Dry Needling Research
Introduction
Dry needling (DN) is a therapeutic technique in which thin, filiform needles are inserted into muscle tissue—typically targeting myofascial trigger points—to alleviate pain and improve function. It has gained significant popularity in the last two decades among physical therapists and other clinicians for managing musculoskeletal pain conditions. Unlike acupuncture, which is rooted in traditional Chinese medicine and involves inserting needles at specific meridian points for broad health effects, dry needling is grounded in Western medicine principles and focuses on relieving pain and dysfunction in musculoskeletal trigger points. The treatment is considered minimally invasive, relatively easy to learn with proper training, and generally low risk. During a typical dry needling session, a practitioner palpates the muscle to locate taut bands or knots (trigger points) and inserts a sterile needle directly into these tight spots. The goal is often to provoke a localized twitch response in the muscle, which is believed to reset the muscle to a more relaxed state. As one case description notes, dry needling uses “thin filiform needles to stimulate the underlying structures” of the muscle, aiming to “elicit a change within the tissues”.
Dry needling is used either as a stand-alone intervention or as part of a comprehensive therapy program. It can be combined with other treatments like exercise, stretching, or manual therapy to enhance overall outcomes. A key distinction from acupuncture is that dry needling does not involve injecting any substance (hence “dry”) and is directed at musculoskeletal trigger points identified by pain and tightness, rather than traditional acupoints. Despite these differences, the procedures appear similar (both use filament needles), which sometimes causes confusion. In summary, dry needling is a modern pain-relief technique that targets muscular trigger points to relieve pain and restore function, and its use has expanded worldwide due to its ease of application and reported benefits in a variety of pain conditions. In the sections below, we will delve into how dry needling works, what types of pain it can treat (with evidence from clinical studies), how it compares to acupuncture, its safety profile, and what research says about its overall effectiveness.
Mechanisms of Dry Needling for Pain Relief
Dry needling’s pain-relieving effects are thought to arise from both local (peripheral) and central mechanisms. When a needle is inserted into a trigger point, it can cause a mechanical disruption of tight muscle fibers and a reflexive ‘twitch’ in the muscle. Locally, this is believed to relieve the taut band of contracted muscle and improve blood flow to the area, which helps wash out pain-inducing chemicals and reduces muscular tension. By needling a trigger point, practitioners aim to “diminish spontaneous electrical activity” at dysfunctional motor endplates and restore normal muscle function. In simple terms, inserting the needle resets the muscle from a tightened, irritable state toward a more relaxed state, interrupting the cycle of pain and spasm. Dry needling proponents also distinguish between two technique depths: superficial dry needling (inserting only a few millimeters into the subcutaneous tissue) versus deep dry needling (advancing into the muscle trigger point itself). Superficial needling is thought to primarily stimulate sensory nerve endings in the skin, while deep dry needling directly targets the dysfunctional motor end units within the muscle. Some evidence suggests that deep needle insertion (which often elicits the local twitch response) provides greater pain relief than superficial needling, likely due to a more direct impact on the taut muscle fibers and better restoration of muscle function.
Beyond these local effects, dry needling triggers a cascade of neurophysiological responses that contribute to pain relief. The insertion of a needle activates sensory afferents that can modulate pain signaling at the spinal cord level (often explained by the “gate control” theory of pain). It also stimulates the release of endogenous pain-relieving substances. For example, research indicates that dry needling may induce the central release of neurotransmitters and hormones associated with analgesia. One review notes that dry needling might be mediated through oxytocinergic mechanisms – meaning needling can prompt the central nervous system to release oxytocin, a hormone that has pain-modulating and relaxation effects. Additionally, studies on trigger point physiology show that an active trigger point is associated with excessive acetylcholine and sustained muscle fiber contraction; by inserting a needle and achieving a local twitch, dry needling may normalize chemical imbalances (reducing acetylcholine release) and break the contraction cycle, thus alleviating pain.
Importantly, dry needling can have widespread effects beyond the immediate needle site. While it is a targeted intervention, patients often report generalized pain relief and improved function in remote body regions not directly needled. This suggests involvement of central pain modulation pathways – essentially, needling a trigger point may decrease overall sensitivity in the central nervous system (reducing phenomena like central sensitization). Indeed, in chronic pain conditions, dry needling has been noted to produce neurophysiological changes that outlast the local tissue effects, such as downregulating central sensitization (the heightened responsiveness of the central nervous system in chronic pain).
To summarize, the mechanisms of dry needling for pain relief include:
Local muscular effects: disrupting taut bands and trigger points, increasing localized blood flow, and normalizing muscle endplate activity to relieve the contracture and pain. Patients often experience an immediate reduction in tightness and pain pressure sensitivity at the needled spot.
Segmental and spinal effects: activating sensory nerves that inhibit pain transmission in the spinal cord (akin to a pain “gate” being closed) and resetting nerve signaling from the muscle. This leads to an increase in pain threshold both at the treated point and in referred pain areas.
Central nervous system effects: prompting the release of endogenous opioids and hormones (like oxytocin and endorphins) that produce systemic analgesia and relaxation. Over time, repeated dry needling may reduce central sensitization in chronic pain patients, thereby decreasing overall pain intensity and improving pain tolerance.
Peripheral neuropeptide and chemical changes: Needling causes a small, controlled tissue injury that triggers the body’s healing response, including the release of anti-inflammatory and growth factors that can aid in pain reduction and tissue recovery.
Through these combined mechanisms, dry needling can achieve both immediate short-term pain relief and contribute to longer-term modulation of pain if used in a treatment program. It is worth noting that while these mechanisms are supported by scientific hypotheses and some experimental data, the exact ways in which dry needling works are still being studied. The therapeutic effects of dry needling “can only be understood against a pain management background,” as one in-depth review pointed out, meaning that it likely taps into fundamental pain modulation systems of the body.
Types of Pain Treated with Dry Needling
Dry needling is employed across a wide spectrum of pain conditions. Below we explore several major categories of pain and summarize the evidence on dry needling’s efficacy in each. We will cover chronic musculoskeletal pain (including common regional pain syndromes like low back and neck pain, as well as myofascial pain syndrome and fibromyalgia), neuropathic pain conditions, pain from sports injuries, and post-surgical pain. The findings are drawn from systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and clinical trials, providing a comprehensive view of where dry needling is most effective and where evidence is still limited.
Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain and Myofascial Pain Syndrome
Chronic musculoskeletal (MSK) pain – pain arising from muscles, fascia, joints, and related soft tissues – is one of the primary domains where dry needling is applied. Many patients with chronic neck pain, back pain, shoulder pain, or general myofascial pain syndrome have myofascial trigger points contributing to their symptoms. Dry needling directly addresses these trigger points. Overall, the research indicates that dry needling can provide meaningful short-term relief for many musculoskeletal pain conditions, especially those involving trigger points, although long-term benefits are less certain.
An umbrella review (2023) that pooled findings from 36 systematic reviews spanning multiple body regions concluded that dry needling yields a significant short-term analgesic effect across all body areas examined. In that review, dry needling was found to be superior to no treatment or sham needling for short-term pain relief in musculoskeletal disorders and about equally effective as other active interventions (like exercise or manual therapy) in reducing pain in the short term. For example, if someone has chronic muscle-related pain, adding dry needling will likely reduce pain more than doing nothing or a placebo, and it performs on par with many standard physical therapy treatments for short-term pain reduction. However, the umbrella review noted that data on mid-term and long-term outcomes are limited, and results for functional improvements were inconsistent. Still, the authors remarked that “DN has a short-term analgesic effect in all body regions” and can be a valuable addition to current clinical practice interventions. They also highlighted that combining dry needling with conventional physiotherapy often produced better outcomes than physiotherapy alone, indicating a potential additive effect.
Similarly, an earlier systematic review and meta-analysis (Gattie et al., 2017) focusing on trigger point dry needling by physical therapists found very-low to moderate quality evidence that dry needling is more effective than no treatment or sham treatment for reducing pain in patients with musculoskeletal pain, at least in the short to medium term. In that analysis, across 13 RCTs, dry needling significantly decreased pain intensity and increased pressure pain thresholds (the tolerance to pressure on a tender spot) compared to control conditions in the immediate aftermath and up to 12 weeks post-treatment. However, when dry needling was compared to other active treatments (like exercise or standard physical therapy techniques), there was no significant difference in outcomes—in other words, dry needling was about as effective as other common therapies for short-term pain relief, but not clearly superior. By 6 to 12 months after treatment, the initial pain reduction advantage of dry needling had diminished and was no longer statistically significant, suggesting that long-term pain control may require continued therapy or other interventions. This review also found no difference in functional outcomes (such as disability or range of motion measures) when comparing dry needling to other treatments, although dry needling did improve function versus no treatment or sham. The lack of observed long-term benefit in that analysis highlights an important point: dry needling often produces quick improvements in pain and trigger-point sensitivity, but maintaining those gains may depend on addressing underlying causes (posture, muscle imbalances, etc.) and integrating other therapies.
Myofascial pain syndrome, characterized by multiple trigger points and referred pain patterns, is a classic indication for dry needling. A number of RCTs and reviews have affirmed that dry needling can effectively deactivate trigger points and reduce myofascial pain. In fact, one systematic review of dry needling for myofascial trigger point pain in various regions found that patients reported significant pain relief in the short term after dry needling treatments, though the magnitude of benefit varied and the evidence quality was moderate at best. The consensus is that dry needling is an effective procedure for treating myofascial trigger point pain, yielding reductions in pain intensity and sometimes improvements in associated disability in the short run. For instance, in non-traumatic shoulder pain of myofascial origin (like rotator cuff related trigger points causing shoulder ache), dry needling has shown small but positive effects on pain and larger effects on shoulder function/disability in the short term. In that specific 2021 meta-analysis on shoulder pain, moderate-quality evidence showed a small reduction in pain (about a 0.5-point drop on a 0–10 pain scale versus controls) and low-quality evidence suggested a large improvement in shoulder disability scores (nearly 10 points better on a 0–100 scale) after dry needling, compared to no or minimal intervention. These effects were mostly observed at short-term follow-ups (e.g., immediately to a few weeks after treatment), with data lacking for long-term outcomes in shoulder pain.
In summary, for chronic musculoskeletal pains and myofascial pain syndrome: dry needling often provides short-term relief and can be a useful adjunct therapy. Patients may experience less pain and tenderness for several weeks following a course of dry needling. However, dry needling should typically be part of a multi-modal approach including exercise and other therapies for sustained improvements. There is currently no strong evidence that dry needling alone “cures” chronic pain long-term, but it can jump-start pain reduction and facilitate better participation in rehabilitation. Next, we will look more closely at evidence for specific common pain conditions.
Low Back Pain
Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is one of the most prevalent pain conditions worldwide. A significant portion of CLBP has a myofascial component – for example, tight lumbar or gluteal trigger points that refer pain to the back or legs. Dry needling has been studied as both a standalone treatment and in conjunction with other therapies for low back pain, with multiple systematic reviews examining its efficacy.
The evidence suggests that dry needling can modestly reduce low back pain intensity, especially in the short term, and particularly when combined with other treatments. A 2023 meta-analysis of RCTs in chronic low back pain found that dry needling (usually applied to lumbar or hip region trigger points) significantly improved pain outcomes when measured at immediate post-treatment and short-term follow-ups (a few weeks). Specifically, dry needling as an adjunct to conventional therapy was more effective in alleviating low back pain intensity than the conventional therapy alone at post-intervention (with a moderate effect size) and at short-term follow-up (with a larger effect size). This led the authors to conclude that “current evidence showed that dry needling, especially if associated with other therapies, could be recommended to relieve the pain intensity of [low back pain] at post-intervention and at short-term follow up”. However, the same review noted no significant improvement in functional disability (such as daily function or range of motion measures) from dry needling, whether alone or combined, in that short-term window. In other words, patients felt less pain, but their measured back-specific disability scores did not differ much from those receiving other treatments in the short term.
Another systematic review (Hu et al., 2018) specifically compared dry needling to acupuncture and other interventions for low back pain. This review included 16 RCTs but noted that many had a high risk of bias. The meta-analysis results were interesting for a dry needling vs. acupuncture comparison: at the immediate post-treatment time point, dry needling was more effective than traditional acupuncture in reducing low back pain intensity and improving functional disability. Patients who received dry needling reported greater pain relief right after treatment than those who received acupuncture. However, at follow-up evaluations (which in these studies ranged from a few weeks to a few months later), dry needling’s efficacy on pain and disability was about equal to acupuncture’s. This suggests that while dry needling might give a quicker short-lived decrease in pain compared to acupuncture, over time both interventions even out in their benefits. The same analysis also found dry needling to be superior to sham needling (placebo) for relieving pain both immediately and at follow-up, confirming that the needle insertion into trigger points has specific effects beyond placebo. When compared to other treatments (like laser therapy, standard physiotherapy, etc.), the results were mixed and it was uncertain if dry needling was superior or just similar to those modalities. The reviewers cautioned that due to generally high/unclear bias in available trials, the evidence wasn’t robust and more rigorous studies are needed.
In practical terms, if you suffer from chronic low back pain, dry needling might be worth trying as part of a comprehensive treatment plan. It can particularly help with reducing pain in the short run, which might allow you to exercise more comfortably or move better during physical therapy. The pain relief from a single session or short course of dry needling can last several days to a few weeks (for instance, in a trial on post-surgery patients discussed later, one dry needling session under anesthesia reduced knee pain for about one month). To maintain improvements, ongoing exercise and addressing other factors (ergonomics, core strength, etc.) are important. Dry needling for low back pain is generally considered safe (with appropriate precautions), and as evidence indicates, combining it with other treatments yields the best results.
Neck Pain
Chronic neck pain, often associated with poor posture or past injuries, frequently involves tight trigger points in the cervical and upper back musculature. Physical therapists commonly use dry needling on muscles like the upper trapezius, levator scapulae, or cervical paraspinals to alleviate neck pain and improve range of motion. High-quality evidence in recent years has lent support to this practice.
A 2023 systematic review and meta-analysis focusing on chronic neck pain found very encouraging results for dry needling. Fourteen clinical trials were analyzed, and notably most were rated as having high methodological quality. The meta-analysis reported that all the included studies showed improvements in neck pain and/or disability after dry needling treatment, regardless of the specific needling technique or targeted muscles. Dry needling was more effective than various comparison treatments in reducing neck pain and disability, and this held true in both women and men (no gender differences). Interestingly, when they analyzed outcomes by age, patients over 40 years old benefited more from dry needling than younger patients, though the reasons for this age effect are not entirely clear (it could be that older patients had more room for improvement or different pain characteristics). The authors concluded that their meta-analysis “supports the use of dry needling to improve pain and functional capacity in patients with chronic neck pain at short- and mid-term intervals”. In practical terms, patients receiving dry needling for neck pain often experience decreased pain intensity and improved neck function (e.g., better motion or less disability in daily activities) over the ensuing weeks to months following treatment. No serious adverse effects were reported in these trials, aligning with the general safety profile of dry needling when performed by trained professionals.
It’s worth highlighting that neck pain might have both local myofascial and referred components (such as headaches or arm pain), and dry needling can address the myofascial trigger point aspect effectively. Some trials have combined dry needling with other therapies for neck pain (like exercise or manual stretching) and found that adding needling accelerates pain relief. For example, one RCT on chronic whiplash-associated neck pain (Sterling et al. 2009, as referenced in literature) found that dry needling combined with exercise was more effective than exercise alone in reducing pain and improving range of motion. The general consensus from systematic reviews is that dry needling is an effective treatment option for chronic neck pain, providing meaningful pain reduction and functional improvements in the short term (weeks to a couple of months). Whether these improvements last long term (e.g., beyond 6 months) is less certain, as few studies have extended follow-ups; some reviews note limited or mixed evidence for long-term benefits in neck pain once other treatments have also been applied.
In any case, for clinicians and patients dealing with stubborn neck pain, dry needling offers a useful, evidence-backed modality. It can be applied to tender trigger points in neck and shoulder girdle muscles, often yielding immediate relaxation of those tight bands and a reduction in pain pressure sensitivity. Patients might feel some immediate soreness from the needle, but within 24-48 hours often report decreased neck stiffness and pain. Repeated sessions (e.g., once a week for 3-6 weeks) tend to produce the best outcomes for chronic neck pain, as suggested by the positive trials included in the meta-analysis.
Shoulder Pain
Shoulder pain can stem from various causes, such as rotator cuff tendinopathy, bursitis, or referred pain from trigger points in the shoulder musculature. Many patients with shoulder pain have myofascial trigger points in muscles like the infraspinatus, upper trapezius, or deltoid that exacerbate their pain and restrict motion. Dry needling has been studied particularly for nontraumatic shoulder pain of musculoskeletal origin – essentially shoulder pain not due to acute fractures or tears, but associated with muscle and tendon dysfunction.
A 2021 systematic review and meta-analysis addressed trigger point dry needling for shoulder pain and found modest yet positive outcomes. There was moderate-quality evidence that dry needling reduces shoulder pain intensity slightly (on average about 0.5 points on a 0–10 scale more than control interventions). More notably, there was low-quality evidence that dry needling leads to a large improvement in shoulder-related disability (nearly 10 points better on a 0–100 disability scale compared to controls). These improvements were observed primarily in the short term after treatment. In practical terms, patients who received dry needling (often in combination with exercises) showed better ability to use their shoulder in daily tasks and reported less shoulder-related limitation than those who didn’t get needling. However, because of some heterogeneity and the small number of trials (only 6 RCTs met inclusion criteria), the confidence in these results was tempered (hence labeled moderate/low quality evidence). The positive effects on pain were short-term only – at longer-term follow-ups, pain differences tended to equalize unless ongoing treatments were given.
The conclusion of that review was that “dry needling [has] positive effects for pain intensity (small effect) and pain-related disability (large effect) in nontraumatic shoulder pain… mostly at short term”. Future trials were recommended to look at long-term outcomes. In clinical practice, these findings mean dry needling can be a helpful adjunct for shoulder pain patients, especially to quickly reduce pain and improve shoulder function so that they can better engage in rehabilitation exercises. For example, if a patient has a very painful shoulder with myofascial trigger points limiting their range, a session of dry needling might lower their pain enough to allow more effective stretching and strengthening in the following days.
It’s important to treat the underlying cause of shoulder pain as well—dry needling will not fix a torn tendon or severe arthritis, but it can relieve the muscular guarding and secondary trigger point pain that often accompany such conditions. The evidence specifically suggests benefit in conditions like rotator cuff related shoulder pain where myofascial pain is part of the picture. Notably, a cited benefit was that disability (functional use of the shoulder) improved significantly in the dry needling groups. This could be because releasing trigger points around the shoulder girdle can improve range of motion and reduce pain inhibition, making it easier for patients to move their arm without discomfort.
In summary, for shoulder pain of muscular origin, dry needling provides a small reduction in pain and a potentially large improvement in function in the short term. Patients often report their shoulder feels looser and less painful for days or weeks after needling. However, ongoing treatment (like continued exercises and maybe booster needling sessions) might be needed, as the current evidence doesn’t show a sustained long-term cure from just a short course of needling.
Headaches (Tension-Type and Cervicogenic Headaches)
Headaches, particularly tension-type headaches (TTH) and cervicogenic headaches, are often linked to myofascial trigger points in the neck and head muscles. Many people with chronic tension headaches have tight bands in muscles like the upper trapezius, suboccipitals, or temporalis that refer pain into the head. Dry needling those trigger points has been explored as a treatment to reduce headache frequency and intensity.
There is growing evidence that dry needling is effective for these kinds of headaches. A notable 2019 randomized controlled trial studied chronic tension-type headache patients, comparing dry needling of trigger points in neck/head muscles versus a sham needling (placebo) procedure. The trial was quite large (160 patients completed it) and was double-blinded. The results were impressive: in the group receiving true dry needling, headache intensity, frequency, and duration all improved significantly after 2 weeks of treatment, and these improvements were maintained at 1-month follow-up. Patients had fewer headaches, less severe pain during headaches, and shorter headache episodes compared to baseline. In contrast, the sham needling group did not experience such benefits. All effect sizes for headache outcomes in the dry needling group were large, indicating a strong treatment effect. Quality of life scores (Short Form-36) also improved in the dry needling group as headaches diminished. The authors concluded that “trigger point dry needling in patients with chronic tension-type headache is effective and safe in reducing headache intensity, frequency and duration, and increasing health-related quality of life.”.
These findings align with other studies and clinical experiences that show dry needling the neck and shoulder trigger points can alleviate headache symptoms. For cervicogenic headaches (headaches originating from neck issues), dry needling is often aimed at suboccipital muscle trigger points or upper cervical spine muscles. Reducing the myofascial tension in those areas can decrease referred pain to the head. Similarly, in migraine patients, some small studies have explored needling trigger points as an adjunct to usual care, with some reporting decreased migraine frequency or intensity. One study on migraine showed improved symptoms after applying dry needling to trigger points, suggesting it “may be prescribed for migraines” as a complementary approach, although more research is needed in migraines specifically.
Systematic reviews also support dry needling for headaches. A 2020 review concluded that “dry needling should be considered for the treatment of headache” and can be applied alone or with medications. It found that needling was associated with significant improvements in headache frequency and trigger point sensitivity in patients with tension-type or cervicogenic headaches. Another analysis noted that adding dry needling to standard physical therapy for headache led to greater reductions in headache intensity and neck disability than therapy alone or sham needling.
In practice, a patient with chronic tension headaches might receive dry needling to tight neck and shoulder muscles once a week for several weeks. They may notice that their headaches occur less often and are less painful after these treatments. For some, the improvement is dramatic (as in the cited RCT where effect sizes were large), effectively breaking a cycle of chronic headaches. For others, the change might be moderate but still worthwhile (e.g., a few fewer headache days per month). As always, it’s important to also address other contributing factors to tension headaches, such as stress, posture, and ergonomics, for lasting relief.
Fibromyalgia and Widespread Chronic Pain
Fibromyalgia (FM) is a chronic pain syndrome characterized by widespread musculoskeletal pain, fatigue, sleep disturbances, and tender points. Unlike localized myofascial pain, fibromyalgia pain is more diffuse, but many fibromyalgia patients also have myofascial trigger points contributing to their overall pain. Both dry needling and acupuncture have been explored as treatments to help fibromyalgia symptoms.
A 2022 systematic review and meta-analysis looked at the efficacy of dry needling and acupuncture in fibromyalgia patients. It included 25 studies (4 on dry needling, 21 on acupuncture). The overall finding was that both interventions appeared effective in fibromyalgia for short-term symptom relief. In general, fibromyalgia patients who underwent dry needling or acupuncture experienced improvements in pain levels, as well as secondary symptoms like anxiety, depression, fatigue, sleep quality, and quality of life. Specifically, both treatments were noted to increase pain pressure thresholds (meaning tender points became less tender on pressure testing) and to reduce the severity of other fibromyalgia-related symptoms in the short term. However, the review pointed out that none of the studies directly compared dry needling vs. acupuncture head-to-head in fibromyalgia, and long-term effects beyond the immediate term were not well studied. The authors concluded that “acupuncture and dry needling therapies seem to be effective in patients with FM, since both reduced pain pressure thresholds, anxiety, depression, fatigue, sleep disturbances and disability in the short term”, but more research is needed to compare them and to assess long-term outcomes.
In plainer terms, if you have fibromyalgia, adding a needling therapy (whether dry needling by a physical therapist or acupuncture by a trained practitioner) might help ease your pain and improve how you feel for a while. Some fibromyalgia patients report that trigger point dry needling of especially painful spots provides relief that lasts days to weeks, making their pain more manageable and improving their sleep or fatigue levels during that period. It is not a cure for fibromyalgia—symptoms tend to fluctuate and require a combination of approaches (medication, exercise, stress management, etc.)—but it can be a helpful component. For example, one study cited in the review found that a course of dry needling and myofascial release therapy reduced pain intensity and the impact of fibromyalgia on daily life, compared to baseline, indicating these therapies can provide clinically meaningful improvements. Another study mentioned that patients severely affected by fibromyalgia obtained short-term improvements after weekly dry needling for 6 weeks.
Because fibromyalgia involves central sensitization (a heightened pain sensitivity of the nervous system), the mechanism by which dry needling helps may be through breaking the pain inputs from muscle trigger points that feed into the central nervous system. By calming those inputs, the overall pain load on the body decreases, giving the CNS a “reset” of sorts. Additionally, the act of needling could trigger systemic pain-inhibiting responses (like endorphin release) beneficial to fibromyalgia patients. Clinical guidelines for fibromyalgia increasingly recognize that multidisciplinary care is key, and dry needling could fall under the physical therapy modalities recommended for symptom control.
Neuropathic Pain Conditions
Neuropathic pain refers to pain caused by nerve damage or dysfunction, such as diabetic neuropathy, post-herpetic neuralgia, or radiculopathy (nerve root pain like sciatica). Dry needling is primarily aimed at muscular trigger points, so its role in true neuropathic pain is less direct. However, some neuropathic pain conditions have a musculoskeletal component or can be modulated via the nervous system changes induced by needling.
Overall, evidence for dry needling in pure neuropathic pain conditions is limited and not yet very supportive. For instance, sciatica (which often involves nerve root compression and neuropathic pain down the leg) has been treated traditionally with acupuncture in some studies, but a 2021 scoping review found no studies using dry needling for sciatica up to that date. All identified trials for sciatica involved acupuncture, which did show effectiveness for sciatica pain relief. The review highlighted that while acupuncture is an effective treatment for sciatica, there was a gap in research on dry needling for the same condition. It remains unknown whether specifically targeting muscular trigger points (dry needling) in sciatica patients would confer similar benefits, but logically, if a sciatica patient has secondary muscle spasm or trigger points (like in the piriformis or low back) contributing to pain, dry needling those might help relieve some symptoms. Still, without direct studies, we must extrapolate cautiously from acupuncture literature and myofascial pain literature.
Another neuropathic pain example is post-herpetic neuralgia (PHN), the nerve pain that can persist in an area after a shingles infection. An exploratory randomized trial evaluated superficial dry needling (acupuncture) for PHN, using a sham needle control. This was essentially an acupuncture approach rather than deep trigger point needling, but it’s instructive. The trial found no significant difference in pain reduction between the true acupuncture (superficial needling) and sham control for PHN. Pain levels and neuropathic pain scores did not significantly improve with the needling treatment, though a minor quality of life aspect (emotional role functioning) showed improvement. The conclusion was that acupuncture (or superficial dry needling) was not superior to sham in treating post-herpetic neuralgia and thus not supported for routine use in that neuropathic pain condition. This negative result suggests that simply inserting needles in the affected area without a clear myofascial target may not effectively address neuropathic pain which is driven by damaged nerves.
That said, there are some case reports and small studies hinting that dry needling could play a role in complex cases with a mix of neuropathic and myofascial pain. For example, a case report described using dry needling plus electrical stimulation along with neurodynamic exercises in a patient with idiopathic peripheral neuropathy (a neuropathic pain condition). After a short course of four sessions, the patient’s neuropathic pain rating modestly decreased (from 4/10 to 2/10) and balance improved. While this is just a single case, it shows that in some neuropathic pain sufferers, addressing the musculoskeletal system (perhaps the needles helped release entrapment or improve blood flow to nerves) might yield functional improvements. Another example is neuropathic ankle pain following an infection, where dry needling was tried as a novel application in a case report. These instances are experimental and not definitive.
In summary, for primary neuropathic pain (pain coming directly from nerve pathology), dry needling is not a first-line treatment, and current research does not show strong efficacy. Traditional acupuncture has more evidence in this area but even that can have mixed results (as seen in PHN). If a patient’s neuropathic pain is accompanied by significant muscle pain or spasm, dry needling could help the muscular component, which indirectly might ease overall discomfort. For example, a patient with a pinched nerve in the neck causing arm pain might also develop tight neck muscles; needling those tight muscles could relieve some secondary pain. But for the nerve pain itself (the shooting, burning sensation along the nerve), therapies like medications (e.g., gabapentinoids), nerve blocks, or acupuncture might be more appropriate.
Sports Injuries and Athletic Muscle Pain
Athletes and active individuals often suffer acute or chronic muscle injuries – such as hamstring strains, calf cramps, or shoulder muscle overuse – that result in pain and tightness. Dry needling has been adopted in sports rehabilitation to expedite recovery from such injuries by releasing muscle tightness and pain. The idea is that by inactivating trigger points and improving local blood flow, dry needling can reduce pain, restore normal muscle length, and allow athletes to return to training faster.
The evidence in sports injuries is still emerging, but early reports and some trials show potential benefits, especially when dry needling is combined with standard rehabilitation exercises. For example, consider hamstring strain injuries – these are common in sports like sprinting and can lead to prolonged tightness and risk of reinjury. A case report of a collegiate pole-vaulter with a hamstring strain illustrated the integration of dry needling into his rehab program. The athlete had two sessions of “functional dry needling” to the hamstring in conjunction with an eccentric strengthening program. He experienced a favorable outcome, returning to sport quickly without re-injury, and the authors noted that “dry needling could be a useful adjunct therapy to an eccentric-based training program allowing athletes to return to sport quickly.” The patient’s pain decreased and strength in the injured leg actually improved beyond the uninjured side during rehab. While this is an anecdotal level of evidence, it aligns with the rationale that dry needling can reduce pain inhibition, enabling more effective strengthening of the injured muscle. In the background of that case, the authors mention that dry needling has been reported to be beneficial after muscle strains, but at the time there was limited published literature on its effects on rehabilitation outcomes or reinjury rates.
Some controlled studies on healthy athletes or minor injuries have looked at flexibility and range of motion outcomes. Results have been mixed. For instance, a small RCT examined dry needling for hamstring muscle tightness and range of motion. Two sessions of dry needling (versus a stretching-only control) did not significantly improve hamstring flexibility or related knee pain compared to not needling. This suggests that a very short or limited dosing of dry needling might not yield measurable benefits in flexibility. On the other hand, another study found immediate improvements in hamstring flexibility and stretch tolerance after a single dry needling session, implying some immediate effect is possible. A key takeaway is that dry needling alone may not dramatically increase muscle extensibility unless combined with stretching and exercise. Indeed, one summary noted that “DN does not significantly increase or decrease the ROM of the hamstrings. When combined with exercise and stretch plans, DN could increase ROM.”. This reinforces the approach of pairing needling with active rehabilitation. The needling likely helps by reducing pain and myogenic inhibition, making stretches and exercises more effective at restoring function.
In sports injury rehab, dry needling is typically used to treat: acute muscle spasms (to relax them), persistent myofascial pain after an injury, or to address muscle imbalances (e.g., a very tight calf muscle contributing to Achilles tendinopathy). Some evidence supports its use in tendinopathies as well – for example, dry needling around the patellar tendon or Achilles combined with loading exercises has been explored, with some positive results on pain and function (though research is still limited). Dry needling has also been used as part of treatment for muscle-related chronic groin pain in athletes, tennis elbow (lateral epicondylalgia) in sports like tennis, and chronic exertional compartment syndromes, again usually in combination with physiotherapy. A systematic review on lateral epicondylalgia (tennis elbow) found that trigger point dry needling provided better pain relief in the long term compared to certain other treatments, which is relevant as many tennis elbow cases in athletes have a myofascial component.
In summary, dry needling shows promise as a tool in sports injury management, primarily to reduce pain and muscle tightness so that athletes can perform their rehab exercises more effectively and potentially heal faster. Its effects on pure performance measures (like flexibility or strength) seem to depend on also doing the right exercises. Athletes often appreciate the quick relief of a tight muscle that dry needling can provide—some describe it as feeling like the muscle “released” and they can move more freely immediately after. Sports physiotherapists often report that their patients can return to training sooner when dry needling is part of the treatment plan, though comprehensive studies are needed to quantify the reduction in recovery time or reinjury risk. At the very least, dry needling appears to be a safe adjunct in sports rehab when used appropriately, with the caveat that it should not replace proper loading and conditioning of the injured tissue.
Post-Surgical Pain
After surgeries, especially orthopedic surgeries like joint replacements or tendon repairs, patients can experience significant pain and muscle guarding in the area. Sometimes myofascial trigger points develop in muscles around the surgical site due to prolonged immobilization or altered movement patterns. Dry needling has been tested as a method to reduce postoperative pain and improve recovery in certain contexts.
One innovative approach was studied in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty (knee replacement). In a randomized, double-blinded trial, researchers performed a single dry needling treatment while the patient was under anesthesia, immediately before surgery, targeting any trigger points in the thigh muscles identified preoperatively. The idea was to prevent or reduce the postoperative pain by treating trigger points that could flare up after surgery. The results showed that the group who received true dry needling under anesthesia had less pain in the first month after surgery compared to the sham (no-needling) group. Specifically, one month post-op, their pain (measured by VAS) was significantly lower and they required fewer analgesics right after surgery. By three and six months after surgery, pain levels were similar between groups (the benefit was not long-term). The authors concluded that “a single dry needling treatment of MTrP under anaesthesia reduced pain in the first month after knee arthroplasty, when pain was the most severe”, demonstrating dry needling’s short-term pain prevention ability. This study also presented an interesting placebo-controlled design for dry needling (by doing it under anesthesia, patient bias was minimized). It suggests that proactively addressing muscular trigger points during surgery can enhance early recovery by lowering acute pain. Less pain early on might translate to better knee bending and walking in rehab during that crucial first month.
In another scenario, dry needling has been tried after shoulder surgeries. A preliminary RCT in 2024 investigated adding dry needling to the post-operative rehabilitation protocol following rotator cuff repair surgery. Patients all received standard rehab (exercises, manual therapy, etc.), and one group got four sessions of trigger point dry needling in shoulder muscles over 4 weeks, whereas the control group got sham needling. After the 4-week treatment period, unfortunately, no statistically significant differences in pain or function were observed between the real and sham dry needling groups. Both groups improved from their baseline (as expected with normal healing and therapy), but adding dry needling did not yield a notable advantage in pain reduction or range of motion by 4 weeks post-op. There was a small effect size favoring the dry needling group for pain, but it wasn’t enough to be clinically significant in this sample. No differences were seen in secondary outcomes like shoulder strength or disability scores either. The study did report that dry needling was safe (only minor adverse events, such as temporary soreness) in the post-surgical patients. The authors surmised that the lack of significant benefit might be due to the complexity of post-surgical pain (inflammation, tissue healing, etc., in addition to muscle trigger points) and suggested that maybe more sessions or different timing (like earlier or later in the rehab process) could yield different results. Essentially, pain after surgery can have many sources, and muscle trigger points might be just one piece of the puzzle. In rotator cuff repair rehab, structured exercises and time for tissue healing are paramount; dry needling didn’t show a clear added benefit in that context, though it didn’t cause harm either.
In general, post-surgical pain management with dry needling is an emerging area, and current evidence is mixed. It may depend on the surgery type and patient. The knee surgery trial indicates a potential role for preventive dry needling to mitigate acute pain and perhaps improve early mobility. On the other hand, routine use of dry needling in standard post-op rehab (like weeks into recovery) hasn’t demonstrated clear benefits in at least one scenario. Other anecdotal uses include dry needling for post-mastectomy pain syndrome (to release myofascial tightness after breast surgery) or after spinal surgery (for muscles that spasm around the surgical site). These are not well-researched yet. Patients who have significant muscle tightness after a surgery (e.g., neck muscle spasm after cervical spine surgery) might get some relief from needling, but systematic data is lacking.
Thus, for now, one can say dry needling might help reduce pain in the early post-surgery period in certain cases (like knee replacements), but it’s not a universally proven post-op pain solution. It should be considered on a case-by-case basis, and always with caution around the healing surgical area (needling too close to surgical wounds or repaired tissues should be avoided until cleared).
➡️ Learn More: Dry Needling for Orthopedic Conditions
| Study (Year) | Population / Pain Condition | Key Findings |
|---|---|---|
| Gattie et al., 2017 (Systematic Review & Meta-analysis) pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov | 13 RCTs on various musculoskeletal pain conditions (treated by PTs with DN) | Dry needling improved pain and pressure pain thresholds in the short term (up to 12 weeks) compared to no treatment or sham pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov . At 6-12 months, no significant pain reduction versus controls pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov . Dry needling was as effective as other treatments (no better) in improving pain and functional outcomes short-term pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov . Little evidence of long-term benefit; long-term outcomes currently lacking pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov . |
| Chys et al., 2023 (Umbrella Review) pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov | 36 systematic reviews across body regions (musculoskeletal pain) | Dry needling has a consistent short-term analgesic effect in all body regions pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov . It is better than sham or no treatment for short-term pain relief and about equal to other active therapies for pain reduction pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov . Limited data on mid- and long-term effects. Combining dry needling with physiotherapy yields additional benefit over physio alone pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov . Heterogeneity in protocols is high, highlighting need for standardization pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov . |
| Hu et al., 2018 (Meta-analysis) pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov | 16 RCTs on chronic low back pain (various comparisons: DN vs acupuncture, sham, etc.) | Dry needling was more effective than acupuncture in reducing low back pain intensity and disability immediately after treatment pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov . At follow-ups, dry needling’s effects were equal to acupuncture pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov . Dry needling also outperformed sham needling for pain relief post-treatment and at follow-up pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov . Unclear if DN is superior to other therapies (mixed results) pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov . Overall evidence was not very robust due to bias in included trials pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov . |
| Hernández-Secorún et al., 2023 (Meta-analysis) pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov | 13 RCTs on chronic neck pain | All studies showed improvements in neck pain and/or disability after dry needling pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov . Dry needling was more effective than other therapies for reducing pain and disability, in both women and men pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov . Patients >40 years old benefited more than those <40. No serious adverse events were reported pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov . Supports dry needling for improving neck pain and function in short- to mid-term pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov . |
| Navarro-Santana et al., 2021 (Meta-analysis) pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov | 6 RCTs on shoulder pain (musculoskeletal, nontraumatic) | Short-term benefits of trigger point dry needling for shoulder pain: small reduction in pain intensity (mean ~0.5/10 better than controls) pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov and large improvement in shoulder disability/function (≈10 points better on 0–100 scale) pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov . Evidence quality moderate-to-low, and effects were mainly short-term pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov . No data on long-term outcomes (need more research). |
| Valera-Calero et al., 2022 (Systematic Review) pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov | 25 studies on fibromyalgia (4 DN studies, 21 acupuncture) | Both dry needling and acupuncture improved fibromyalgia symptoms in the short term, including reductions in pain, fatigue, anxiety, depression, and improved sleep and quality of life pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov . Pain pressure thresholds increased (tender points became less tender) with both treatments pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov . No direct comparison between DN and acupuncture in FM was available. Long-term effects remain unclear, highlighting need for further research pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov . |
| Gildir et al., 2019 (RCT, Medicine journal) pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov | 160 patients with chronic tension-type headache (DN vs sham) | Trigger point dry needling significantly reduced headache intensity, frequency, and duration compared to sham needling pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov . Large effect sizes for headache relief were observed. Patients in the DN group also had better quality of life scores post-treatment. Conclusion: Dry needling is effective and safe for chronic tension headaches, leading to fewer and less severe headaches pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov . |
| Mayoral et al., 2013 (RCT) pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov | 40 patients post-total knee replacement surgery (DN vs sham under anesthesia) | A single DN session under anesthesia (pre-surgery) targeting trigger points led to less postoperative knee pain in the first month vs sham pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov . DN group had significantly lower pain at 1 month and needed less immediate post-op analgesic medication pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov . No significant differences at 3 and 6 months (early benefit only) pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov . Demonstrated a novel approach to reducing acute post-surgical pain with DN. |
| Naseri et al., 2024 (RCT) pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov | 46 patients after rotator cuff shoulder surgery (DN + rehab vs sham + rehab) | No significant difference in postoperative shoulder pain or function between dry needling group and sham group after 4 weeks of rehab pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov . Both groups improved similarly. A small, non-significant trend favored DN for pain, but not clinically meaningful pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov . Minor adverse events with DN (no serious issues). Conclusion: Adding DN did not provide clear extra benefit in this postoperative protocol, suggesting other pain drivers dominate post-surgery pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov . |
Summary of Key Clinical Trials and Meta-Analyses
To synthesize the evidence on dry needling for pain management, this section highlights key studies, including major systematic reviews (which summarize many trials) and notable clinical trials. These studies span various pain conditions and collectively give a comprehensive view of dry needling’s efficacy. Table 1 provides an overview of these important studies and their findings in plain language.
Table 1: Key Research Findings on Dry Needling for Pain (Systematic Reviews and Clinical Trials)
Table 1: Summary of key evidence on dry needling’s effectiveness across various pain conditions. Each study is cited with its major conclusions. In general, these studies show that dry needling is beneficial for short-term pain relief in musculoskeletal conditions (and certain headaches), roughly equivalent to other treatments, and particularly useful as an adjunct to therapy. Long-term outcomes and certain populations require further research. DN = dry needling; RCT = randomized controlled trial.
As shown in Table 1, a clear pattern is that dry needling tends to yield positive short-term results (pain reduction, sometimes functional gains) in a variety of settings: neck and back pain, shoulder pain, headaches, fibromyalgia, etc. The degree of benefit can range from small to large, and often dry needling is one piece of the treatment puzzle rather than a standalone cure-all. The meta-analyses emphasize that while dry needling works better than placebo in the short run, it often performs similarly to standard care interventions – which implies it can be chosen as an effective alternative to, or combined with, other therapies based on patient and clinician preference.
Another theme is the need for standardization and high-quality research. Many reviews cite heterogeneity in dry needling techniques (different number of sessions, needling methods, and comparison treatments) as a limitation. This means future studies should aim to identify optimal dry needling “dosages” (how many sessions, how often, which muscles) for each condition, and ensure rigorous designs to truly isolate the effect of dry needling.
In the next section, we compare dry needling with acupuncture, since these two are often mentioned together in pain management discussions.
Comparative Studies: Dry Needling vs. Acupuncture
Dry needling and acupuncture both involve inserting thin needles into the body for therapeutic effect, but they originate from different theoretical frameworks. Given their superficial similarity, patients and even clinicians sometimes wonder: are they essentially the same or is one better for pain than the other? A full comparison would involve philosophy and training (dry needling is based on Western anatomy/trigger points, while acupuncture is based on Traditional Chinese Medicine meridians), but here we focus on comparative effectiveness for pain relief, as gleaned from studies that have looked at both.
Direct head-to-head trials between dry needling and acupuncture are relatively scarce, but some insights can be drawn from systematic reviews that included both or from parallel evidence:
Low Back Pain: The 2018 meta-analysis on low back pain by Hu et al. provides a direct comparison. It found that immediately after treatment, dry needling relieved low back pain more than acupuncture did. Patients reported lower pain scores and disability with dry needling at the end of the treatment course. However, when patients were checked weeks to months later, there was no difference in pain/disability outcomes between dry needling and acupuncture – both had similar effectiveness over time. This suggests that acupuncture also works for low back pain, but dry needling might give a quicker initial benefit. One interpretation is that by directly targeting muscle trigger points, dry needling can rapidly reduce musculoskeletal pain, whereas acupuncture’s effects, while significant, might be more gradual or work via slightly different mechanisms. In any case, both were superior to no treatment.
Fibromyalgia: In fibromyalgia, the 2022 review found both acupuncture and dry needling to be effective for symptom relief, but notably, “both techniques were not compared in any study.” So we know each individually can help fibromyalgia patients (short-term improvements in pain, mood, sleep, etc.), but we don’t know if one is better than the other. It’s possible they are comparable; the review’s conclusion lumped them together as beneficial interventions.
Sciatica (nerve pain): As discussed, acupuncture has evidence supporting its use in sciatica, whereas no dry needling studies were found in a scoping review. So for radiating neuropathic leg pain, at least up to 2020, acupuncture was the go-to needling method studied. This might be because acupuncturists traditionally treat sciatica by needling points along the affected meridian (like the bladder meridian along the back of the leg), and they have reported success. Dry needling, focusing on trigger points, might not have been as obvious a choice for a condition mainly involving nerve root compression – thus it wasn’t researched yet. That said, a clinician might still use dry needling on, say, the piriformis or low back muscles in a sciatica patient to reduce muscle spasm and see if that eases nerve pressure. But strictly speaking, for sciatica, acupuncture has demonstrated efficacy, while dry needling lacks direct evidence in that specific context.
Mechanistic Differences: While not a study outcome, it’s worth noting how practitioners differentiate the two. Dry needling tends to use a more aggressive technique (pistoning the needle to elicit a local twitch, for example) and targets palpable taut bands of muscle. Acupuncture might use a gentler insertion and often leaves needles in for a certain time without needing a twitch response. Despite these differences, both likely trigger overlapping physiological responses like endorphin release and localized blood flow changes. Some authors consider dry needling to be a form of “Western acupuncture” specifically for musculoskeletal conditions.
Wet Needling vs Dry Needling: A related comparison in literature is between dry needling and wet needling (injection therapy, e.g., injecting lidocaine into trigger points). Some systematic reviews have noted that in certain trials, injection of an anesthetic (wet needling) provided slightly better short-term pain relief than dry needling, but by medium-term follow-ups, dry needling caught up. For example, a review mentioned that wet needling might be superior for pain relief up to 3 months, but at 3–6 months outcomes were similar. This suggests the medication in injections (like lidocaine or saline) may give an immediate benefit, but the mechanical stimulation from the needle itself is the main factor for longer-term improvement. In some shoulder pain studies, acupuncture (which could be considered akin to dry needling without medication) was as effective as trigger point injections by follow-up, reinforcing that the needle’s presence is key, not just the injected substance.
Bottom line: Both dry needling and acupuncture are valid modalities for pain relief, and their results often end up comparable in the long run. Where comparisons exist, dry needling may offer a quicker trigger point deactivation and immediate myofascial release, while acupuncture provides a holistic approach that can also address things like nausea, stress, or other non-musculoskeletal aspects concurrently. In many cases, the choice might come down to practitioner training and patient preference. A patient with generalized chronic pain (like fibromyalgia) might equally benefit from either, whereas a patient with a very specific muscle knot might find dry needling gets right to the source.
From the evidence we have: in low back pain, a short-term edge to dry needling was observed; in fibromyalgia, both worked (no direct test); in headaches, both acupuncture and dry needling have been used successfully (one review didn’t find direct comparisons, but both improved headaches vs baseline). Some guidelines or expert opinions incorporate both: e.g., chronic low back pain clinical guidelines in some countries list acupuncture as an option and by extension allow that dry needling by qualified therapists could be considered.
One should also consider availability and regulation: Acupuncture is performed by licensed acupuncturists or physicians (in some locales physical therapists can perform acupuncture techniques under a different name), whereas dry needling is often performed by physical therapists or chiropractors with specialized training. In certain regions, there is debate or regulatory considerations about whether dry needling is distinct from acupuncture legally. But from the patient outcome perspective, both involve needles easing pain, and some studies treat them as part of the same spectrum of “needling interventions.”
In sum, comparative studies suggest dry needling and acupuncture achieve similar outcomes for pain relief in many cases, with some condition-specific nuances. Neither has uniformly proven superior to the other across the board. For specific musculoskeletal trigger point pain, dry needling has the advantage of directly targeting the knotted muscle and often producing a noticeable twitch and release. For more diffuse or neuropathic pain, acupuncture’s systematic approach might be more frequently studied. In practice, a person could potentially benefit from either or even both in combination (indeed, one meta-analysis found combining acupuncture with dry needling was slightly better than dry needling alone for low back pain relief). What’s clear is that both are generally more effective than doing nothing or placebo in managing pain. Patients should consult with their healthcare providers to choose the therapy that aligns best with their condition and comfort level, and sometimes it may come down to trying one or the other to see which provides relief.
➡️ Learn More: Dry Needling Facts & Statistics
Safety, Risks, and Limitations of Dry Needling
Dry needling is considered a safe technique when performed by properly trained practitioners (such as physical therapists, physicians, or chiropractors who have undergone dry needling certification). However, like any invasive procedure, it carries some risks. It’s important for patients and practitioners to be aware of what can happen during or after dry needling, and how to minimize adverse effects. Additionally, we must recognize the limitations of dry needling – situations where evidence is lacking or the technique may not be as effective.
Safety and Common Side Effects
Most of the adverse effects associated with dry needling are minor and temporary. A large survey of physiotherapists reported the top three minor adverse events as: bleeding at the needle insertion site (in about 16% of treatments), bruising (around 7-8% of treatments), and pain during the needling (approximately 6% of treatments). Bleeding refers to a tiny spot of blood when the needle is removed – this is usually no more than a drop and stops quickly with pressure. Bruising can occur if a needle punctures a small blood vessel under the skin, leading to a sore purple spot that resolves in a few days. Pain during the treatment is usually a brief ache or cramp when the needle hits the trigger point (often that “good pain” associated with the twitch response), but in some cases it can be a sharper pain if a sensitive area is hit.
A study on adverse reactions in Poland similarly found that most side effects are mild, typically involving slight bleeding or transient pain either during or after the session. Patients might feel a residual muscle soreness akin to a post-workout soreness in the area that was needled. This soreness can last anywhere from a few hours to a day or two, and is generally manageable with light stretching or a warm compress.
Fainting or dizziness can happen in rare instances, often related to the patient being nervous (vasovagal response) or if multiple needles provoke a strong reaction. This is why practitioners often have patients lie down in a comfortable position during treatment, to prevent falls in case someone feels lightheaded. Nausea or sweating are also uncommon, mild reactions that have been noted anecdotally.
Importantly, studies and clinical reports indicate severe adverse events are very uncommon with dry needling. Unlike some medications, dry needling doesn’t have systemic side effects like organ toxicity. The primary serious risk is if a needle inadvertently punctures something it shouldn’t – the prime example being a pneumothorax (collapsed lung) if needling in areas like the upper back or thorax. Pneumothorax from dry needling or acupuncture is rare, with estimated incidence on the order of <0.01% (well under one in 10,000 treatments). Nevertheless, cases have been documented in the literature. For instance, there are case series of young women who got a pneumothorax after dry needling in the shoulder/neck region, and emergency department reports of a few patients coming in with collapsed lung following acupuncture/dry needling.
A systematic review of needling complications indicated the incidence of pneumothorax after acupuncture is around 0.001% (1 in 100,000), and dry needling likely has similarly low rates. While extremely rare, a pneumothorax is serious – it can cause chest pain and shortness of breath and may require medical intervention (like a chest tube) to re-inflate the lung.
Other very rare complications include infection at the needle site. All reputable practitioners use sterile single-use needles and alcohol swabs on the skin, so infection is exceedingly uncommon. To our knowledge, there are no reports of serious infection (like abscess) from dry needling in the literature; proper technique mitigates this risk.
To ensure safety, practitioners undergo training to learn safe needling depths and angles for each anatomical area. Knowing the local anatomy and avoiding vulnerable structures is key to preventing complications. For example, when needling the upper trapezius, a skilled therapist will angle the needle away from the lung field and limit depth to avoid puncturing the lung apex. A review on safety emphasized that most complications can be avoided by careful anatomical knowledge and technique. Practitioners are also trained to identify contraindications – for instance, avoiding needling in areas of active infection or edema, being cautious in patients on blood thinners (higher bruise risk), or avoiding certain points in pregnant patients (some points are traditionally avoided to prevent possibly stimulating uterine contractions, although evidence is sparse).
Patient comfort and communication also enhance safety. Patients should always feel free to inform the clinician if the needling pain is too intense or if they feel unwell. Sometimes just taking a short break or using a shallower technique can prevent a vasovagal reaction. Because dry needling can cause muscle soreness, patients are usually advised to stay hydrated, do gentle movements, and maybe apply heat to ease post-needling soreness. These self-care steps can alleviate minor aches after treatment.
In summary, dry needling is generally safe, with a low incidence of adverse events. Minor bleeding, bruising, and temporary soreness are the most common side effects. Serious complications like pneumothorax are extremely rare but highlight the importance of proper technique and training. When performed by a qualified professional, dry needling’s benefits for pain often outweigh these manageable risks.
Limitations of Dry Needling
While dry needling is a powerful tool for pain relief, it is not a magic bullet and has its limitations. These include:
Temporary Relief: For many conditions, dry needling provides short-term pain reduction rather than a permanent fix. Pain often improves for days or weeks, but unless the underlying cause is addressed (e.g., poor posture, muscle weakness, repetitive strain), trigger points and pain may recur. This is why dry needling is typically integrated into a broader treatment plan including exercise, ergonomic changes, etc. The evidence for long-term effectiveness of dry needling alone is limited – as we saw, by 6-12 months after treatment, outcomes often equalize with control groups.
Heterogeneity in Response: Not every patient responds to dry needling. Some may have dramatic improvements, others only minor changes. Pain is multifactorial, and if someone’s pain is primarily from a non-muscular source (e.g., a severely herniated disc pressing on a nerve), dry needling the surrounding muscles might not give significant relief. The research includes a variety of protocols, and results can vary. A major umbrella review noted high heterogeneity in dry needling studies due to differences in dosage (number of sessions, frequency), which muscles were treated, what control group was used, follow-up duration, and technique (some studies required eliciting local twitches, others did not). This heterogeneity makes it hard to pinpoint exactly how to maximize effectiveness for a given patient. It also means some negative studies might have used suboptimal techniques. For instance, doing only one session or needling only one muscle in a complex pain condition might not yield much change. Some studies that showed no added benefit (like the rotator cuff repair trial) might have been limited by too short an intervention period or focusing on outcomes at a time when other factors overshadow the myofascial pain.
Skill and Experience Dependence: The outcome of dry needling can be quite practitioner-dependent. Locating the correct trigger point and handling the needle to elicit the desired response is a skill. Experienced clinicians tend to have better accuracy in finding trigger points (good inter-rater reliability with training), whereas those with minimal training might miss the mark. Inconsistent technique could lead to variable patient responses. This is partly an argument for standardizing training and certification to ensure a baseline competency among practitioners.
Blinding and Placebo Considerations: In research, one limitation is the difficulty of blinding patients to the intervention – a patient usually can tell if a needle was actually inserted or not (sham needling often involves a trick like a guide tube tap without insertion). If patients have expectations (positive or negative) about dry needling, that can influence outcomes (placebo or nocebo effects). Two Delphi studies on dry needling shams emphasized that the entire patient experience matters and that designing a believable sham is challenging. This methodological issue means we have to interpret some results with caution, especially if blinding was not rigorous. However, recently improved sham devices (like retractable needles that feel similar) are being used. Still, the inability to double-blind in many cases (therapists know if they are doing real or sham needling) is a limitation that potentially biases results.
Scope of Practice and Regulation: In some regions, regulations may limit which providers can perform dry needling or may consider it akin to acupuncture (leading to professional turf debates). This can limit patient access to dry needling in certain areas. If a patient cannot find a qualified practitioner due to local regulations, that’s a practical limitation. This is not a limitation of the technique per se, but of the healthcare environment. Over time, as more evidence accumulates and training standards emerge, these issues may resolve.
Not a Standalone Rehab Strategy: Dry needling doesn’t strengthen muscles, retrain movement patterns, or improve cardiovascular fitness – so it’s not a substitute for active rehabilitation. It excels at pain modulation and muscle relaxation. Limitations arise if one tries to use dry needling in isolation for a chronic condition that also requires strengthening or lifestyle changes. For example, dry needling can release trigger points in the neck, but if a patient’s neck pain is partly due to weak postural muscles, without exercise that pain may come back. Research shows that combined treatment (dry needling + exercise/therapy) tends to be more effective than either alone. So the limitation is that dry needling should be one component of a multi-faceted approach for best results.
Pain Mechanism Diversity: In patients with centralized pain or high psychosocial factors (stress, anxiety, catastrophizing), needling a muscle might not fully address their pain experience. For instance, fibromyalgia patients may need cognitive and pharmacological support in addition to any peripheral treatment. Dry needling doesn’t directly address those central or psychological components, though by reducing peripheral pain inputs it might help indirectly.
In essence, dry needling’s limitations are that it provides mostly short-to-mid-term relief, may need to be repeated, and should be combined with other therapies for comprehensive care. It is not suitable for every type of pain (for example, it won’t remove a kidney stone causing pain or fix inflammatory arthritis in a joint). Its effectiveness can vary and it requires skilled application.
Patients considering dry needling should have realistic expectations: it can be an excellent way to manage pain and improve function temporarily, giving a window of opportunity to engage in rehab or simply enjoy less pain. But maintenance sessions or concurrent treatments might be necessary for long-standing issues. From a research standpoint, continuing to identify who will benefit most and how to optimize treatment protocols is an important future direction.
Conclusion and Future Directions
Dry needling has emerged as a valuable modality in the pain management landscape, particularly for musculoskeletal and myofascial pain conditions. In conclusion, dry needling is an effective short-term pain relief technique that can help patients with a variety of pain types – from chronic low back and neck pain to tension headaches, shoulder pain, and beyond – experience reductions in pain and improvements in function. It works by mechanically and neurophysiologically disrupting trigger points and altering pain signaling, essentially “resetting” muscles and modulating the nervous system’s response to pain. For many patients, dry needling offers a quick and relatively low-risk way to get relief, often complementing other treatments like exercise therapy.
The evidence base, as reviewed, shows consistent short-term benefits and a favorable safety profile. Dry needling is especially useful as part of a multimodal approach: for example, a physical therapy program for back pain that includes dry needling sessions tends to yield better pain reduction than therapy without needling. Moreover, dry needling helps where other interventions might fall short; for instance, someone plateauing in progress due to persistent trigger point pain might break through after a few needling sessions.
However, it is also clear that dry needling is not a cure-all, and its limitations temper our expectations. Long-term efficacy remains an area for further study – current evidence suggests that without continued treatment or concurrent interventions, the pain relief from dry needling may wane over time. Therefore, one future direction is investigating maintenance protocols (e.g., an occasional booster session) and how they might sustain the benefits.
Future research and practice should focus on a few key directions:
Standardizing Treatment Protocols: As noted, there is a “substantial need for the standardization of dry needling protocols to address the problem of heterogeneity and to strengthen the current evidence.”
This means determining optimal needle insertion techniques (depth, twitch elicitation), treatment frequency, and number of sessions for each condition. Standardization will help practitioners apply evidence-based protocols and make study results more comparable. Efforts like developing clinical guidelines for specific diagnoses (e.g., a consensus on how to dry needle for chronic neck pain) would be valuable.
High-Quality RCTs with Longer Follow-up: More large-scale, rigorous trials are needed, particularly with longer follow-up periods to assess durability of pain relief. Additionally, trials that directly compare dry needling to other treatments (or combinations thereof) can clarify its unique contribution. For example, does dry needling plus exercise yield significantly better 1-year outcomes than exercise alone for knee osteoarthritis pain? We need studies like that to answer long-term effectiveness questions. Ensuring adequate blinding and use of credible sham controls (like the devices mentioned in the umbrella review) will make future evidence more robust.
Exploring New Applications: While dry needling’s core use is in myofascial pain, researchers are starting to explore novel applications. For instance, can dry needling help prevent the transition from acute to chronic pain if applied early? (The knee surgery study suggests a preventative angle.) Can it play a role in neuropathic pain management as an adjunct? Or in central sensitization syndromes like complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS)? These areas merit exploration, even if initial evidence in neuropathic pain was not strong, because innovative protocols (like combining dry needling with other neuro-modulatory techniques) might unlock new possibilities.
Integration with Other Therapies: Future direction is not just researching dry needling in isolation, but how it integrates into multidisciplinary care. For example, combining dry needling with pain neuroscience education for chronic pain patients, or with cognitive behavioral therapy, to see if addressing mind and body together yields additive benefits. One study combined pain neuroscience education with dry needling for chronic neck pain and found positive outcomes on pain and psychological factors, hinting at synergy.
Personalizing Dry Needling Treatment: Not everyone responds the same; research could aim to identify predictors of good response. Perhaps certain clinical signs (like the presence of active trigger points that reproduce the pain) predict better outcomes, or certain patient characteristics (like older age in the neck pain meta-analysis responded more). If we can determine for whom dry needling is most indicated, it will improve patient selection and outcomes.
Addressing Controversies and Training: Professionally, continued dialogue is needed between the acupuncture and dry needling communities to ensure patient safety and optimal outcomes. Clear training standards and perhaps certification for dry needling can help maintain high practice standards. Some countries have begun including dry needling in practice guidelines for neck and low back pain management, which is a positive step towards broader acceptance.
In conclusion, dry needling stands as a clinically useful tool for pain management with a growing evidence base. It offers a relatively quick means to decrease pain and improve quality of life for patients suffering from a range of conditions. Its best use is as part of a comprehensive, patient-centered treatment plan. As research continues to refine our understanding, we can expect dry needling to be further optimized and integrated into pain management protocols. For practitioners and patients alike, the take-home message is that dry needling can “unlock” painful, tight muscles and provide relief, but it works best in combination with other therapies and self-management strategies. With prudent application and ongoing research, dry needling will likely secure its role as a mainstream option in pain rehabilitation, bridging a gap between manual therapies and needling approaches in a way that leverages the strengths of both worlds.
Sources:
Gattie, E., Cleland, J. A., & Snodgrass, S. (2017). The effectiveness of trigger point dry needling for musculoskeletal conditions by physical therapists: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy, 47(3), 133-149. DOI: 10.2519/jospt.2017.7096. PubMed PMID: 28158962. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Chys, M., et al. (2023). Clinical effectiveness of dry needling in patients with musculoskeletal pain—an umbrella review. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 12(4), 2186. DOI: 10.3390/jcm12042186. PubMed PMID: 36769852. pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Hu, H. T., Gao, H., Ma, R. J., Zhao, X. F., Tian, H. F., & Li, L. (2018). Is dry needling effective for low back pain?: A systematic review and PRISMA-compliant meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore), 97(26), e11225. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000011225. PubMed PMID: 29952980. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Hernández-Secorún, M., et al. (2023). Effectiveness of dry needling in improving pain and function in patients with chronic neck pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Pain Research & Management, 2023, 1523834. DOI: 10.1155/2023/1523834. PubMed PMID: 37664417. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Navarro-Santana, M. J., et al. (2021). Effects of trigger point dry needling for nontraumatic shoulder pain of musculoskeletal origin: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Physical Therapy, 101(2), pzaa216. DOI: 10.1093/ptj/pzaa216. PubMed PMID: 33340405. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Valera-Calero, J. A., Fernández-de-Las-Peñas, C., Navarro-Santana, M. J., & Plaza-Manzano, G. (2022). Efficacy of dry needling and acupuncture in patients with fibromyalgia: A systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(16), 9904. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19169904. PubMed PMID: 36011540. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Gildir, S., Tüzün, E. H., Eroğlu, G., & Eker, L. (2019). A randomized trial of trigger point dry needling versus sham needling for chronic tension-type headache. Medicine (Baltimore), 98(8), e14520. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000014520. PubMed PMID: 30813155. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Mayoral, O., Salvat, I., Martín, M. T., et al. (2013). Efficacy of myofascial trigger point dry needling in the prevention of pain after total knee arthroplasty: A randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial. Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 2013, 694941. DOI: 10.1155/2013/694941. PubMed PMID: 23606888. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Naseri, F., et al. (2024). Dry needling as an adjunct treatment to multimodal rehabilitation protocol following rotator cuff repair surgery: a preliminary, randomized sham-controlled trial. Chiropractic & Manual Therapies, 32(1), 39. DOI: 10.1186/s12998-024-00555-y. PubMed PMID: 39639410. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Kietrys, D. M., Palombaro, K. M., et al. (2013). Effectiveness of dry needling for upper-quarter myofascial pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy, 43(9), 620-634. DOI: 10.2519/jospt.2013.4668. PubMed PMID: 23756457. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
(Note: older review, supports short-term pain improvements with dry needling in upper body conditions)
Dommerholt, J., & Huijbregts, P. (2011). Dry needling – peripheral and central considerations. Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy, 19(4), 223-227. DOI: 10.1179/2042618611Y.0000000026. PubMed PMID: 22654227. pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Perreault, T., et al. (2021). Needling interventions for sciatica: Choosing methods based on neuropathic pain mechanisms – a scoping review. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 10(10), 2189. DOI: 10.3390/jcm10102189. PubMed PMID: 34069357. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Sollie, M., Pind, R., Madsen, C. B., & Sørensen, J. A. (2022). Acupuncture (superficial dry-needling) as a treatment for chronic postherpetic neuralgia – a randomized clinical trial. British Journal of Pain, 16(1), 96-108. DOI: 10.1177/20494637211023075. PubMed PMID: 35111318. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Nasr, A. J., & Zafereo, J. (2019). The effects of dry needling and neurodynamic exercise on idiopathic peripheral neuropathy: A case report. Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies, 23(2), 306-310. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbmt.2018.02.006. PubMed PMID: 31103112. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Abbaszadeh-Amiri, A., et al. (2022). Dry needling in a multimodal rehabilitation protocol following rotator cuff repair surgery: study protocol for a double-blinded randomized sham-controlled trial. Trials, 23, 296. DOI: 10.1186/s13063-022-06259-4. PubMed PMID: 37101278. (Protocol for Naseri 2024 trial).
Cagnie, B., et al. (2021). Clinical effectiveness of dry needling in patients with musculoskeletal pain – an umbrella review. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 10(24), 6318. DOI: 10.3390/jcm10246318. PubMed PMID: 34959787. pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Chan, S. T., et al. (2017). Effectiveness of dry needling for chronic low back pain: a meta-analysis and meta-regression. Spine, 42(23), E1293-E1308. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000002265. (Additional reference on low back pain showing short-term benefits of DN).
Brady, S., McEvoy, J., Dommerholt, J., & Doody, C. (2014). Adverse events following trigger point dry needling: a prospective survey of chartered physiotherapists. Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy, 22(3), 134-140. DOI: 10.1179/2042618613Y.0000000045. (Reported minor adverse event rates in physiotherapy practice).
Trigger Point Dry Needling Course Manual (2020). Dry Needling in Physical Therapy Practice: Adverse Events (Parts 1 & 2). Orthopaedic Section of the APTA. (Guidelines to minimize risks and handle adverse events in DN – not a journal, but relevant for safety context). pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Boyce, D., & Wempe, H. (2021). Current state of dry needling practices: a survey of physical therapists. Medicina, 57(6), 615. DOI: 10.3390/medicina57060615. PubMed PMID: 34209440. (Discusses training hours, experience, and usage patterns among PTs performing DN, indirectly related to safety and consistency).