Toward an algorithm of percutaneous microelectrolysis: a randomized clinical trial on invasive techniques.

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Sao Paulo Medical Journal Pub Date : 2025-08-11 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1590/1516-3180.2024.0164.R1.07032025
Carlos Eduardo Girasol, Nathaly Escobar Durán, Santiago Marcelo D'Almeida, Oscar Ariel Ronzio
{"title":"Toward an algorithm of percutaneous microelectrolysis: a randomized clinical trial on invasive techniques.","authors":"Carlos Eduardo Girasol, Nathaly Escobar Durán, Santiago Marcelo D'Almeida, Oscar Ariel Ronzio","doi":"10.1590/1516-3180.2024.0164.R1.07032025","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Percutaneous microelectrolysis (MEP) is a minimally invasive technique used for pain relief, inflammation control, and tissue repair. However, the optimal treatment protocol remains under debate.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the effects of dry needling and MEP, with and without a treatment algorithm, on pain in individuals with active myofascial trigger points (MTrPs) in the upper trapezius muscle. Design and setting: Randomized controlled trial conducted at Maimónides University, Buenos Aires.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Eighty-eight participants with MTrPs in the upper trapezius muscle were enrolled. The presence of MTrPs was confirmed through physical examination and algometric measurement before intervention. Participants were randomly assigned to one of six groups: Sham, dynamic dry needling, static dry needling, dynamic MEP, static MEP, or algorithmic MEP. Active treatments were administered using 0.30 mm × 40 mm acupuncture needles. Pain was assessed using two tools: the Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) and the Pressure Pain Threshold (PPT). Both measures were recorded with participants at rest before the intervention and again at 10 min, 24 h, 48 h, and 7 days post-intervention.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Significant post-intervention differences in NPRS scores were observed in all groups except dynamic dry needling when compared to Sham. The algorithmic MEP group achieved complete pain relief by day 7. In terms of PPT, the threshold values in the MEP groups were lower than those in the other groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>All needling techniques demonstrated analgesic effects on myofascial trigger points, with the algorithm-enhanced MEP showing the most notable improvement in self-reported pain. However, MEP was not superior to other methods in improving pressure pain thresholds.</p><p><strong>Clinical trials: </strong>NCT05478928.</p>","PeriodicalId":49574,"journal":{"name":"Sao Paulo Medical Journal","volume":"143 5","pages":"e2024164"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12341435/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sao Paulo Medical Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1590/1516-3180.2024.0164.R1.07032025","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Percutaneous microelectrolysis (MEP) is a minimally invasive technique used for pain relief, inflammation control, and tissue repair. However, the optimal treatment protocol remains under debate.

Objective: To compare the effects of dry needling and MEP, with and without a treatment algorithm, on pain in individuals with active myofascial trigger points (MTrPs) in the upper trapezius muscle. Design and setting: Randomized controlled trial conducted at Maimónides University, Buenos Aires.

Methods: Eighty-eight participants with MTrPs in the upper trapezius muscle were enrolled. The presence of MTrPs was confirmed through physical examination and algometric measurement before intervention. Participants were randomly assigned to one of six groups: Sham, dynamic dry needling, static dry needling, dynamic MEP, static MEP, or algorithmic MEP. Active treatments were administered using 0.30 mm × 40 mm acupuncture needles. Pain was assessed using two tools: the Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) and the Pressure Pain Threshold (PPT). Both measures were recorded with participants at rest before the intervention and again at 10 min, 24 h, 48 h, and 7 days post-intervention.

Results: Significant post-intervention differences in NPRS scores were observed in all groups except dynamic dry needling when compared to Sham. The algorithmic MEP group achieved complete pain relief by day 7. In terms of PPT, the threshold values in the MEP groups were lower than those in the other groups.

Conclusions: All needling techniques demonstrated analgesic effects on myofascial trigger points, with the algorithm-enhanced MEP showing the most notable improvement in self-reported pain. However, MEP was not superior to other methods in improving pressure pain thresholds.

Clinical trials: NCT05478928.

一种经皮微电解算法:一项侵入性技术的随机临床试验。
背景:经皮微电解(MEP)是一种用于缓解疼痛、控制炎症和组织修复的微创技术。然而,最佳治疗方案仍在争论中。目的:比较干针和MEP在有和没有治疗算法的情况下,对上斜方肌肌筋膜触发点(MTrPs)活跃的个体疼痛的影响。设计和环境:在布宜诺斯艾利斯Maimónides大学进行的随机对照试验。方法:88例上斜方肌MTrPs患者入组。干预前通过体格检查和计量测量确认MTrPs的存在。参与者被随机分配到六组中的一组:假手术、动态干针、静态干针、动态MEP、静态MEP或算法MEP。积极治疗采用0.30 mm × 40 mm针刺针。疼痛评估采用两种工具:数值疼痛评定量表(NPRS)和压力疼痛阈值(PPT)。在干预前和干预后10分钟、24小时、48小时和7天分别记录参与者休息时的两项测量。结果:除动态干针外,各组干预后NPRS评分与Sham相比均有显著差异。算法MEP组在第7天达到完全疼痛缓解。在PPT方面,MEP组的阈值低于其他组。结论:所有针刺技术都显示出对肌筋膜触发点的镇痛作用,其中算法增强的MEP在自我报告的疼痛方面表现出最显著的改善。然而,MEP在提高压痛阈值方面并不优于其他方法。临床试验:NCT05478928。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Sao Paulo Medical Journal
Sao Paulo Medical Journal 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
7.10%
发文量
210
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Published bimonthly by the Associação Paulista de Medicina, the journal accepts articles in the fields of clinical health science (internal medicine, gynecology and obstetrics, mental health, surgery, pediatrics and public health). Articles will be accepted in the form of original articles (clinical trials, cohort, case-control, prevalence, incidence, accuracy and cost-effectiveness studies and systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis), narrative reviews of the literature, case reports, short communications and letters to the editor. Papers with a commercial objective will not be accepted.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信