Evidence and expert opinions: Dry needling versus acupuncture (II)

Arthur Yin Fan, Jun Xu, Yong-ming Li

In the United States and other Western countries, dry needling has been a topic in academic and legal fields. This White Paper is to provide the authoritative information of dry needling versus acupuncture to academic scholars, healthcare professionals, administrators, policymakers, and the general public by providing the authoritative evidence and expertise regarding critical issues of dry needling and reaching a consensus. We conclude that Dr. Travell, Dr. Gunn, Dr. Baldry and others who have promoted dry needling by simply rebranding (1) acupuncture as dry needling and (2) acupuncture points as trigger points (dry needling points). Dry needling simply using English biomedical terms (especially using "fascia" hypothesis) in replace of their equivalent Chinese medical terms. Dry needling is an over-simplified version of acupuncture derived from traditional Chinese acupuncture except for emphasis on biomedical language when treating neuromuscularskeletal pain (dry needling promoters redefined it as "myofascial pain"). Trigger points belong to the category of Ashi acupuncture points in traditional Chinese acupuncture, and they are not a new discovery. By applying acupuncture points, dry needling is actually trigger point acupuncture, an invasive therapy (a surgical procedure) instead of manual therapy. Dr. Travell admitted to the general public that dry needling is acupuncture, and acupuncture professionals practice dry needling as acupuncture therapy and there are several criteria in acupuncture profession to locate trigger points as acupuncture points. Among acupuncture schools, dry needling practitioners emphasize acupuncture's local responses while other acupuncturists pay attention to the responses of both local, distal, and whole body responses. For patients' safety, dry needling practitioners should meet standards required for licensed acupuncturists and physicians.