Differentiation of active and latent trigger points by thermography.
OBJECTIVE
This study tested whether two distinct thermographic patterns attributed to myofascial trigger points could distinguish between active and latent trigger points.


METHODS
A retrospective chart survey was undertaken with thermographic data divided into two groups: a) increased thermal emission only over the trigger point and b) over the area of pain referral. The criterion standard used in a blinded comparison was physical examination findings separating active from latent trigger points.


METHODS
All cases were drawn from a private practice referral center for thermographic evaluation of neck and low back injuries.


METHODS
A sample of 65 cases showing physical examination findings of trigger points was chosen from 229 consecutive motor vehicle accident case files.


RESULTS
There was moderate agreement between the two methods of differentiating active from latent latent trigger points (Kappa = 0.44) with a specificity of 0.70 and a sensitivity of 0.74. When cases in which spinal segmental dysfunction were eliminated, the agreement increased (Kappa = 0.54) with specificity of 0.82 and sensitivity of 0.74.


CONCLUSIONS
Thermography may be a useful tool in distinguishing active from latent trigger points, but the thermal imaging of spinal joint dysfunction may be a compounding factor.
Diakow
P R
PR
Department of Chiropractic Science, Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College, Toronto, Ontario.
D002574:Cervical Vertebrae / Q000503:physiopathology; D002908:Chronic Disease; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007596:Joints / Q000503:physiopathology; D008297:Male; D009132:Muscles / Q000503:physiopathology; D009209:Myofascial Pain Syndromes / Q000175:diagnosis* / Q000453:epidemiology / Q000209:etiology; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity; D013817:Thermography / Q000379:methods*