Avaliação da efetividade da ventosa a seco em indivíduos com dor lombar crônica inespecífica: um estudo controlado, randomizado e duplo cego

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Non-specific chronic low back pain is one of the main musculoskeletal symptoms that leads to major disability worldwide. Several therapies are studied to reduce pain and improve function of people with chronic low back pain. The dry cupping is used to treat chronic nonspecific low back pain. Recent systematic reviews on cupping therapy for people with chronic non-specific low back pain conclude that the existing literature has a high risk of bias and that high-quality studies are needed to prove its effects. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of the dry cupping on pain, physical function, quality of life and psychological symptoms in individuals with chronic non-specific low back pain. METHODS: This is a randomized, controlled, double-blind study with allocation concealment and intention to treat analysis. Ninety patients were allocated to two groups, experimental group and sham group. Interventions: The experimental group (n = 45) received dry cupping therapy, parallel to the L1 - L5 vertebrae, bilaterally. The control group (n = 45) received the same procedure, but with sham dry cupping therapy. The interventions were applied once a week, for 8 weeks, with a time of 10 minutes each section. Participants were assessed before and after the first session, after 4 and 8 weeks of intervention. The primary outcome was pain, evaluated by using the numerical pain intensity scale. Secondary outcomes were physical function by the oswestry disability Index, functional mobility by the test time up go, range of motion of the trunk by the floor finger test, perception of the global effect by the scale perception of the global effect, quality of life by the SF-36 and psychological symptoms by the scale hospital anxiety and depression. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between groups for pain intensity at any time. There was a significant difference in favor of the sham group for the perception of the global effect in four weeks [mean difference (DM) 1.2 points, confidence interval (CI) 95% 0.4 to 2.0; p = 0.001)] and eight weeks (DM 1.5 points, 95% CI 0.6 to 2.4; p <0.001) of treatment compared to the first intervention. There were no statistically significant differences for the other secondary outcomes. CONCLUSION: Treatment with dry cupping was not superior to the sham dry cupping for reducing pain or improving physical function, quality of life and psychological symptoms in people with chronic low back pain.