar range of motion (ROM) in flexion and extension and pressure pain threshold (PPT), and Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) functional disability and Short Form-36 (SF-36) health-related quality of life. The researchers will assess all outcomes at three time points: baseline and after the first session, and the sixth session, while VAS will receive an additional assessment at the 3-month follow-up. The findings of this study are expected to provide evidence supporting CTDN as a safe, effective, and cost-efficient treatment option for PSIS-related mechanical low back pain.
Trial Health
Trial Health Score
Automated assessment based on enrollment pace, timeline, and geographic reach
participants targeted
Target at P25-P50 for not_applicable
Started Apr 2026
Shorter than P25 for not_applicable
Health score is calculated from publicly available data and should be used for screening purposes only.
Trial Relationships
Click on a node to explore related trials.
Study Timeline
Key milestones and dates
First Submitted
Initial submission to the registry
January 7, 2026
CompletedFirst Posted
Study publicly available on registry
January 16, 2026
CompletedStudy Start
First participant enrolled
April 10, 2026
CompletedPrimary Completion
Last participant's last visit for primary outcome
May 14, 2026
ExpectedStudy Completion
Last participant's last visit for all outcomes
September 1, 2026
January 21, 2026
January 1, 2026
1 month
January 7, 2026
January 18, 2026
Conditions
Keywords
Outcome Measures
Primary Outcomes (4)
Visual Analog Scale
It is a commonly used tool for measuring pain. The patient is asked to mark their pain level on a 100-mm line, and the marked distance is then measured with a ruler from the left end and recorded. The scale typically ranges from zero, indicating no pain, to the highest value, representing the most severe pain.
Baseline
Visual Analog Scale
It is a commonly used tool for measuring pain. The patient is asked to mark their pain level on a 100-mm line, and the marked distance is then measured with a ruler from the left end and recorded. The scale typically ranges from zero, indicating no pain, to the highest value, representing the most severe pain.
30 minutes
Visual Analog Scale
It is a commonly used tool for measuring pain. The patient is asked to mark their pain level on a 100-mm line, and the marked distance is then measured with a ruler from the left end and recorded. The scale typically ranges from zero, indicating no pain, to the highest value, representing the most severe pain.
2 weeks
Visual Analog Scale
It is a commonly used tool for measuring pain. The patient is asked to mark their pain level on a 100-mm line, and the marked distance is then measured with a ruler from the left end and recorded. The scale typically ranges from zero, indicating no pain, to the highest value, representing the most severe pain.
3-month follow-up
Secondary Outcomes (15)
Lumbar flexion range of motion
Baseline
Lumbar flexion range of motion
30 minutes
Lumbar flexion range of motion
2 weeks
Lumbar extension range of motion
Baseline
Lumbar extension range of motion
30 minutes
- +10 more secondary outcomes
Study Arms (2)
Exercise therapy
ACTIVE COMPARATORParticipants in this group will receive only the standardized exercise program over two weeks.
CTDN (Mahshid technique) plus Exercise therapy
EXPERIMENTALParticipants in this group will receive CTDN targeting the PSIS region together with the standardized exercise program over two weeks.
Interventions
Connective tissue dry needling: Eight sterile single-use needles placed 1.5 cm from the PSIS center, inserted at about 45° to bony contact, withdrawn 0.5 cm, rotated five times to maximal tissue stiffness, then retained for 20 minutes with concurrent infrared therapy. Three sessions per week for two weeks, total six sessions. Needle size 50 mm × 0.5 mm.
Pelvic bridging, leg-lowering, curl-up or bridging, and isolated lumbar stabilizer training. Three sets of ten repetitions for each exercise, three sessions per week for two weeks.
Eligibility Criteria
You may qualify if:
- Adults aged 18 to 75 years.
- Diagnosed with chronic mechanical low back pain localized at the posterior superior iliac spine region.
- Presence of point tenderness reproducible by palpation at the posterior superior iliac spine area.
- Pain duration of at least two weeks, indicating the non-acute stage of low back pain.
- Negative results in at least three out of five sacroiliac pain provocation tests (Distraction, Compression, Thigh Thrust, Sacral Thrust, Gaenslen).
- Pain intensity ≥ 3 on the Numeric Rating Scale at baseline.
- Ability to communicate and cooperate with the research team during intervention and follow-up.
- Access to WhatsApp or equivalent communication application for follow-up pain reporting at the 3-month stage.
- Presence of lumbar radicular pain or referred pain to the lower limbs.
- History of lumbar spine trauma within the previous three months.
- Fear or intolerance of needling procedures.
- Current use of anticoagulant medication.
- Known lymphatic disorders, immunosuppressive diseases, or neurological conditions such as epilepsy or seizure disorders.
- Pregnancy or suspected pregnancy.
You may not qualify if:
- Voluntary withdrawal of consent at any time during the study.
- Inability to tolerate the intervention or adverse reaction during treatment sessions.
- Occurrence of serious adverse events or complications (e.g., infection, bleeding).
- Non-compliance with treatment protocol or missing more than two sessions.
- Any intercurrent illness or therapy that could interfere with the study outcomes or safety assessment
Contact the study team to confirm eligibility.
Sponsors & Collaborators
Related Publications (15)
Langevin HM, Churchill DL, Fox JR, Badger GJ, Garra BS, Krag MH. Biomechanical response to acupuncture needling in humans. J Appl Physiol (1985). 2001 Dec;91(6):2471-8. doi: 10.1152/jappl.2001.91.6.2471.
PMID: 11717207RESULTHartvigsen J, Hancock MJ, Kongsted A, Louw Q, Ferreira ML, Genevay S, Hoy D, Karppinen J, Pransky G, Sieper J, Smeets RJ, Underwood M; Lancet Low Back Pain Series Working Group. What low back pain is and why we need to pay attention. Lancet. 2018 Jun 9;391(10137):2356-2367. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30480-X. Epub 2018 Mar 21.
PMID: 29573870RESULTVlaeyen JWS, Maher CG, Wiech K, Van Zundert J, Meloto CB, Diatchenko L, Battie MC, Goossens M, Koes B, Linton SJ. Low back pain. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2018 Dec 13;4(1):52. doi: 10.1038/s41572-018-0052-1.
PMID: 30546064RESULTMaher C, Underwood M, Buchbinder R. Non-specific low back pain. Lancet. 2017 Feb 18;389(10070):736-747. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30970-9. Epub 2016 Oct 11.
PMID: 27745712RESULTManchikanti L, Singh V, Pampati V, Damron KS, Beyer CD, Barnhill RC. Is there correlation of facet joint pain in lumbar and cervical spine? An evaluation of prevalence in combined chronic low back and neck pain. Pain Physician. 2002 Oct;5(4):365-71.
PMID: 16886014RESULTYang H, Liu H, Li Z, Zhang K, Wang J, Wang H, Zheng Z. Low back pain associated with lumbar disc herniation: role of moderately degenerative disc and annulus fibrous tears. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2015 Feb 15;8(2):1634-44. eCollection 2015.
PMID: 25932092RESULTVaccaro AR, Ring D, Scuderi G, Cohen DS, Garfin SR. Predictors of outcome in patients with chronic back pain and low-grade spondylolisthesis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1997 Sep 1;22(17):2030-4; discussion 2035. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199709010-00018.
PMID: 9306535RESULTWerner CM, Hoch A, Gautier L, Konig MA, Simmen HP, Osterhoff G. Distraction test of the posterior superior iliac spine (PSIS) in the diagnosis of sacroiliac joint arthropathy. BMC Surg. 2013 Oct 31;13:52. doi: 10.1186/1471-2482-13-52.
PMID: 24175954RESULTCohen SP. Sacroiliac joint pain: a comprehensive review of anatomy, diagnosis, and treatment. Anesth Analg. 2005 Nov;101(5):1440-1453. doi: 10.1213/01.ANE.0000180831.60169.EA.
PMID: 16244008RESULTKiapour A, Joukar A, Elgafy H, Erbulut DU, Agarwal AK, Goel VK. Biomechanics of the Sacroiliac Joint: Anatomy, Function, Biomechanics, Sexual Dimorphism, and Causes of Pain. Int J Spine Surg. 2020 Feb 10;14(Suppl 1):3-13. doi: 10.14444/6077. eCollection 2020 Feb.
PMID: 32123652RESULTBarker PJ, Hapuarachchi KS, Ross JA, Sambaiew E, Ranger TA, Briggs CA. Anatomy and biomechanics of gluteus maximus and the thoracolumbar fascia at the sacroiliac joint. Clin Anat. 2014 Mar;27(2):234-40. doi: 10.1002/ca.22233. Epub 2013 Aug 20.
PMID: 23959791RESULTMurakami E, Kurosawa D, Aizawa T. Treatment strategy for sacroiliac joint-related pain at or around the posterior superior iliac spine. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2018 Feb;165:43-46. doi: 10.1016/j.clineuro.2017.12.017. Epub 2017 Dec 21.
PMID: 29306764RESULTLangevin HM, Churchill DL, Wu J, Badger GJ, Yandow JA, Fox JR, Krag MH. Evidence of connective tissue involvement in acupuncture. FASEB J. 2002 Jun;16(8):872-4. doi: 10.1096/fj.01-0925fje. Epub 2002 Apr 10.
PMID: 11967233RESULTLangevin HM, Bouffard NA, Badger GJ, Churchill DL, Howe AK. Subcutaneous tissue fibroblast cytoskeletal remodeling induced by acupuncture: evidence for a mechanotransduction-based mechanism. J Cell Physiol. 2006 Jun;207(3):767-74. doi: 10.1002/jcp.20623.
PMID: 16511830RESULTLangevin HM, Yandow JA. Relationship of acupuncture points and meridians to connective tissue planes. Anat Rec. 2002 Dec 15;269(6):257-65. doi: 10.1002/ar.10185.
PMID: 12467083RESULT
MeSH Terms
Conditions
Interventions
Condition Hierarchy (Ancestors)
Intervention Hierarchy (Ancestors)
Central Study Contacts
Study Design
- Study Type
- interventional
- Phase
- not applicable
- Allocation
- RANDOMIZED
- Masking
- SINGLE
- Who Masked
- OUTCOMES ASSESSOR
- Purpose
- TREATMENT
- Intervention Model
- PARALLEL
- Sponsor Type
- OTHER
- Responsible Party
- PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
- PI Title
- Principal Investigator
Study Record Dates
First Submitted
January 7, 2026
First Posted
January 16, 2026
Study Start
April 10, 2026
Primary Completion (Estimated)
May 14, 2026
Study Completion (Estimated)
September 1, 2026
Last Updated
January 21, 2026
Record last verified: 2026-01