Efficacy of High and Low Intensity Percutaneous Electrolysis for the Treatment of Myofascial Pain Syndrome

Not Applicable

Completed

• Conditions: Knee Pain Chronic; Muscle Pain
• Interventions: Procedure: Dry needling; Procedure: Percutaneous Electrolysis

• Registration Number: NCT04390438
• Lead Sponsor: Universidad Francisco de Vitoria

Brief Summary

Muscle pain is frequently attributed to myofascial pain syndrome (MPS) in which myofascial trigger points (MTrP) are a characteristic feature. Dry needling is a frequent clinical practice to manage MPS but few evidence is published about percutaneous electrolysis effects for the treatment of MPS.

This is a randomized clinical trial with 3 parallel groups: 1) High intensity-short time percutaneous electrolysis; 2) Low intensity-long time percutaneous electrolysis; 3) dry needling control group.

Detailed Description

The current study aimed to evaluate changes in rectus femurs active trigger points and patellar tendon pain pressure thresholds and subjective anterior knee pain perception after application of two percutaneous electrolysis methods using a same charge (high intensity and low intensity) compared to a dry needling group in patients with patellofemoral pain syndrome (PFPS)

Fifteen patients diagnosed with unilateral PFPS were divided in two experimental groups (high intensity percutaneous electrolysis and low intensity percutaneous electrolysis) and one active control group (dry needling. The duration of the study was 7 days with only one intervention. Pain pressure thresholds were assessed using an algometer before the intervention, immediately after the intervention and after 7 days and a Visual Analogue Scale was used before the treatment and after 7 days to rate the subjective anterior knee pain perception. Also a VAS was used to rate the pain perception during the intervention

Study Timeline

• Study Start: 2020-02-17
• Primary Completion: 2020-03-30
• Status Verified: 2020-04
• Study Completion: 2020-04-27
• Study First Submitted: 2020-04-30
• Study First Submitted QC: 2020-05-13
• Last Update Submitted: 2020-05-13
• Study First Posted: 2020-05-15
• Last Update Posted: 2020-05-15

Recruitment & Eligibility

• Status: COMPLETED
• Sex: All
• Target Recruitment: 15

Inclusion Criteria

• Athletes with knee pain
• Presence of at least one active Trigger point

Exclusion Criteria

• Farmacologic treatment
• Surgery or traumas
• Skin alterations or infections
• Prior 6 weeks DN nor PT treatment

Study & Design

• Study Type: INTERVENTIONAL
• Study Design: PARALLEL

Arm && Interventions

Group	Intervention	Description
Dry needling	Dry needling	One acupuncture needle was placed in the active TrP to produce a local twitch response during 30 seconds
High-Intensity short time percutaneous electrolysis	Percutaneous Electrolysis	Application of a 0,66uA galvanic current in the active TrP through a needle during 10 seconds. During the 20 seconds left necessary to blind the patient and the examiner, the needle was inside but with no electrical current
Low-Intensity long time percutaneous electrolysis	Percutaneous Electrolysis	Application of a 0,22uA galvanic current in the active TrP through a needle during 30 seconds

Primary Outcome Measures

Name	Time	Method
Pressure Pain Threshold (Patellar Tendon)	7 days	Algometry (Wagner analogical algometer)
Pressure Pain Threshold (Trigger Point)	7 days	Algometry (Wagner analogical algometer)

Secondary Outcome Measures

Name	Time	Method
Subjective pain perception	7 days	Visual Analogue Scale

Trial Locations

Locations (1)

Camilo Jose Cela University; 🇪🇸 Villanueva de la Cañada, Madrid, Spain